SNAME Transactions, Vol. 106, 1998, pp.

1-40

The Strength and Reliability of Bulk Carrier Structures

Subject to Age and Accidental Flooding
Jeom Kee Paik, Member, Pusan National University, Pusan, and Anil K. Thayamballi, Life Member,
American Bureau of Shipping, New York

" A Capesize bulk carrier operating in the laden condition"

ABSTRACT

This paper is a summary of recent research and development in areas related to the strength,
structural safety and reliability of bulk carriers, undertaken by the American Bureau of Shipping
and the Pusan National University. The paper focuses on the accidental flooding and age related
strength degradation of" bulk carrier structures. The hull girder and local load redistribution
characteristics of bulk carriers subjected to accidental flooding are discussed. The ultimate
strength characteristics of corrugated bulkheads in a flooding situation are studied experimen-
tally, theoretically and numerically. Corrosion rate estimation models for bulk carrier longitudi-
nal strength members and transverse bulkheads are introduced. The collapse strength reliability
of the bulk carrier hull girder considering corrosion effects is evaluated. A study of the fatigue
performance of bulk carrier side frame structures is performed Recommendations are made with
respect to bulk carrier design and also needed future research.
1. INTRODUCTION
In the last decade, there have been several bulk car-
rier casualties including total losses. Over a thousand sea-
farers have lost their lives in the related incidents. Some
of those vessels were lost under circumstances where the
crew apparently had no time for calling a signal of dis-
tress, meaning that such losses occurred quite suddenly
(Brown 1997). The possible causes of such losses can be
categorized into the three groups, namely (a) loss of re-
serve buoyancy (or floating capability), (b) hull girder
breakage and (c) loss of stability, initiated perhaps totally
or partly by unintended water ingress into cargo holds,
see Fig. 1.
In a large proportion of the bulk carrier incidents re-
ported, the vessels were carrying iron ore or coal, the
former being one of the denser types of cargo, and the
latter being one of the more corrosive. It has been indi-
cated that the age of most vessels concerned was over 15
years, and so significant defects related to corrosion and
fatigue may have been present. Decrease of the residual
strength and / or increase of the applied hull girder loads
in a flooding event may possibly lead to hull girder
breakage (Paik 1994). Related to this, there is the possi-
bility that part of the side shell forward could have been
lost due to a combination of circumstances, e.g., exces-
sive corrosion and fatigue cracking damages together
with perhaps the shifting of solid cargo due to roll in
rough weather. This would cause ingress of sea water into
the cargo holds. Water ingress into the forward hold
could occur also through failed hatch covers, as other
investigators have noted (Faulkner et al. 1996, Byrne &
Evans 1998).
In such postulated accident scenarios as indicated in
Fig. 1, even if the vessel could initially survive with one
of the compartments flooded, the ingress of sea water into
a cargo hold could amplify the applied loads, and also
otherwise lead to vessel loss by progressive flooding
(particularly when the watertight transverse bulkheads are
insufficient to withstand the increased static and dynamic
pressures). The relevant flooded load components may be
increased by pitch motion, whose severity can depend on
the cargo density and other characteristics of the vessel.
Progressive flooding after the collapse of corrugated
bulkheads in a flooded condition is thought to be impli-
cated in some of the bulk carrier losses (RINA 1996, Fry-
stock & Spencer 1996). Also, with progressive hold
flooding, the vessel in some cases could loose stability in
rough seas, potentially leading to capsizing (Turan &
Vassalos 1994).
This paper is a summary of recent research and de-
velopment in specific areas related to the strength, struc-
tural safety and reliability of bulk carriers, undertaken by
the American Bureau of Shipping and the Pusan National
2 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
]Side Shell Failure ]l Hatch Cover Failure ] ] Va~gneCrack
I I
'
Water Ingress I l
Partial Loss of
Structure
Hold Vlooding I
Transverse Bulkhead Increase of Hull Decrease of Hull
Failure Girder Loads Girder Strength
7 tu
I Stab
Fig. 1 Bulk carrier loss scenarios
University. This research was initiated due to concerns
with the bulk carrier losses during the last decade.
In this paper, the nature of the bulk trade is briefly
reviewed, with reference to bulk carrier size and types of
cargo carried. A review of bulk carrier losses is made.
The structural characteristics of conventional bulk carri-
ers are investigated. Unintended water ingress into the
forward hold of bulk carriers has been stated to be a pos-
sible factor in bulk carrier losses. The degree of increase
in hull girder and local loads due to such water ingress is
illustrated.
As previously noted, progressive flooding subsequent
to the collapse of the corrugated transverse bulkhead in a
flooded forward cargo hold is thought to be a factor in
some bulk carrier losses. Hence the ultimate strength
characteristics of corrugated bulkheads are studied using
actual tests on mild steel corrugated bulkhead models. A
closed-form design formulation for predicting the ulti-
mate strength of corrugated bulkheads under pressure
loads is proposed, and the related modeling error is quan-
tified. A more refined prediction technique for strength
through a special purpose nonlinear finite element
method is also developed.
Corrosion and fatigue are the important factors af-
fecting structural strength of bulk carriers over time. This
paper reviews the corrosion protection of conventional
bulk carriers and also presents pertinent results from re-
cent investigations to establish probabilistic corrosion rate
estimation models for bulk carrier longitudinal structure
and transverse bulkheads using gauging data. By applying
these corrosion rate models together with the strength
formulae for transverse bulkheads previously noted, the
ultimate hull girder strength reliability of bulk carrier
structures as the vessel ages is investigated. The fatigue
performance of bulk carrier side frame structures is then
studied, as the related side shell failure is a potential
mode of water ingress into the forward hold, and the loss
of the side shell is a factor that can significantly affect the
 500 Panamax bulk carriers in addition also carry significant
450 [ Capesize bulk carrier ] quantities of grain and other cargo, see the bulk trade
400 , O t h e r _ share estimates in Fig. 2 (Clarkson Research 1996). In
fact, relatively more types of cargo now mow,~ in
35o
Panamaxes when compared to Capesizes.
300

250
2.2 Bulk Carrier Losses and Potential Causes
200 - Regarding bulk carrier losses at sea, Table 1 (HMSO
150 - 1995, LR 1997) is particularly telling. The table indicates
Ore
r~ 100 -
that over the period 1980 through 1996, there were 186
50-
total losses of bulk and combination carriers, with 1,278
lives presumed lost.
0 I I I I I I I I I I I I
To calculate the relative loss rates for various catego-
ries of bulk carriers, we used data from Clarkson Re-
search (1996) related to losses by deadweight, and also
Fig. 2.a Capesize bulk trade share estimates
the bulk carrier fleet breakdown by deadweight. The re-
sults, shown in Table 2, indicate that over the past 6
350 years, the Capesize loss rate has been typically greater
than the Panamax loss rate. One can argue about details
300 -
bul c i r, of these calculations, such as definition of loss, lack of
consideration of the age of the vessels at risk, and sensi-
250 -
tivity of the loss rates to the (small) number of losses in-
200 - volved, but it appears that a Capesize bulk carrier may be
more at risk than a Panamax. The table also shows the
150 -
average age of the vessels lost in each of the last six
100 -
years, indicating that an older vessel is at greater risk.
Another interesting factor in bulk carrier losses is the
50- type of cargo carried. Consider these mixture of news
Ore
items compiled from several Lloyd's List articles of 1995:
0 I I I I I I I I I I I I

Table 1 Losses of bulk / combination carriers and lives

Fig. 2.b Panamax bulk trade share estimates during 1980-1996

Year Vessels Lives

residual strength of the hull girder. 1980 19 162
Conclusions regarding the relative importance of 1981 l0 152
various factors affecting bulk carrier strength in a flooded 1982 2 31
condition are then drawn. Future study needs are noted, 1983 12 J"~
D

including potential flooding through failure of hatch cov- 1984 9 32

ers (a subject that is not considered in this paper). From 1985 12 27
the various studies, related implication,; for the bulk car-
1986 8 4
rier structural design process in general are emphasized.
1987 15 101
1988 4 39
2. NATURE OF BULK CARRIERS
1989 10 61
2.1 The Bulk Trade 1990 12 125
Today's bulk carrier fleet consists of about 5,000 ves- 1991 18 152
sels worldwide. Of these, on a deadweight tonnage 1992 5 28
(DWT) basis, nearly 50% are Handysize (10,000-35,000 1993 4 74
DWT), 20% are Handymax (35,000-50,000 DWT), 20% 1994 9 123
are Panamax (50,000-80,000 DWT), and 10% are 1995 19 84
Capesize (80,000 DWT and over). Iron ore and coal are 1996 18 50
the predominant types of cargo in Capesize bulk carriers. Total 186 1,278

Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures

 Table 2 Bulk carrier loss rates and age at loss

Vessel Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Lost 9 8 8 6 7 4
Handysize At risk 2,613 2,591 2,566 2,534 2,521 2,563
% Loss 0.34 0.31 0.31 0.24 0.28 0.16
Av. Age at loss 18 19 17 18 22 15
Lost 3 0 0 0 1 1
Handymax At risk 942 971 999 1,001 1063 1,147
% Loss 0.32 0 0 0 0.094 0.087
Av. Age at loss 16 0 0 0 13 10
Lost 2 4 1 1 0 0
Panamax At risk 783 796 790 815 862 910
% Loss 0.26 0.50 0.13 0.12 0 0
Av. age at loss 22 19 24 25 0 0
Lost 3 4 3 0 3 1
Capesize At risk 387 397 392 409 427 478
% Loss 0.78 0.10 0.77 0 0.70 0.21
Av. age at loss 19 15 21 0 23 9

"Industry is shocked out o f complacency. The Marika was
lost with all 36 crew members and iron ore cargo in
heavy weather off Newfoundland within days" of the start
of 1994... The 1ton Antonis was lost with her full 24-man
crew between Tristan daCunha and St. Helena while car-
rying a cargo o f iron ore from Tubarao in Brazil to
China... The Panamanian flag Apollo Sea sank in heavy
weather with her 36-man crew shortly after leaving
Saldanha Bay, South Africa, with a cargo of iron ore...
The KamarL also with a cargo of iron ore, was sunk pur-
posely 75 miles off Rio Grande after sustaining severe
structural damage in Atlantic storms... The bulk carrier
Christinaki sank during Atlantic storms after a hatch
cover failure and took her 27 crew members with her...
The dangers of iron ore as a cargo were amply demon-
strated in November when the Trade Daring broke her
back and subsequently sank halfway through a loading
operation at the Brazilian port of Ponta da Madeira.
Loading at a rate approaching 16,000 tonnes an hour
stressed the hull o f this 20-year-old vessel beyond break-
ing point... ".
A statistical study by BTCE (1993) in Australia, also
indicated that iron ore was a relatively common factor
associated with bulk carrier structural failures. But corre-
lation is not causation, and the role of iron ore in vessel
losses is by no means certain. In fact as previously noted,
iron ore and coal are major types of cargo in bulk carriers,
and so their presence in a proportion of lost vessels is not
in of itself surprising.
Actual causes of a bulk carrier loss at sea in rough
seas, where the vessel is typically not recovered, are diffi-
cult to pinpoint. In an IMO study which listed known or
conjectured causes of bulk carrier losses with fatalities
during 1990 through 1994, the general factors implicated
were:
9 Heavy weather
9 Water ingress
9 Foundering or sinking
9 Hull, side shell or tank crack
9 Vessel age
9 Open or damaged forward hatch
In view of all of the above discussion regarding bulk
carrier losses, it may however be said that (a) the vessels
lost generally start out being adequate to the demands of
the sea, but may have become inadequate at some point
late in their life, (b) heavy weather and water ingress are
implicated, and (c) water ingress may be through side
shell cracking or possibly forward hatch cover damage.
The picture is confused, but it is extremely unlikely that
each of these vessels somehow met an environment more
severe than its design extreme storm, so to speak. What is
more probable is that with passage of time, the structure
or parts of it weakened, e.g., by corrosion, fatigue, or
increased levels of deformation. The sensitivity of the
structure to failure thus increased, or its damage tolerance
decreased, and accidental events such as water ingress
occurred leading to a progressive set of undesirable events

4 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures


ments apparently account for a third of all local structural
damages, according to Shama. In addition, Ivanov (1993)
reports the following types of side frame structural dam-
age as typical:
Q Hold Frame-Connection to upper & lower wing tanks and
side shell.
~) Boundaries of transverse bulkheads and bulkhead stools.
| Cross deck structure.
@ Hatch corners/hatch coaming brackets.
@ Localized cracking and buckling of web frames and break-
down of coatings in water ballast tanks.
| Inner bottom plating/hopper plating intersection.
Fig. 3 Problem areas in bulk carrier structures
Broken~~
~"""SddemP~otinffgelctSoen
s SadjPaPc~ b:its:Chcd I I~
Fig. 4 A schematic of side shell damage
as previously noted.
A brief look at local structural failures typical in bulk
carriers (that survived) is of interest. While forensic ex-
amination of lost vessels is difficult, indirect information
from existing local failures experienced may serve as an
indicator of the major potential causes of vessel losses.
Figure 3 from a study by IACS indicates areas where lo-
cal structural failures occur in bulk carriers. Of these, a
study by Shama (1995) indicates that damage to side
frames is the most frequent, followed by damaged bottom
Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
floors and girders. Together these three structural ele-
1) At bracket connections of the side frame to the
wing and hopper tanks, fractures and potential detach-
ment of brackets occur frequently.
2) Side frames can often be found twisted, aided by
mechanical damage and corrosion.
The detachment of hold frame ends forward, and the
spread of that type of damage through a domino effect
involving load shedding to nearby corrosion / wear weak-
ened structure might have been an important cause of
bulk carrier losses. Anecdotally, it is known that in a
number of vessels that survived to tell the tale, water in-
gress occurred in hold No.l, through failure of the side
shell structure between hopper and wing tanks, typically
near the aft bulkhead. A schematic of this type of failure
is shown in Fig. 4.
3. STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CON-
V E N T I O N A L BULK CARRIERS
To understand the structural characteristics of con-
ventional bulk carriers, some important properties of ex-
isting bulk carrier structures are now surveyed. These
structural parameter studies would be of value in judging,
describing and generalizing the nature of structural failure
behavior to be expected for given operational, extreme
and accidental load levels.
3.1 General Characteristics
Figure 5 shows the relationship between ship length
and deadweight for bulk carriers with a large proportion
of which are conventional. It is evident that there is a
definite relationship between ship length and deadweight,
with moderate degree of scatter. Typically the number of
holds is seven for the Panamax and nine for the Capesize
class, with some variability. There are essentially three
types of holds in such vessels in so far as the structure is
concerned; i.e., ore holds, light holds and ballast holds.
When carrying dense cargo such as iron ore, an alternate
hold loading condition is common, with the light holds
empty.
Figure 6 shows the relationship between ship length
and maximum hold length. It is seen from Fig. 6 that the
maximum hold length tends to decrease with increase in
the ship length. It is of interest that the hold lengths in the
Panamax are comparable to the Capesize, as shown in
Fig. 6, but the Capesize hold areas and volumes are nor-
mally greater than those ofa Panamax (e.g., areas approxi-
5
 400 2.8

O
DW=alL3+a2L2+a3L+a4 [ ~
a1 = 0.000014 | * .% 2,4
~" 3O0
o a2 ~0002337 ~.. .V
.T=
a3=0127091 I
E 0
a4=8451520 I * ~176176176 2,0 o~ O 0
r 200 o 0

(30 0 O
t~O 1.6 0
100 o

0
1.2 i i i i
120 160 200 240 280
0 I I I I I
100 150 200 250 300 350 L B P (m)

LBP (m) Fig. 7.a The relationship between ship length and double
bottom height for conventional bulk carriers
Fig. 5 The relationship between ship length and dead-
weight for bulk carriers 55
0
0
30 0
50- O

o o co o ~l 0000o
~n
28 0
O O "&
0 0 0 '~= O
45-
o .~ 0 0
26
o o ~ o E 0
g q~ o
24 40- O
o o OD
E 0 0
O
22
E 0 O
35 I I I I
20 120 160 200 240 280
O
L B P (m)

18 i i i i Fig. 7.b The relationship between ship length and bottom

140 180 ~20 260 300 plate slenderness ratio for conventional bulk car-
LBP (m) riers

Fig. 6 The relationship between ship length and maxi-

1.8
mum hold length for conventional bulk carriers

~ 1.6

mately 1.5 times for hold No. 1; i.e., most forward, and 1.25
times in the case of the other holds, in one particular set = O 1,4
O~ o
O
of vessels). Hence normally any postulated flooding of
the Capesize hold No. 1 is of more load consequence than o
O
flooding of the Panamax hold No. 1. O O
O
O
3.2 Hull Structures 1.0 So
Figures 7.a to 7.d show some important properties of
conventional bulk carrier hull structures of Handymax 0.8 I I I I
class or larger. The bulk carrier double bottom height 120 160 200 240 280
(and also width of flat part of inner bottom) increase re- LBP (m)
markably as the vessel becomes larger, see Fig. 7.a. As Fig. 7.c The relationship between ship length and hull
shown in Fig. 7.b, the slenderness ratio of outer bottom section modulus at bottom for conventional bulk
plating decreases (e.g., the bottom plate thickness increases) carriers

6 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures

 100 of aspect ratio and reduced slenderness ratio for bulk car-
rier plating between stiffeners. The plate aspect ratio in
80
8 the bottom and side shell is about 3.0 in way of longitudi-
o
nal framing (and aspect ratios 30 to 40 in way of trans-
o verse framing), while it is about 6.0 in the deck. It is also
60
seen from Table 3 that the reduced slenderness ratio of
o
o
longitudinal plating is less than 2.0, indicating that such
O
40 plating of bulk carriers is usually stocky in a buckling
o
0 sense. It should be noted that for long plate compression,
0
o if the plate slenderness ratio is less than about 1.9, buck-
20 0
0 ling normally occurs in the elastic-plastic or plastic re-
o
gime, in which the buckled plate will have little residual
0 0 ; i ; strength margin beyond first buckling, while thin plate
I00 150 20(1 Z,SO 300
elements with the plate slenderness ratios greater than
LBP (m)
about 2.5 will normally first buckle in the elastic regime,
Fig. 7.d The relationship between ship length and HTS with a fair amount of post-buckling strength reserve until
usage for conventional bulk carriers the ultimate limit state is reached.
Bending and torsional rigidities of stiffeners and
supporting members in bulk carriers were also surveyed.
with increase in the vessel size. The ratio of actual hull As would be expected, the rigidities of transverse mem-
section modulus to Rule required section modulus de- bers are usually larger than those of longitudinal mem-
creases as the vessel becomes larger, see Fig. 7.c, which bers. It was observed that the bending rigidity of sup-
implies that some vessels are built to satisfy the rule re- porting members is large enough compared to that of
quirements with little margin. Figure 7.d indicates the plate elements so that the relative lateral deformation of
usage of high tensile steel in conventional bulk carrier plate elements along the edges could be ignored in calcu-
hull structures. More than 70% of the hull structures in lating the plate buckling strength. However, the normal-
Panamax and Capesize bulk carriers can in some cases be ized torsional rigidity of supporting members; i.e., the
of high tensile steel. All statistics indicated are for a se- ratio of torsional rigidity of supporting members to the
lected cross section of vessels. bending rigidity of plating between supporting members,
Table 3 indicates typical ranges and average values is less than about 1.0 for longitudinal stiffeners and less

Table 3 Structural characteristics of plates between stiffeners in selected existing bulk carriers

a/b b / t~f~o / E
Structure
Range Average Range Average
Outer Bottom Plate 2.9-3.4 3.2 1.6-2.1 1.9
Inner Bottom Plate 2.9-3.4 3.2 1.3- 1.8 1.6
Bottom Floor 2.0-2.9 2.6 2.3-3.0 2.4
Bottom Girder 3.2-4.0 3.6 1.8-2.8 2.3
Side Shell 3.2-3.3 3.3 2.0-2.2 1.6
Deck Plate 4.7-6.7 5.7 1.0-2.0 1.6
Longitudinal Bulkhead Plate 3.2-3.3 3.3 2.2-2.4 2.3
Topside Wing Tank Bottom Plate 4.9-7.5 6.3 1.9-2.7 2.3
Topside Wing Tank Web 1.0-1.6 1.3 2.2-2.9 2.5
Hopper Bottom Plate 1.9-3.7 2.8 1.6-2.5 1.9
Hopper Web 1.0-1.6 1.3 2.0-2.7 2.5

Note: a = plate length, b = plate breadth, t = plate thickness o-,, = yield strength, E = Young's modulus

S t r e n g t h of B u l k C a r r i e r S t r u c t u r e s 7
than about 2.0 for transverse frames. This could indicate
that although the ship plating has a finite amount of rota-
tional restraints along the edges implying that idealized
boundary conditions; i.e., simply supported or clamped,
never occur, there is still the possibility of tripping failure
of stiffeners, particularly in the longitudinal direction
(which needs to be controlled by design).
The various obvious generalizations of this section
relate of course to strength, and thus are only indirectly
indicative of the structural performance considering loads
as well. Also, it should be noted that part of the conven-
tional bulk carrier side structure is transversely framed,
for which the limiting rigidities and slenderness would be
different from those noted above. In conventional bulk
carriers, each side shell flame may not form part of a
continuous ring; i.e., the transverse flame spacing in the
topside tanks can be different from that in the cargo hold,
which in turn can be different from the frame spacing in (a) Corrugated transverse bulkhead and other structure in
the double bottom, although the recently suggested dou- the cargo hold of a bulk carrier
ble skin bulk carrier design is a clear exception (Liu et al.
1995).

3.3 Corrugated Transverse Bulkheads

In addition to other types of structural components
discussed above, we surveyed corrugated bulkhead
structure characteristics as well. Figure 8 defines related
nomenclature. The typical corrugated transverse bulkhead
in existing bulk carriers is vertically corrugated and with-
out horizontal girders. Lower and upper stools with dif-
a/2 a/2
ferent proportions from each other are normally located at B
its ends. Most corrugated bulkheads have shedder plates
on top of horizontal lower stool plates. (b) Nomenclature for the corrugated bulkhead structure
Figures 9.a to 9.c show some important properties of models and analysis
corrugated bulkheads. The corrugation span normally
increases as the vessel size becomes larger, see Fig. 9.a. Fig. 8 Features of the analysis of bulkhead strength
(Example corrugation spans are 12 m for a Panamax and
16 m for a Capesize bulk carrier). The statistics of the
20
corrugation angle showed scatter, but they were in the
range of 55-90 degrees. The corrugation shape in the 0 0
ballast holds is typically rectangular, while in the ore or ~
E
16 0
0
light holds it is typically trapezoidal. 0
0
0 o
0
oo
o
It is also observed from the survey that the ratio of
the corrugation flange width to web width (web depth in 0 0

case of a rectangular corrugation) is in the range of ~:~ 8

0 0

0.633-1.630, with an average value of about 1.0, see Fig. o

9.b. The variation of thickness of corrugation flange or
4
web with increase in the vessel size was studied. The re-
duced slenderness ratios of the corrugation flange or web
0 i i i i
are in the range of 0.867-3.003 or 1.521-3.413, respec- laO ~so 2eo 260 300
tively and their average value is about 2.5 (with consider- LBP (m)
able scatter as may be expected because of differing local
pressures and related load sustaining needs). The column Fig. 9.a The relationship between ship length and corru-
(reduced) slenderness ratio of a single corrugation is in gation span for some conventional bulk carrier
the range of 0.3005-0.5855, and its average value is about corrugated bulkheads

8 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures

 2.0" 4. H Y P O T H E T I C A L BULK CARRIER STRUC-
T U R A L DESIGNS

1.5- For the purpose of illustrative structural performance

calculations we designed two hypothetical bulk carriers,
namely a 150,000 DWT Capesize and a 67,000 DWT
,--. 8~ o ~ Panamax. The number of holds is seven for the Panamax
1.0 -

0 o o o and nine for the Capesize. Both vessels are considered

0 0
O with heavy iron ore loaded in alternate holds.
=l~ 0
0.5-
The profile and principal particulars of the Capesize
are given in Fig. 10 and Table 4, respectively. The profile
and principal particulars of the Panamax are given in Fig.
0.0 I I I I
11 and Table 4, respectively. The vessel midship sections
140 180 220 '2.60 300 are similar to those of Fig. 24, but considerably fuller. All
LBP (m) vessel particulars shown in the figures and tables are
gross scantlings; e.g., including corrosion margin. The
Fig. 9.b The relationship between ship length and ratio of vessels are designed to the 1985 ABS Rules. Hence their
corrugation flange to web breadth for conven- gross scantlings are different in critical areas from what
tional bulk carrier corrugated bulkheads would be required today under the SafeHull based ABS
Rules (ABS 1995, 1997), but the reason why these ves-
sels are so designed is that they are more representative of
the existing fleet. The Capesize bulk carrier hull structure
3 0
O is made of H36 steel, but in the Panamax the structure is
mild steel, except for the deck region where H32 steel is
2.5 O
used. The design still water bending moment is applicable
0 O
0 to both hogging and sagging conditions as the Rules of
00
the time made no distinction between the wave induced
E~ 0
0 bending moment in hogging and sagging.
g~
The hold double bottom structure is stiffened by lon-
o 4 gitudinal girders and transverse solid floors. Much of the
0 net local loading (external minus internal pressure) on the
double bottom is transmitted to transverse bulkheads in
0.5 shear, but a portion is also carried by the bottom longitu-
dinal girders in bending. The longer the hold compared to
0.0 I I I I its breadth, the more important the girder system in
140 180 220 2(;0 300 bending. So in a relative sense, the girder system in the
LBP (m) Panamax carries a greater proportion of the net double
bottom load in bending than in the Capesize.
Fig. 9.c The relationship between ship length and corru-
gation section modulus for conventional bulk 5. H U L L G I R D E R AND LOCAL LOAD EFFECTS
carrier corrugated bulkheads DUE TO A C C I D E N T A L FLOODING

5.1 Hull Girder Load Changes

0.45, with relatively moderate scatter. The corrugation
section modulus increases as the vessel size becomes
larger, see Fig. 9.c. Note that the data in this figure are
not normalized for material grade.
The aspect ratios of the lower stool top plate and up-
per stool bottom plate are in the range of 3.4-7.2 (with
average of 5.2) and 2.7-5.6 (with average of 3.8), respec-
tively. Also, the reduced slenderness ratio is in the range
of 1.7-2.7 (with average of 2.2) for the lower stool top
plate, and in the range 2.1-2.5 (with average of 2.3) for
the upper stool bottom plate.
The hull girder loads can be decomposed into still
water and wave induced load components. Each of these
load components is usually calculated separately, and the
total load is obtained by combining the two load compo-
nents. Detailed distribution of the still water loads along
the ship length can be predicted by integration of the dif-
ference between the weight force and the buoyancy force,
using simple beam theory. Also, using strip theory, the
distribution of wave induced loads along the ship length
can be estimated. Ingress of sea water due to accidental
flooding will cause changes to the hull girder load distri-

Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures 9

 TYP ]
13.2m1
i i
' - ~ : =J-c : " ' - - i - "'" Z ~ -~.........'~ ,,..,..~ ~ , . ~ ~ :, .,,: : " " - - " """ "= , . c I
/
Hold9 Hold8 Hold7 Hold6 Hold5 Hold4 Hold3 Hold2 Holdl
)
L23.76mL23.76ml 23.76nLL23.76m, 23.76m1 23.76m1 23.76m ] 23.76m 125.52m
47 74 101 128 155 182 209 234 263 292
'F.S. 800ram Frame spacing=880mm F.S,
~1 ~
LBP=264m "~l~800m~

LOA=276m

Fig. 10 A profile of the Capesize bulk carrier

o**_:
oa
1.1.O,.)111 1,9.O,.-3111 1 1 ..~,,.)111

E mlmllmll ii6imm lmlmllllml

L 24.'8m Il 42
~1 ~
25m
72
25m ~l~ 25m
102 132
25m
162
25m
192
25m
222
22.5m ,Ijl l
249 253.5
J

. 780ram ~ Frame ~ = 8 3 3 m m
LBP=215m
LOA=220m

Fig. 11 A profile of the Panamax bulk carrier

Table 4 Principal particulars of two illustrative vessels

Item Capesize Panamax

Length, overall (m) 276 220
Length, perpendiculars (m) 264 215
Length, scantling (m) 262.3 213
Breadth, molded (m) 43.5 32
Depth, molded (m) 24.0 18.3
Draft, design (m) 17.6 12.0
Speed, design (knots) 14.1 15.5
Block coefficient, design 0.84 0.855
Max inner bottom pressure, hold Nos. 1,3,5,7 (9) 39.3 26.8 t/m 2
Max inner bottom pressure, other holds 24.4 14.3 t/m z
Hold aspect ratio (=hold length/breadth) 0.55 0.68 hold No. 1
Typical 0.78 Typical
Side frame end brackets Non-integral
lapped Integral
Deadweight (DWT) 150,000 67,000
Design SWBM (ton-m) 310,000 134,600
Material All H36 All MS (H32 deck)

10 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures

bution in the intact case, and these effects can be similarly 16

included in the calculations. 12

To explore the possibility of hull girder distress due
to accidental flooding, the extreme hull girder load redis- L6 L2 L3
O O
tribution for a Capesize bulk carrier in the flooded condi- ~ ~ 4
o/)O
tion is studied (Paik 1994). The long term prediction of
~ 0
the wave induced loads was carried out using a strip the-
~ -4
ory based method with a probability level o f 10 -s as-
sumed for purposes o f defining the extreme load. As pre-
viously noted, a Capesize vessel has nine cargo holds, and
0'3 -12
in heavy ore load condition hold Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8 in this
case are empty. The ballast and full load conditions in in- -16 ' I ' I l I ' l ' I I I 9 I ' I

tact (i.e., unflooded) situation are considered first. In ad- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

dition, five cases of hold flooding are considered as indi- (A.P.) Station number (F.P)
cated in Table 5. For the flooded condition, sea water was
taken to be present in addition to the ore cargo. The hold Fig. 12.a Distribution o f still water bending moment in
volume up to the idealized cargo fill level is taken to have the assumed flooding scenarios (Paik 1994)
a permeability of 0.3, while the rest o f the hold space is at
20-
an assumed permeability of 0.95.
Figures 12.a to 12.d show the distributions o f still 16- . L(
water and wave induced hull girder loads for each flood- 12- /t

ing case. In the hypothetical flooding conditions L5 and . 3 -~ 8

L 7 the vessel is (as expected) found to be at risk due to 4

_~x
loss of reserve buoyancy, and hence the results o f these 0

two situations are not shown in the figure. Based on the -4

computed results, some observations can be made: -8

-12
1) It is clear that some cases o f hold flooding can
-16
amplify the magnitude o f the hull girder loads occasion-
ally even beyond the design values. Decrease of the re-
-20 ' ' ' 't ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I

2 4 6 8 10 L2 14 16 18 20
sidual hull girder strength (e.g., due to vessel local struc-
(A 1'3 Station number (F.P.)
tural loss) together with the increase of the hull girder
loads may possibly lead to hull girder breakage.
Fig. 12.b Distribution o f still water shear force in the as-
sumed flooding scenarios (Paik 1994)
Table 5 Hold flooding scenarios considered in the calcu-
lations (Paik ! 994) I L6
Probability level ~----~jL2
7 = .

Scenario
Load Condition and Holds Flooded 6
No. E~
5
L1 Ballast Condition / Intact
L2 Alternate Ore Load Condition / Intact 4

Alternate Ore Load Condition / Hold No.5 3

L3 Flooded e--
2
Alternate Ore Load Condition / Hold Nos.
L4 1
4 & 5 Flooded
Alternate Ore Load Condition / Hold Nos. ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I
L5
4, 5 & 6 Flooded 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Alternate Ore Load Condition / Hold No.l (A.P.) Station number (F.P.)
L6 Flooded
Alternate Ore Load Condition / Hold Nos. Fig. 12.c Distribution o f wave induced bending moment
L7 in the assumed flooding scenarios (Paik 1994)
1 & 2 Flooded

Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures 11


Probability level = 10-s L6,,,,,~
10 L2
L3
~Y" s L4
6 force and bending moment envelopes from IACS unified
N 4
2 mated, and related critical locations along the vessel
0 The vessels are considered to be loaded with heavy
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
(A.P.) Station number
Fig. 12.d Distribution of wave induced shear force in the
assumed flooding scenarios (Paik 1994)
2) For the flooded conditions L5 and L 7 in which
three holds amidships or two forward holds are flooded,
respectively, it is seen that the vessel can founder since
the draught exceeds the ship depth resulting from loss of
the reserve buoyancy. It can be said that if more than two
cargo holds are flooded in laden condition, the possibility
of foundering could be significant. This is of course not
unexpected because bulk carriers are ordinarily not de-
signed to such a (2 or 3 compartment) standard for
flooding or damage stability purposes.
3) For the flooded conditions L4 and L 6 in which
two holds amidships or one forward hold are flooded,
respectively, it is seen that the magnitude of extreme hull
loads could become very large, potentially leading to hull
girder collapse. In this particular case, it is thus evident
that if more than one cargo hold particularly forward part
is flooded the possibility of foundering due to hull girder
collapse could be large even if the survival buoyancy is
sufficient in the beginning stages of flooding. Moreover,
once flooding occurs in one hold, particularly forward
part, progressive flooding into the adjacent holds by col-
lapse of transverse bulkheads is possible if the bulkheads
had not been previously specifically designed to with-
stand such accidental flooding conditions.
The above considered flooding cases are perhaps un-
duly severe in comparison to the design bases of the ves-
sels concerned. Thus to judge the degree of stress in-
crease in the structure due to a more realistic flooding
scenario, a finite element analysis was performed for the
hypothetical Capesize and Panamax vessels of Table 4.
The vessels are considered to be in the alternate hold
loading condition. The still water shear force and bending
12 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
moment distribution in the intact condition is first calcu-
lated. Loaded hold No.1 is then considered to be
breached, with open communication to the sea. For the
resulting flooded condition, the still water shear force and
bending moment distributions are recalculated. Using the
above results together with the wave induced shearing
requirements (Nitta et al. 1992), the total shearing forces
and bending moments along the vessels' length are esti-
mated. The load increases due to flooding are then esti-
length are identified.
18 20
ore. Three ore stowage factors were considered, namely
(F.P.) 10, 14 and 22 ft3/ton corresponding to ore specific
weights of 3.59, 2.56 and 1.6 ton/m 3 (As an aside, ac-
cording to Mano et al. (1976), ore related inertial forces
have a significant influence on the double bottom stresses
for a bulk carrier for cargo densities greater than 2
ton/m3). Calculations are performed by standard hydro-
statics and longitudinal strength computer programs.
We should note that the flooded case considered in
this study is similar to the IACS UR S17 case. The hold is
breached, water enters, and the vessel finds a new still
water equilibrium position, at a new waterline that is dif-
ferent from the old, which defines the amount of water
ingress. Our study differs from premise of the IACS UR
S17 in that we assume that the entire lifetime extreme
wave induced load may apply in a flooding situation,
while the UR more realistically uses a reduced (80% of
design) wave load in such a case. We should also note
here for the sake of completeness that
1) We compared through comparative calculations
(not shown) that flooding of hold No.2 instead of hold
No.1 would result in a less severe case in these vessels.
We did not consider hold Nos. 1 and 2 flooded, as it
would be unreasonable to expect these vessels to survive
such a progressive flooding condition as previously men-
tioned.
2) We also confirmed through comparative calcula-
tions (not shown) that the sagging wave condition is of
less interest in these particular vessels, because the still
water bending moment is of a hogging nature. We did not
consider ballast (including heavy ballast) conditions in
this study. While relevant for design, service experience
does not support the view that bulk carriers are typically
lost in ballast.
Still water draft and freeboard summaries for the ves-
sels in the intact and flooded conditions are given in Ta-
ble 6. Note that in the table the minimum freeboard any-
where along the vessel length is shown. The results indi-
cate the following:
 Table 6 Still water draft and freeboard summary

Item Capesize Panamax

Draft, intact (m) 17.18 13.01
Depth, molded (m) 24.00 18.30
Beam, molded (m) 43.50 32.00
Draft, flooded (m) (10 c f t / L T ) 20.61 13.66
Draft, flooded (m) (14 cft / LT) 19.73 13.43
Draft, flooded (m) (22 cft / LT) 18.66 13.33
Trim, intact (deg.) 0.06 aft 0.30 aft
Trim, flooded (deg.) (10 c f t / L T ) 1.07 fwd 0.58 fwd
Trim, flooded (deg.) (14 cft / LT) 0.78 fwd 0.26 fwd
Trim, flooded (deg.) (22 c f t / L T ) 0.43 fwd 0.13 fwd
Freeboard, intact (m) 6.61 4.86
Freeboard, flooded (m) (10 cft / LT) 3.90 3.97
Freeboard, flooded (m) (14 cft / LT) 4.68 4.56
Freeboard, flooded (m) (22 cft / LT) 5.60 4.82

1) The still water draft and trim changes due to
flooding of hold No. 1 are significant in the Capesize, but
not the Panamax. As expected, the denser the ore, the
greater the changes, because more water is admitted into
the hold.
2) The changes in draft, trim and freeboard due to
flooding are relatively greater in the Capesize vessel
when compared to the Panamax. This is because of the
larger hold volume flooded and its greater distance from
the trim center in the Capesize.
3) The intact freeboard in the Capesize is 1.7 m
greater than the Panamax, as would be explained by the
relationship of freeboard to the vessel beam. Interestingly,
the flooded minimum freeboards in the two vessels are
comparable (about 4 m), meaning that the relative loss in
freeboard (and hence the possibility, of green water ship-
ping) is greater in the Capesize.
The longitudinal distributions of total shear force and
bending moment for the vessels in the intact and flooded
conditions are then obtained. The shear force and bending
moment conventions used are that a positive sign is asso-
ciated with hogging bending moments, and a positive
shear force corresponds to bow section up. From such
data, the maximum and minimum values of the shear
force and bending moment anywhere along the vessel
length can be obtained.
From the results obtained, Table 7 shows that the
largest total shear force value occurs at the aft bulkhead
of hold No.l. Table 8 shows the largest total hogging
bending moment occurs at about 63% of vessel length
from the aft perpendicular in the Capesize and 55% in the
Panamax. The location is near mid-hold, e.g., hold No.4,
which is an empty hold in both vessels. A further study of
the tabulated results shows that:
1) The weight differentials due to hold No.l flooding
are 6,111 tonne for the Capesize and 2,479 tonne for the
Panamax; i.e., the Capesize value is about 2.5 times the
Panamax value.
2) The flooded forward body still water shear force
(SWSF) and total shear force (TSF) increases are 1.6 and
1.4 times the intact values for the Capesize, and 1.4 and
1.3 times for the Panamax. Hence there is a significant
increase in SWSF forward, more so for the Capesize than
the Panamax (1.6 times contra 1.4 times).
3) The flooded mid-body still water bending moment
(SWBM) and total bending moment (TBM) increases are
1.9 and 1.3 times the intact values for the Capesize, and
1.7 and 1.2 times for the Panamax. Hence there is a sig-
nificant increase in SWBM amidships, by about the same
factor for the Capesize and the Panamax (1.9 times contra
1.7 times).
4) The bending moment increase due to flooding
amounts to 9.67 and 8.35 metric tonne-m per tonne of
differential weight at the location of maximum total shear
force in the Capesize and the Panamax vessels. The same
increase at the location of maximum total bending mo-
ment calculates to 39.0 and 31.8 tonne-m per tonne of
differential weight. Hence the bending moment increase
influence coefficients at the locations considered are
similar in both vessels (within 20%).

Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures 13

 Table 7 Effects of flooding on shear over 25% vessel length forward

Condition SWSF (tonne) SWBM (tonne-m) TSF (tonne) TBM (tonne-m)

Capesize, Intact - 10,216 122,538 - 15,057 324,047
Capesize, Flooded - 16,327 181,639 -21,168 383,148
Difference -6,111 59,101 -6,111 59,101
Panamax, Intact -5,763 50,076 -8,880 166,551
Panamax, Flooded -8,242 70,774 - 11,359 187,249
Difference -2,479 20,698 -2,479 20,698

Table 8 Effects of flooding on bending moment over the mid-ship region

Condition SWSF (tonne) SWBM (tonne-m) TSF (tonne) TBM (tonne-m)

Capesize, Intact 2,071 253,542 6,062 773,200
Capesize, Flooded 1,899 491,920 5,890 1,011,578
Difference - 172 238,378 -172 238,378
Panamax, Intact 1,238 118,889 3,564 369,604
Panamax, Flooded 1,556 197,612 3,882 448,327
Difference 318 78,723 318 78,723

To obtain the magnitudes of stress increases in the
structures due to flooding, finite element analyses are
then performed. For this purpose, the following envelope
dynamic loads along the vessel length are calculated us-
ing Section 3 of the SafeHull bulk carrier guide (ABS
1995), now absorbed into the ABS Rules:
9 Wave induced vertical bending moment
9 Wave induced vertical shear force
9 External hydrodynamic pressure
9 Internal cargo pressure
The use of the SafeHull formulae is a matter of con-
venience. The effective vertical accelerations in the ves-
sels are found to be about 0.3g in No.4 hold and 0.6g in
hold No.l, with pitch amplitudes in the range of 7 to 9
degree. The resulting dynamic loads are then combined
with the relevant still water loads to obtain the distribu-
tion of total loads.
In the process of defining the loads for finite element
analysis, load correlation and load combination issues for
dynamic loads need to be considered. In this regard,
some interesting observations by other investigators are
now pointed out. Hattori et al. (1984) investigated the
correlation of loads on the double bottom of a 216m bulk
carrier traveling in head seas at 15 knots. The vessel had
seven holds, with hold Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7 loaded. They
estimated the related individual long term values of hull
girder bending stresses and stresses due to bending of the
double bottom structure itself subject to internal cargo
loads and external hydrodynamic water pressures. One of
the interesting points in their results is that the external
hydrodynamic pressure on the double bottom acts oppo-
site to the internal cargo inertial forces, resulting in partial
cancellation of loads. The same conclusion has also been
independently reached by Kawamura et al. (1986, 1987).
Hattori et al. (1984) also estimated the longitudinal
distribution of the apparent long term correlation coeffi-
cient between hull girder bending and double bottom net
stresses. Their result indicates that (a) in empty holds, a
zero apparent correlation coefficient is appropriate; i.e.,
the total extreme stress is decided by either the hull girder
bending stress alone or the stress due to maximum exter-
nal pressure alone, and (b) in laden holds, a correlation
coefficient of 0.5 is appropriate; i.e., the largest total long
term stress is about the same as what one would obtain by
considering a combined load case where the long term
maximum hull girder stress is combined with 1/2 of the
largest maximum double bottom stress due to net double
bottom pressure alone, or vice versa.
Another set of approximations to the long term dy-
namic load correlation information for ships is provided

14 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures

by Cramer et al. (1995) where the load combination fac-
tor between hull girder and local effects is 0.6. The local
effects in turn are calculated from the external and inter-
nal effects with a correlation coefficient of 0.5 amidships
to 0.6 forward. In our case, we used a similar rule (but
with 0.5 in place of 0.6).
5.2 Local Stress Changes
To investigate the local load and stress characteristics
due to accidental flooding, three dimensional finite ele-
ment models were constructed for the Capesize and the
Panamax vessels. The finite element models are pris-
matic, and cover a three hold extent of each vessel, with
scantlings corroded l 0%, thus approximating the net ship.
Required local increase in side shell thickness in way of
bulkheads is accounted for in the finite element model.
The part of the model whose structural response is of
interest is the mid-hold. The models are loaded so that the
target bending moment at the middle of tile mid-hold and
/ or target shear forces at the bulkheads of that hold are
realized. In the bending moment and shear force cases the
mid-hold is empty, and the adjacent holds are laden. In
the pressure load case the mid-hold is laden, and the adja-
cent holds are empty. A heavy cargo specific gravity of
2.6 (stowage rate 14 ft3/ton) is used. The following con-
clusions could be drawn from an inspection of the results
of related finite element analyses:
1) Among the three cases considered, the moment
case with hold No.4 empty is the most important, fol-
lowed by the shear case with hold No.2 empty. The pres-
sure load case, with hold No.1 laden, showed high
stresses only for the transverse floors of hold No. I.
2) In magnitude, stresses in deck, bottom and side
girder in the Capesize are somewhat higher (about 10%)
than the Panamax, both in the intact and the flooded case.
3) In magnitude, stresses in the side shell in the
Capesize are 25 % higher than the Panamax in the intact
case, and 35 % higher than the Panamax in the flooded
case. Due to local strengthening, the gross side shell
thickness in the region of interest is 22.4mm for the
Capesize (in contrast to the 18ram elsewhere), and 22ram
for the Panamax (in contrast to the 17 to 18ram else-
where). As a point of interest, the local strengthening of
side shell plating in the Capesize extends 5m either side
of the bulkhead, while in the Panamax, it extends 7.5m
either side.
4) Flooding of hold No.l increases stresses in the
deck and bottom by up to 20% in the Panamax and 30%
in the Capesize. The side shell stresses, on the other hand,
are increased by 40% in the Capesize and 30 % in the
Panamax.
5) The stresses are within limits in the intact condi-
tion. The highest stress in the Capesize occurs at a bottom
Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
location in hold No.4 and in the side shell at bulkhead
between hold Nos. l and 2. The highest stress in the
Panamax occurs at a bottom location in hold No.4.
6) The stresses in the flooded condition are more
likely to be within limits in the Capesize than in the
Panamax. In the Panamax, stress limits are likely to be
exceeded both at a bottom location of hold No.4, a side
shell location at the bulkhead between hold Nos. l and 2,
and a transverse floor in hold No. 1.
Note that all stresses referred to are von Mises effec-
tive stresses, which include both axial and shear effects.
Also, while of interest, the last two points noted above
should be interpreted carefully. This is because while the
Capesize stresses are higher than the Panamax stresses,
the Capesize has a larger yield related safety factor than
the Panamax since the entire Capesi;,e is of H36 steel,
while the Panamax is of mild steel except for its H32 steel
deck.
Based on the stress results obtained, the following
conclusions could be drawn regarding the onset of yield-
ing in the structure: (a) the deck and bottom of empty
hold No.4, and the side shell close to the bulkhead be-
tween hold Nos. 1 and 2 are the likely critical locations to
govern design. Of these, the side shell location is the most
important, followed by the deck location, and (b) local
shear reinforcements at the bulkheads (i.e., increases in
side shell thickness) can be important.
The above calculations consider the structure in way
of the maximum total bending moment and shear force
locations to be intact. Any actual loss of side shell will
dramatically affect the shear related safety factors for the
region adjacent to transverse bulkhead No.l. In an ex-
treme case, we would have most of the shear load previ-
ously carried by one of the side shells transferred to the
other, intact side. Since it is the side shells that carry most
of the shear, the shear related safety factor will then be
clearly inadequate; i.e., the vessels will not normally sur-
vive such a situation if heavy seas are encountered unless
specifically designed for.
6. U L T I M A T E STRENGTH C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S
OF C O R R U G A T E D BULKHEADS
The ultimate strength characteristics of corrugated
bulkheads in a flooded situation are also studied experi-
mentally, theoretically and numerically. In the following,
some important conclusions based on the related studies
are briefly summarized. The results noted should be use-
ful for the design or corrugated bulkheads in general. In
addition, the data developed facilitates the quantification
of modeling errors in simplified bulkhead strength for-
mulations for both conventional design and structural
reliability assessment purposes.
15
6.1 Experimental Study
Most previous tests related to collapse of corrugated
bulkheads were carried out on single corrugations. The
pioneering work on the collapse tests using corrugated
bulkhead models (not single corrugations) was that of
Caldwell (1955). He performed a series of tests on four
aluminum alloy and four mild steel corrugated bulkhead
models subject to water pressure. The overall dimensions
of the corrugated bulkhead models were 900 mm in
length and 560 mm in breadth. The plate thickness of the
bulkhead models was in the range 0.554-1.712 mm. It
was found in these tests that the maximum deflection of
vertically corrugated bulkheads was "virtually constant"
across the width of the panel except near the vertical
edges. These test results thus showed that the behavior of
a single central corrugation could be taken as representa-
tive of the whole bulkhead, provided the conditions at the
sides of each corrugation are the same, which is usually
found to be the case except near the comers of the bulk-
heads where there is a slight increase in apparent torsional
stiffness of the flange.
The Caldwell tests provide much useful information.
However, the corrugation angle in most models of Cald-
well was small compared to ships, their range being
12-42 deg. except for one mild steel and one aluminum
model having corrugation angles of 62 deg. This means
that, strictly speaking, only one test datum for a mild steel
corrugated bulkhead model with a more representative
large corrugation angle exists. More test data on mild
steel corrugated bulkhead models with larger corrugation
angles are thus desirable.
Most collapse tests on single corrugations or corru-
gated bulkhead models were performed under water pres-
sure. As a result, the post collapse behavior of test models
could not be fully observed because the tests typically
needed to be stopped immediately after (and sometimes
before) collapse of the models to prevent failure in the
test facility. As a loading method, use of compressed air
would be another possibility which would make possible
the loading of test models into the post collapse regime,
so as to observe both post collapse as well as ultimate
limit state behavior.
In the uneven alternate hold loading condition for
bulk carriers carrying dense cargo such as iron ore,
shearing forces will normally be imposed in vicinity of
the hull girder cross section corresponding to the trans-
verse corrugated bulkheads. Even if the static shearing
forces in this case usually are to induce axial tension in
the corrugated bulkheads, depending on the sea state, the
total shearing force may in some cases possibly act so as
to induce axial compression in parts of the bulkhead,
which in turn can reduce the ultimate strength of corru-
gated bulkheads under lateral pressure. While such axial
compression may be insignificant in existing vessels, it
16 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
may or may not be so in future novel designs. However,
related work on the collapse strength of corrugated bulk-
heads under a combination of lateral pressure and axial
compression so far appears to be unavailable.
Thus the present authors performed a new series of
collapse tests on nine mild steel corrugated bulkhead
models in order to make possible new contributions to
some of the above mentioned problems. All models were
made by folding (or corrugating) fiat mild steel sheets
with the aid of a mechanical bending machine. The di-
mensions of steel sheets before folding were 1,560 mm in
length and 1,219 mm in breadth. Two kinds of corruga-
tion angle, namely 60 and 90 degree, were used, and so
the final breadth of the test models was either 1,125 mm
for a 60 degree corrugation angle or 750 mm for a 90
degree corrugation angle. The number of corrugations
(also called pitch) for all models is five. Three kinds of
plate thickness, namely 0.8 mm, 1.2 mm and 1.6 mm,
were tested. The a/c ratio for the models (see Fig. 8) was
about 1.0. The slenderness ratio of the corrugation flange
and web was in the range 1.7-3.0, and the column slen-
derness ratio for a single corrugation is in the range
0.41-0.55 which correspond to the range for actual cor-
rugated bulkheads in ships. A detailed description of the
tests is given by Paik, Thayamballi & Chun (1997). Some
noteworthy characteristics of the tests are:
9 Testing of mild steel corrugated bulkhead models
9 Testing of models with large angles of corrugation
typical of ships
9 Investigation of corrugation angle effects on collapse
behavior
9 Investigation of plate thickness effects on collapse
behavior
9 Investigation of loading condition effects on collapse
behavior
*Evaluation of collapse strength and post-collapse
behavior
9 Tabulation of results in a form suitable for verifica-
tion of guidance procedures for ultimate strength cal-
culation of corrugated bulkheads
Through this experimental study on nine mild steel
corrugated bulkhead models, the following conclusions
could be drawn:
1) The deflection pattern at the ultimate limit state of
the models was very similar to that observed by Caldwell.
The conclusion of Caldwell that the behavior of a single
central corrugation can be taken as representative of the
whole bulkhead, is thus reconfirmed.
2) It was noted that the ultimate limit pressure for a
particular model P60-1 with 60 degree corrugation was
roughly 40% of that for another particular model P90-1
with 90 degree corrugation. By making the corrugation
angle smaller, the overall breadth of a corrugation can be
made larger, resulting in apparent savings of material.
However, the test results indicate that the ultimate col-
lapse pressure load for the 60 degree corrugated bulkhead
may in some cases be only one third of a 90 degree bulk-
head. This would imply that in certain cases the corru-
gated bulkhead of a trapezoidal corrugation profile with
smaller angle can result in a heavier structure than that a
rectangular profile with its larger corrugation angle in
order to sustain the same magnitude of applied pressure
loads.
3) It was observed during the tests that the internal
resistive force dropped rapidly after collapse, implying a
sudden load shedding phenomenon which is of course
structurally undesirable. This observed behavior of the
models may in part be due to the fact that after initial
collapse of the corrugated bulkhead models, the applied
pressure tends to concentrate around the most deflected
point, resulting in further acceleration of the deformation.
Potentially counteracting this is the membrane action in
the model, which if the edge conditions are stable, should
increase the internal resistive forces in a sense. While
these aspects need additional investigation, it is for the
time being prudent to assume that the post-ultimate col-
lapse of corrugated bulkheads is likely to be rapid.
4) With increase in the plate thickness the collapse
strength of corrugated bulkheads significantly increases
as well. Even for the thinnest corrugated bulkhead models
under lateral pressure, sudden local buckling deflection of
plating (flange and web) did not take place before the
inception of collapse of the entire bulkhead. This would
imply that for purposes of predicting the collapse strength
of actual corrugated bulkheads having relatively thick
plates any effects of pre-existing deflection due to lateral
pressure may be ignored. It was also seen that with in-
crease in the thickness of corrugation flange / web, the
ultimate bending moment for a single corrugation of 90
degrees increases at a faster rate than that for 60 degrees.
This trend would imply again that barring any other prac-
tical considerations, a rectangular corrugation profile
could be more efficient than a trapezoidal profile with its
smaller angle of corrugation.
5) As previously noted, the collapse behavior of the
corrugated bulkhead models under axial compression was
investigated for the two different corrugation angles. The
tests were continued until crushing (folding) occurred.
The test results showed that axial compressive loads
would increase without occurrence of local buckling of
flange up until the ultimate strength of the whole corru-
gated bulkhead model was reached. Initially, unloading
follows after the sudden collapse, but due to the internal
contact of walls the internal forces may rise again. The
latter is a typical crushing (folding) response (without
Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
global bending detbrmation) which is observed in thin
walled structures under large compressive loads, such as
those for instance in ship collision.
6) The ultimate strength interaction relationship for
the corrugated bulkhead models subject to combined ax-
ial compression and uniform lateral pressure was ob-
tained. It was seen that the ultimate collapse strength of
the corrugated bulkhead could in principle be quite sensi-
tive to the presence of axial compression in addition to
lateral pressure. Traditionally the design of corrugated
bulkheads has been performed under lateral pressure
loads alone. In bulk carriers carrying dense cargo such as
iron ore, an alternate hold loading condition is common
and, as a result, large sectional shearing forces are applied
vertically at the vessel fore and aft locations of transverse
(corrugated) bulkheads. The still water sectional shearing
forces normally act as axial tensile loads, but the total
loads (including wave induced shear) may in some cases
possibly act in axial compression depending on the sea
state. Such axial compressive loads may significantly
affect the ultimate collapse strength of the bulkheads un-
der lateral pressure. While the relevance of this observa-
tion to actual ships needs further study, it is evident that
the coexisting axial forces in actual ships is small, simply
because the related crushing behavior is not usually ob-
served.
6.2 Theoretical Study
As shown in Fig. 13, corrugated transverse bulkheads
in dry cargo holds are usually designed to withstand three
load components, namely:
9 Lateral pressure due to dry cargo and / or flooding
water
| Carry-over bending moment resulting from overall
double bottom bending which is important in alter-
nate hold loading situations
9 In-plane axial force due to the net double bottom
pressure
The last load component is a funclion of cargo mass
and draft, while the first two load components are mainly
related to the cargo mass. The present authors derived a
simple analytical formulation for the first cut prediction
of the ultimate bending moment of corrugated bulkhead
cross section subject to lateral pressure loads (Paik,
Thayamballi & Chun 1997). An approximate relationship
between the bending moments and the applied pressure
loads at the ultimate limit state of corrugated bulkheads
was also derived (Paik, Thayamballi & Kim 1998).
Figure 14 represents a single corrugation that is a
proxy for the behavior of a corrugated bulkhead subject
to lateral hydrostatic pressure and end moments (e.g., due
to rotational restraints of adjoining structures). For sim-
17
 FD
Fig. 13 Applied loads on corrugated transverse bulkheads
Mo(B,- L ., ')Mo
,z
(a) Loading
(b) Elastic bending moment distribution
Fig. 14 A single corrugation beam under lateral pressure
plicity, the corrugation is modeled as a beam with con-
stant cross section (and thus constant bending rigidity). It
is assumed that its ends can move freely axially, implying
that membrane stresses are not developed. The lateral
hydrostatic pressure distribution with a trapezoidal pat-
tern is assumed to vary linearly between the bottom and
deck structures.
The end moments shown in Fig. 14 arise from the
constraints against angular rotation of the corrugation
cross section at the junctures of the bulkhead and the ad-
joining structure. They thus depend on the torsional ri-
gidity of the adjoining structures. The adjoining structures
such as deck stool, hatch end beams and upper stool
brackets at the upper end and bottom stool, shedder plate
and double bottom structures at the lower end are the
main members contributing to the rotational restraints.
18 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
It would be very desirable to properly evaluate the
end conditions for the corrugation in order to predict the
collapse strength more accurately. In this regard, based on
finite element studies for existing bulk carrier corrugated
bulkheads, Ivanov (1994) suggested simple expressions
for the rotational restraints at upper and lower ends of
corrugation in terms of the properties of the adjoining
structures.
In a design sense, rotational restraints at the upper
end may be practically regarded as zero, and further the
upper end support rigidity in the direction normal to the
pressure load direction should not be overestimated. On
the other hand, since the lower end is connected to heavy
adjoining structures (i.e., double bottom) one may be
tempted to assume a clamped end condition for the corru-
gation. However, as will be discussed later, the simply
supported end condition might be more appropriate even
at the lower end of corrugation, in lieu of actually mod-
eling the effect of adjoining structures, but with the carry-
over moment due to double bottom bending otherwise
considered.
Conceptually, when both ends of the corrugation and
any one point inside the span yield, a collapse hinge
mechanism is formed. Depending on the actual structure,
end conditions and loading, details of the formation of the
collapse mechanism will vary. A plastic hinge is formed
when the maximum bending moment reaches the ultimate
bending moment of the corrugation beam cross section,
with the corrugation flange / web in compression buck-
ling and the corrugation flange / web in tension yielding.
Based on a credible stress distribution over the cross sec-
tion of the corrugation at the ultimate limit state, and as-
suming that the entire material in compression of the cor-
rugation reaches its ultimate buckling strength while the
material in tension is in full yielding, we can derive (see
Paik, Thayamballi & Chun 1997) a simple ultimate
bending moment capacity formula of a single corrugation
by integration of the assumed stress distribution with re-
spect to the final neutral axis, the result being as follows:
g2
M , = Crof A f g + CrowA w sin qb d
+ cr,wA w sin qk ( d - g)2 + A/(d - g) (1)
where
M , = ultimate bending moment
Af , A,, = section area of corrugation flange or web
d = vertical height of corrugation web
g = final neutral axis at the ultimate limit state
~b = corrugation angle
troy, Crow= yield strength of corrugation flange or web
cr.f,ff.w = ultimate compressive strength of corrugation supported, and 2) the lower end clamped and the upper
end simply supported, with results as follows:
flange or web

In our study, the ultimate compressive strength of (1) Condition with both ends simply supported
corrugation flange or web (i.e., cr,f or a , . , ) was calcu-
lated by the formula (Paik & Thayamballi 1997a) M, = p---s {Xp2- Lxp) PB- ]gO
+ Lxt, - ~ ) (4)
-

or,, = [0.996+0.17fl 2] -~ (2)

O"o where
L
where X p "~ - - when PD =Ptt
2
~, = cr,r for flange I ~ ") ' 3 ' ' --
L p~ _ ~ PV~+ PD + PDP;~
= o-,w for web Xp--
P~ - PD 5
cro = Crof for flange
when P6, > PD
= Crow for web

orOan, (2) Condition with lower end clamped and upper end
f ~ simply supported
_a ~/~_~_~_ for web
= ~ W -- t w
M,, = xp{(L2 -Xp)PD + ( 2 L 2 - 3Lxt' + xap)Pz
t f , t., = thickness of flange or web (5)
6(2L - xp)
More recently, IACS adopted the following expres-
sion for predicting the ultimate bending moment capacity where xe is determined so that M,, takes the minimum
of the corrugation cross section, namely value.

M. = (0.5. Z;e "a,;e + Z,,," era,,,,) x I0 -3 kN-m (3)

2.0
where
Z;e,Z,, =section modulus of one half pitch corrugation,
in cm 3, at the lower end and mid-span of corru- 0 "90deg.] /
gations, respectively
cr,.;e,o-a,,, = allowable stresses, in N/ram 2, for the lower
end and mid-span of corrugations, respec-
~0
1.5

/o
tively
o 1.0
=or o -5 0.Smm
Go = minimum upper yield stress, in N/ram 2, of the ma-
terial
0.5

Both of the above noted formulae provide the ulti- //'-~ ~ 1.2mm
mate bending moments (not the ultimate applied pressure
loads) at the ultimate limit state for the corrugation cross
0.0 I I I I
section. To predict the corresponding ultimate applied 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
pressure loads it is necessary to derive the relationship 3
between the applied pressure loads and the bending mo- (Pu)experiment(kg/cm-)
ments at the ultimate limit state. The authors (Paik, Fig. 15 Comparison of the ultimate pressure loads from
Thayamballi & Kim 1998) derived such relationships for experiments with the new analytical formula,
two idealized end conditions, namely 1) both ends simply equation (1)

Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures 19

 Table 9 Types of CORBHD/FEM models

Model Structures Included in Modeling

Stool Upper Lower Shedder Deck Double
Type Corrugation plate stool stool plate bottom
I 0 X X X X X X
II 0 0 X X X X X
III 0 0 X X 0 X X
IV 0 0 0 0 X 0 0
V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A comparison of the above derived ultimate strength

formula, equation (1), with the experimental results from
our corrugated bulkhead model tests under uniform lat-
eral pressure; i.e., p~ = PD, can be made, assuming that
the end conditions of the test models are simply sup-
ported. Figure 15 compares the relevant theoretical solu- Cross deck ,~ , Upper stool
tions with the corresponding experimental results. The
comparisons shown indicate that the derived ultimate
strength formula agrees well with the test results. For the "41 ,it
I'"l iqi
models with larger thickness of corrugation flange and ]1 i ,

web, the formula tends to underestimate the ultimate Corrugation - - " " : , , . '
pressure load for a single corrugation; i.e., it is somewhat
, q ,i
pessimistic in a design sense. (One of the main reasons 't I
for this could be the fact that the corrugation ends were
assumed to be simply supported). In any event, from such Shedder plate X ~
theory versus experiment comparisons, the related mod- Inner bottom
Lower stool X
eling error (prediction accuracy) of the formula can be ,,, / Outer bottom
defined, whether for structural reliability assessment or Bottom girder ~ , ~ / ~
any other purpose.

6.3 Numerical Study

A special purpose nonlinear finite element program
CORBHD/FEM for efficiently analyzing the progressive
collapse behavior of corrugated bulkheads in detail was
developed by the authors, for accurately taking into ac-
count the influence of the boundary condition due to ad-
joining structures, e.g., deck and double bottom structures
(Paik & Thayamballi 1997b, Paik, Thayamballi & Kim
1998). The program automates the structural modeling of
the corrugated bulkheads and the adjoining structure.
Further, it uses special purpose finite elements for more
efficiently analyzing the elastic-plastic large deformation
behavior of such structures (Paik & Kim 1989).
As the representative extent of the analysis for corru-
gated bulkheads, a half pitch of corrugation is taken. Web
and half-flange of the corrugation are modeled by a num-
ber of 8 and 4 node shell elements. In the longitudinal
(vertical) direction of the corrugation, a total of 43 ele-
ments are employed. A relatively fine mesh is used at the
Fig. 16 A CORBHD/FEM model with all adjoining
structures (Model type V)
lower and upper corrugation ends in order to include the
deformation of the corrugation at the juncture of the ad-
joining structure more smoothly. Five types of structural
modeling for the corrugated bulkheads are automated
with or without adjoining structure, as indicated in Table
9. Figure 16 shows a CORBHD/FEM model including all
adjoining structures. As options the program can vari-
ously include the adjoining structure such as lower stool
top plate, upper stool bottom plate, shedder plates, deck
and double bottom which may significantly affect the
(boundary conditions for the) corrugated bulkhead be-
havior. As indicated in Fig. 17, two types of pressure load

20 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures

 into an adjacent hold of a bulk carrier can occur is by the
--~pol+-- rupture of a corrugated bulkhead and / or its boundaries
i
after the reference cargo hold has been flooded. There-
fore, it would be desirable for the structural analyst to get
information related to when and where rupture initiates
during the failure process fox"the bulkhead. With increase
in the applied pressure loads, the CORBHD/FEM pro-
I gram thus checks for the occurrence of first rupture at the
finite element level, considering that rupture occurs if the
total (accumulated) equivalent plastic strain reaches a pre-
defined critical rupture strain.
X To verify the accuracy of the CORBHD/FEM pro-
gram and also to investigate the influence of adjoining
structures on the collapse behavior of corrugated bulk-
ip. . heads, a bulkhead model P90-3 employing a 90 deg. cor-
Pressure may act on both of corrugation and inner rugation under uniform lateral pressure as tested by the
bottom or on corrugation alone. authors was analyzed by using the program.
Three types of structural modeling were considered.
Fig. 17 Pressure loading patterns available Since the original l:est models are composed of corruga-
tions plus minimal upper / lower stool plates (without
adjoining structures), the first type of the calculation
model was made to represent the original test model
(with-out adjoining; structures) by assuming the simply
>,~ 2.0
supported condition at both ends; i.e., no lateral deforma-
r tion and no rotational restraints. The second and third
types of the calculation model were constructed such that
v 1G-
the original test model is represented with artificial ad-
joining structures nominally similar to the double bottom
r
and deck of a vessel.
I/ In these initial calculations, the plate thickness of the
.~ 08 artificial adjoining structures was taken to be either the
M .... CORBHD/FEM same as or much larger than that of the corrugation and,
N /~" - -C- - Experiment I as a result the "adjoining structure" rigidity was either
O,,1
small or very large. In the former case it may be expected
that due to the weak artificial adjoining structures, while
O0 I t I I the rotation at the corrugation ends would to some extent
10 20 30 40 50
be restrained, out-of-plane lateral deformations could
Deflection at mid-span (ram) occur not only along the span but also at its ends. On the
Model with upper stool bottom plate and lower stool top other hand, in the latter case with the strong adjoining
plate only (simply supported condition at both ends) structures, out-of-plane lateral deformations as well as the
~) Model with all adjoining structures (small dimensions) rotation could in some instances be overly restrained at
@ Model with all adjoining structures (large dimensions) the corrugation ends.
Figure 18 shows these expectations to be true. It is
Fig. 18 Average pressure load versus deflection at mid- seen from the figure., that the numerical solution obtained
span, COPBHD/FEM versus experiment for the original model (i.e., without adjoining structures)
with simply supported edge condition agrees reasonably
with the experimental results. (There were minor differ-
patterns, one for trapezoidal pressure loads acting on cor- ences in bending stiffness between FEM and experiments
rugation alone, and the other for trapezoidal pressure due to the fact that in the tests lateral deformations oc-
loads acting on corrugation and uniform pressure acting curred even near the edges while in the analysis model,
on inner bottom panel are available. The water pressure they could not). In the calculations, the critical rupture
acting on the oute~" bottom panel is not specifically con- strain was assumed to 15%, but no rupture took place
sidered. until the model reached the ultimate strength. The results
One manner in which potential progressive flooding of Fig. 18 indicate that adjoining structures such as deck

S t r e n g t h of B u l k C a r r i e r S t r u c t u r e s 21
 6.0

~ , x Design formula with B.C.2 (upper bound)

5.0
t ........................................
[ ~ Model type V

~ - Model type III with B.C.2

4.0
/ /~W/~ Design formula with B.C. 1 (lower bound)
ra0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.0
/ / / ~ \ Model type III with B.C.1

/// ~\ ModeltypeIIwithB.C.1
2.0
/ \ Model type I with B.C.1

1.0
// [ B'CC'91"iBl~ rendsrsimply supp~
I B.C.2: Upper end simply supported & lower end clamped)
0.0 I I I I I I l I
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Deflection at mid-span (mm)

Fig. 19 Maximum pressure load versus deflection at mid-span for a hypothetical Capesize bulk
carrier corrugated bulkhead, as obtained by CORBHD/FEM and design formulae

and bottom structures can affect the stiffness and strength
of corrugated bulkheads. If the adjoining structures are
light, the lateral deflection at the ends can occur relatively
freely, although the rotation at the ends may to some ex-
tent be restrained. As expected depending on the degree
of rigidity of the adjoining structures, the relative accu-
racy of theoretical and / or numerical procedures which
model the corrugated bulkheads assuming idealized (e.g.,
simply supported) end conditions will vary compared to
reality.
Subsequent to the test model related calculations of
Fig. 18, the CORBHD/FEM program was applied to cal-
culate the ultimate strength of a transverse corrugated
bulkhead of the hypothetical Capesize bulk carrier when
subject to the triangular pressure loading pattern for the
corrugation alone; i.e., with PD = 0. Figure 19 represents
the ongoing relationship between the maximum pressure
at the lower end of corrugation and the deflection at the
mid-span of corrugation as the analyses proceeded with
various model types indicated in Table 9. Based on the
results of the above noted calculations for the test model
and the Capesize bulkhead (see Figs. 18 and 19), the fol-
lowing observations may be made:
1) In a hypothetical case with small rigidity of ad-
joining structures, lateral deformation can occur at the
corrugation ends even though the end rotations are
somewhat restrained, the resulting strength and stiffness
may in some cases be different from those for the (usual)
simply supported edge condition. In general, this would
imply that in the direct strength calculations for corru-
gated bulkheads under lateral pressure, the end conditions
for lateral deformation as well as rotational restraints at
both ends should be accounted for correctly.
2) The presence of shedder plates can raise the
strength and stiffness of corrugated bulkheads, see Fig.
19. The effects of the shedder plates on the ultimate
strength of bulk carrier corrugated bulkheads may should
not be neglected.
3) Due to adjoining structures; i.e., deck and double
bottom structures, both the stiffness and the strength of
corrugated bulkhead of actual bulk carriers can possibly
increase, meaning that rotational restraints due to the ad-
joining structures can be large, even though the out-of-
plane deformation at corrugation ends may be non-zero.
4) A direct calculation model where both ends of the
corrugation are simply supported is one possibility if we
wished to avoid modeling the adjoining structures. How-
ever, since the lower part of the corrugation is in reality
connected to relatively rigid double bottom structures,
another possibility may be to assume end conditions
which are clamped at the lower end and simply supported

22 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures

at the upper end. To establish such simplified direct cal-
culation procedures and verify their relative accuracy
needs further study, for which the nonlinear finite ele-
ment program from this study should prove quite useful.
5) In the calculations of Fig. 19, where the critical
rupture strain w~,s assumed to be 15%, no fracture was
indicated in any of the elements until the corrugated
bulkhead reached the ultimate strength. The potential for
progressive flooding into an adjacent hold is contingent
on such fracture, the crack formation related to which
apparently appears in the post-ultimate strength regime in
this particular case. Further study is needed to determine
the generality of this particular observation, especially in
way of fillet welds.
The ultimate pressure loads as obtained by the theo-
retical formulae, e.g., equations (I) to (5), may also be
compared with the CORBHD/FEM solutions as shown in
Fig. 19. The ultimate pressure loads indicated are ob-
tained by substituting the ultimate bending moments; i.e.,
equations (1) or (3), into equation (4), for the case of the
both ends simply supported condition, or into equation
(5), for the case of the lower end clamped and the upper
end simply supported condition. It is seen from Fig. 19
that the ultimate pressure loads of the hypothetical bulk
carrier corrugated bulkhead, as obtained by CORBHD /
FEM considering the rigidity of real adjoining structures,
fi~ll somewhere between the two bounding approximate
solutions mentioned above. But note that the present
CORBHD/FEM solutions have been obtained for the load
case of Fig. 17.b; i.e., pressure loads on the corrugation
alone. If one considers the load case of Fig. 17.a with
inclusion of the water pressure acting on the outer bottom
panel in some manner, the ultimate strength can approach
the lower bound because the effectiveness of rotational
restraints of bottom adjoining structures may then de-
crease. From a strength point of view alone, the condition
with both ends simply supported would thus in some
cases be appropriate. Additional needed investigations are
continuing in this regard, to better assess the inclusion of
the "carry-over" bending moment effects from adjoining
structure within such a scheme.
As a final point of interest regarding corrugated
bulkhead strength, we should point out that a traditional
weak link in such bulkhead structures in some past bulk
carriers is the top plate of the transverse bulkhead stools,
which take connection stresses from the corrugated bulk-
head plating when subject to bending. In the past, experi-
ence has shown that through thickness properties (yield
and ultimate strength) of the stool top plate were in some
cases inadequate, e.g., 30 to 40% of the nominal values.
Thus currently, "Z" grade steel with acceptable through
thickness properties is typically used for such top plating
exceeding a certain limit thickness.
Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
7. CORROSION MODELS FOR BULK CARRIER
STRUCTURES
To establish cost effective maintenance and repair
plans and also to predict the time dependent ultimate
strength and related structural reliability of aging vessels,
probabilistic corro,;ion rate estimation models for primary
member regions are necessary. The corrosion rate of ship
hull structures is influenced by many factors including the
corrosion protection system and various operational pa-
rameters. The corrosion protection systems that may be
employed are coatings and anodes. The operational pa-
rameters concerned include the percentage of time in
ballast, type of cargo carried, frequency and method of
tank cleaning, maintenance and repair, etc. The theoreti-
cal prediction of the corrosion rates for the structural
members is not an easy task. An easier alternative is to
base the rate prediction on statistical analysis of past data
from comparable situations. In this section, significant
recent work on developing useful probabilistic corrosion
models for transverse bulkheads (by Yamamoto & Ike-
gami 1996) and longitudinal hull structure of bulk carriers
(by Paik, Kim & l_,ee 1998) is reviewed, and related re-
sults are summarized.
Until a few years ago, the ore holds of bulk carriers
were normally uncoated. More recently, however, the
related practice ha:~ changed, and bulk carrier hold re-
gions including transverse bulkhead and side frames are
now coated as indicated in Fig. 20. This aspect is impor-
tant to adjusting the corrosion rate models, where based
on the old practice, for consistency with the new. It also is
[_
J
Coating Coating ~'
I
extent extent ~q
I
I
1
1
1
(a) Transverse Bulkhead (b) Side Frame
Fig. 20 Extents of coatings in bulk carrier holds
23
a reason why the models presented here need ongoing
refinement in the future.
The models summarized treat the time dependent
wear as corrosion related. There is evidence that such an
assumption may be somewhat pessimistic for the early
periods of the stool where chance events related to grab
damage may be more evident, in the sense that the corro-
sion rates predicted from the model exceed actual gaug-
ing data.
Corrosion data and corrosion rate models such as
those presented here are potentially useful for many pur-
poses, including adjusting design corrosion margins to
better suit experience, and in predicting the reliability of
bulk carrier structures as they age (The latter application
will be discussed later).
7.1 Corrosion Model for Transverse Bulkheads
A probabilistic corrosion model of bulk carrier trans-
verse bulkheads has been recently developed by Ya-
mamoto & Ikegami (1996). Their model is based on an
analysis of survey records for 50 conventional bulk carri-
ers of 10,000 DWT and over, placed in service after
1986. There were about 1,100 thickness measurement
data for deep tank bulkheads, about 2,300 for watertight
bulkheads and about 4,000 for the lower stool where cor-
rosion was typically more severe. Because the resulting
model has been shown to relate well to actual time de-
pendent data for thickness diminution due to corrosion,
and it is the only such model thus far available for trans-
verse bulkheads in bulk carriers, relevant aspects of the
model are reviewed below.
The rate of thickness reduction due to corrosion in a
coated structure over time is conditional depending on (a)
loss of effectiveness of coating, (b) initiation of corrosion
damage, and (c) progress of the corrosion damage. The
life of coating is the duration of the time between its ap-
plication and the time when it looses its effectiveness.
The life of the coating may be considered to be a nor-
mally distributed random variable. Yamamoto & lkegami
indicate the mean value of coating life to be 2.75 years
for the deep tank bulkheads, 5.5 years for the ore hold
watertight bulkheads, and 1.5 years for the stool region.
The COV (i.e., coefficient of variation) of coating life is
approximately 0.4 (Emi et al. 1993).
The transition time; i.e., the duration between the
time of coating effectiveness loss and the time of corro-
sion initiation, is shown to be an exponentially distributed
random variable with mean of 3.25 years for the deep
tank bulkhead, 2 years for the watertight bulkhead, and
1.5 years for the stool region. Consistent with the expo-
nential distribution, the associated COV of the transition
time is 1.0.
The progress of the pitting corrosion that follows
may be defined by a wear function which describes the
24 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
relationship between the depth of corrosion and the
elapsed time after the generation of the pitting point:
r = q. U 2 (6)
where r = depth of corrosion (ram)
T = elapsed time (years), and
q , c 2 = empirical coefficients
Yamamoto & Ikegami provide analytical ways of es-
timating the time dependent diminution due to corrosion
using their model. However, the required probability dis-
tribution of the depth of corrosion as a function of the
elapsed time can in practice be established in an alternate
manner by simulation wherein the coating life is sampled
first, the transition time is sampled next, and then the
depth of corrosion is found as a function of the elapsed
and other time.
In such calculations using equation (6), the exponent
c2 may be taken to be deterministic, the suggested value
being 1/3-1.0 (Kondo 1987). The coefficient c 1 is taken
to be a log-normally distributed random variable. Ya-
mamoto & Ikegami indicate that means and COVs of the
coefficient q are 1.105 and 0.5 for the deep tank bulk-
head, 1.474 and 0.5 for the watertight bulkhead, and
1.289 and 0.43 for the stool regions, respectively. Their
results indicate that during early vessel life, the corrosion
depth is small, but the associated COV is large. For in-
stance, at 5 years, the mean and COV of the corrosion
depth are about 0.3 mm and over 2.0. Later in life, the
mean increases while the COV decreases. For example, at
15 years, the mean is about 3 ram, while the associated
COV is about 0.5. Essentially, it is early in life that the
coating breakdown and transition time statistics matter.
Later, the variability in the depth of corrosion seems to be
driven almost entirely by the variability in the parameter
e I defining the wear function; i.e., equation (6).
The age dependent corrosion degradation statistics
calculated as above using the transverse bulkhead corro-
sion rate model suggested may also be readily applied for
other related purposes, e.g., to predict the time dependent
probability distribution of ultimate strength and the
time dependent structural reliability of corrugated trans-
verse bulkheads. Studies in this regard are ongoing.
7.2 Corrosion Model for Bulk Carrier Longitudinal
Strength Members
A probabilistic corrosion rate model for the longitu-
dinal strength members of bulk carriers has been devel-
oped by the authors (Paik, Kim & Lee 1998). The model
is based on available statistical data for measured corro-
sion damage of existing bulk carriers. A total of 7,503

0.15/0.18
0.06 /
Bulk Carrier Corrosion Rates
M E A N / S T A N D A R D D E V I A T I O N (ram/year)
0.09/ 0.1()k
] ~ 0 13/0 I0
0.08,0.0, I , .141.13
Fig. 121 A probabilistic corrosion rate estimation model for bulk carriers (Paik, Kim & Lee 1998)
gauging data for 44 existing bulk carriers were used. Cor-
rosion rates were investigated for sixteen primary struc-
tural member regions in bulk carriers.
As previously noted, the progress of corrosion would
normally depend very much on the degradation of anti-
corrosion coating. Therefore, the corrosion model devel-
oped was divided into two parts, namely one that estab-
lishes the life of' coating and another that describes the
progress of corrosion, where it is assumed that the con'o-
sion would start immediately after the loss of coating ef-
fectiveness. It is known that the mean value of coating
life in cargo holds is normally 5 to 10 years (Emi et al.
1993). In fact, 5 years of coating life may be considered
to represent an imsatisfactory situation, while 10 years
would be representative of a relatively more desirable
state of affairs. Also, according to Emi et al. (1993), the
COV of the normally distributed coating life is about
40%.
Equation (6) may now be used to estimate the corro-
sion degradation of the longitudinal strength member
regions. In this case, the exponent c2 may also be treated
as deterministic with the pessimistic value of 1.0. The
probability function of the coefficient c I is assumed to
follow the Weibull distribution as indicated by Emi et al.
0993).
By analyzing, the measured corrosion data for longi-
tudinal primary member regions of bulk carrier structures
available, the sta6stics of the coefficient c I (e.g., depth of
corrosion since cL~ = 1.0), namely the mean and standard
deviation, were established. Figure 21 summarizes the
Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
i
! 0.07/0 07
i
i
J \ o.o3/a15
i
UPPER WING
UPPER S L O P 1 N ~ TANK SIDE SHELL
TANK
\
X
i SIDE SHELL
~, //~xA r
; LOWERSLOPING.A~I I
/ ~.=Tj.~.__j.~lr : ;t 0.03]__t7E SHELL
BOTTOM PLATE
computed results for the mean and standard deviation of
the corrosion rate (e.g., uniform thickness reduction due
to corrosion in mm per year) for each and every primary
member region of a bulk carrier. Based on the results, the
following observations can be made:
1) The corrosion rate for the boundary plating be-
tween ballast water and cargo regions; i.e., the inner bot-
tom, hopper and top side tank bottom plating is higher
than that for the bottom and bilge plating. This may be
due to the fact that the former are exposed to both ballast
and cargoes, while the bottom and bilge plates are ex-
posed to ballast water alone as the external surface is
normally fully coated.
2) The corrosion rate for the inner bottom plates is
relatively large. This may be due to the fact that the inner
bottom is subject to wear not only due to its being the
boundary between ballast and cargo regions, but also due
to mechanical action of grabs, etc. and also accelerated
local corrosion as a horizontal surface.
3) The corrosion rate of the side shell between the
hopper tank and the top side tank is slightly higher than
that of the shell in way of the hopper tank. This implies
that in some cases, the cargo concerned may be more
corrosive than ballast water, due in part to the humidity,
temperature and type of cargo (acidity) involved.
4) Deck and side shell plating in way of top side
tanks can be relatively heavily corroded compared to the
other external surfaces. This may be due to more frequent
occurrence of wet and dry cycles in the ullage areas of the
top side ballast tanks and the heat from the sun.
25
 5) Most of the longitudinal stiffeners in a ballast tank 0.10 --

show quite similar corrosion rates except for the deck 0.98 --
longitudinal stiffeners. The relatively higher corrosion
0.96 --
rate observed for deck longitudinal stiffeners may be due
to similar reasons as for the deck plate, e.g., the heat from
0.94 -- sagging
=o
the sun. X 0.92--

0.90 -
.

. COLLAPSE S T R E N G T H R E L I A B I L I T Y OF 0.88-
B U L K C A R R I E R H U L L G I R D E R CONSIDER-
0.86 - repair
ING C O R R O S I O N
0.84 -
.......... norepair
A reasonably accurate and fast procedure for the reli- 0.82 -

ability analysis of aging vessels, based on the ultimate 0.80

' ' ' ' l ' ' ' ' l ' ' ' ' l ' ' ' ' l ' ' ' ' l ' ' ' ' l
collapse of the ship hull girder, and taking into account 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
the degradation of primary members due to general corro- Ship Age (year)
sion has been developed by the authors (Paik, Kim, Yang
& Thayamballi 1998, Paik, Thayamballi, Kim & Yang Fig. 22 Variation of the ultimate strength mean value with
1998). In outline, the procedure is as follows: The prob- age
abilistic characteristics of the corrosion rate for the mem-
ber regions are defined by using the corrosion rate model
presented in section 7. The time dependent ultimate ca- 10

pacity model of ship hulls under vertical bending is for-

mulated by using an analytical formula derived by Paik & 0.8
Mansour (1995), taking into account the effects of corro-
sion degradation for each primary member region. Local
load effects, e.g., due to normal pressure, are currently 9- 0.6-
Innerbo~x
~
not included. The probabilistic model for the extreme
vertical bending moment in the vessel life time (e.g., 20 0 0.4-
years) is established using a simplified direct wave load r~

prediction method developed by Loukakis & Chryssos-

tomidis (1975) and an IACS design guidance formula for
still water bending moment (Nitta et al. 1992). The time
variant reliability index associated with hull girder col-
lapse is then calculated by using the second order reli-
ability method (SORM).
As an illustrative example, the procedure developed
is applied to assessment of ultimate strength reliability of
the hypothetical Capesize bulk carrier. Through the
analysis, the trends of section modulus and ultimate hull
strength with increase in vessel age can be investigated.
The probabilities of steel renewal due to corrosion for
different parts of the vessels can be predicted. The ex-
pected reduction of the ultimate strength reliability level
with vessel age can be obtained.
In the particular calculations shown, it is considered
that corrosion initiates 5 years from the time of new
building. Two types of repair conditions for heavily cor-
roded local members are included, namely either that they
are repaired or renewed to original state, or they are not.
These obviously represent the two hypothetical extreme
decision limits. Figure 22 shows mean values of the time
dependent ultimate hull strength of the vessel, with their
members corroding at the rates indicated in Fig. 21. Each
and every member in the hull cross section is in this cal-
0.2-
0.0 .... I .... I .... I''''1 .... I ....
5 10 15 20 25 30
ShipAge(year)
Fig. 23 Probability of first repair for selected members of
the hypothetical Capesize bulk carrier
culation assumed to be subject to corrosion once it starts
(albeit at different degradation rates), and under the re-
newal criteria used in these particular calculations, no
renewal was necessary until the vessel was more than 20
years of age, see Fig. 23. The assumption of uniform cor-
rosion is mostly unrealistic in usual ship structures, but is
certainly an extreme (worst case) possibility. The ne-
glected effect of spatial variability in corrosion may be
significant, and thus no complete confidence may be
placed on the results which purport to pessimistically
show more than 10% hull girder strength degradation
during the vessel life (It is to be noted that IACS require-
ments normally limit such degradation to 90% of the
minimum required hull girder section modulus).

26 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures

 Under the pessimistic assumptions used, certain parts
of the structure continue to remain in their corroded state
even when other parts are renewed to their original state,
because of relative differences in their renewal criteria.
This is why in ~he present calculations, the local plate
renewals when they occur do not apparently return the
global strength parameters to their original values even in
an average sense. These results may be expected to be
qualitatively different if the corrosion were to be local-
ized to selected parts of the structure in a probabilistic
manner rather than considered to affect large parts of the
entire structure uniformly. The procedures developed in
this paper could of course be applied using more realistic
assumptions related to the spatial variability of corrosion,
provided related data are available. In any event, the fol-
lowing conclusions can be drawn from our present stud-
ies:
l) The section modulus and ultimate strength of cor-
roded hulls can potentially decrease with time, but the
degree of decrease is controllable through proper tech-
nology application, inspections and steel renewal criteria.
2) The effects of spatial variability in corrosion can
be significant. The spatial variability of corrosion rates at
various points in :service time needs quantification.
3) The probabilistic corrosion rate estimation models
for longitudinal strength members of bulk carrier struc-
tures as previously described are useful for evaluating the
time variant hull girder strength reliability of aging ves-
sels. The models, however, may need further develop-
ment as more extensive corrosion data become available.
4) By appropriate renewal of corroding local mem-
bers, the level of ultimate strength reliability of the hull is
increased immediately after a repair. With properly se-
lected renewal criteria relating in part to the minimum
plate thickness required, or equivalently, the permissible
plate thickness reduction of primary members subject to
corrosion, and also in part to the required global hull
girder performance, a pre-specified level of structural
safety can be maintained.
5) Consideration of the interacting local and global
strength degradation effects in a corroding hull is possible
using the ultimate hull strength based reliability proce-
dure suggested. From such a procedure, one can obtain a
nominal measure of likelihood of hull girder failure, with
direct and explicit consideration of various load, strength
and corrosion related uncertainties on a statistical basis.
6) The various applicable performance considera-
tions must be fully taken into account in such calcula-
tions. For example, local renewal limits may address local
degradation in buckling performance. Present determinis-
tic criteria typically address these aspects through slen-
derness ratio limits. It is noted that the calculations of Fig.
21 do not directly address local strength.
Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
In summary, the procedures developed should be
useful for assessing the ultimate strength reliability of
aging bulk carriers taking into account the degradation of
members due to corrosion. With further research and de-
velopment, which is ongoing, the procedure should also
be useful as an aid for the establishment of first principles
based cost effective maintenance plans for specific ves-
sels involving corrosion. By effectively applying such
technology at the new building stage, a design can be
rationally optimized for new building as well as life cycle
costs.
9. F A T I G U E P E R F O R M A N C E OF BULK C A R R I E R
SIDE FRAME ,STRUCTURES
9.1 Calculation Outline
A study of the fatigue performance of bulk carrier
side frame structures is now made (Liu & Thayamballi
1997), as side she]il failure is a potential mode of water
ingress into a cargo hold. The example calculations ad-
dress the hypothetical Capesize and Panamax vessels pre-
viously described in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively.
The Capesize calculations are made for a draft of
18.7m and speed of 14.7knots, while the Panamax calcu-
lations use a draft of 13.3m and speed of 15.5knots. The
envelope wave induced bending moments, shear forces,
and external hydrodynamic pressures were calculated for
the two vessels, from hold No.4 through hold No.1 for-
ward, using the load component formulae of the ABS
Rules (1997).
The calculations showed that the external pressure
loads are larger toward the forward locations of the vessel
in comparison to midship. From mid-hold 2 to mid-hold
1, the waterline pressure anaplitudes were estimated to
vary from 18 to 23 ton/m 2 for the Capesize, and 15 to 21
ton/m 2 for the Panamax. The external dynamic pressures
at the bilge were about 40% of the stillwater waterline
values. The local draft used in the calculations was found
to mainly affect the static and not dynamic pressures.
Based on the dynamic pressure load study, side shell
fatigue is checked in hold No.l, in the vicinity of the aft
transverse bulkhead of the hold. Specifically the side
frame lower connection details at the intersection of the
side shell and the sloping plate of the lower (hopper) tank
are of interest because that location is affected by wave
profile changes in both the laden and the ballast condi-
tions. It also happens to be a known location of side shell
failure in some vessels. The fatigue process at that loca-
tion can be considered to be driven primarily by external
dynamic pressure if" one assumes that the ore in the laden
condition is left as poured, although in our fatigue analy-
sis we have included the additional effect of stresses due
to secondary bending of the double bottom structure
arising from the clifferential (internal minus external)
27
 S: Scantling, L" Laden, HB: Heavy Ballast, LB- Light Ballast
/ !

JI

i
Item Panamax Capesize L
Hold Frame (mm, max.) 833 880
Floor (mm, max.) 2500 2640 HB
Hopper Web (mm, max.) 2500 2640

LB __ Top S i d e T K W e b (mm, max.) 4167 5280 LB

I !

Panamax Capesize

Fig. 24 Location of side shell with respect to still water draft

double bottom pressures as well. 9 Weibull shape parameter

9.2 Loading Conditions for Fatigue Analysis
To judge the alternating load magnitudes to be used
for fatigue analysis, an idea of the location of the struc-
tural detail (lower end of side frame) with respect to the
laden and ballast waterlines is of interest. For the
Capesize, the mean still water draft in an alternate hold
loading ore laden condition is 17.2m (even keel). The
typical draft in a heavy ballast condition is 10.9m (10.3m
forward). In the case of the Panamax, the design draft is
12.2m, the scantling draft is 13m, a typical light ballast
draft is 6.2m (4.5m forward), and a typical heavy ballast
draft is 8.1m (7.6m fwd). These drafts are shown plotted
in Fig. 24, which indicates that for all practical purposes,
the still waterline in the vessels varies roughly between
the top and bottom connections of the side frame.
The comparative fatigue analysis that we undertake is
of the simplified type used in SafeHull, with minor modi-
fications as noted earlier. To calculate the fatigue damage
for a structural detail by such a method, we need to know
the following:
9 Extreme stress range
Using these the long term distribution of the stress
range can be defined. Once that long term distribution
and the associated number of fatigue stress range cycles is
available, the fatigue damage may be calculated using the
appropriate S-N curve for the structural detail being
studied. In our study, we will pessimistically use a design
(e.g., lower-bound) S-N curve rather than a curve repre-
senting mean or average fatigue capacity.
The extreme stress range in a nominal 20 year life is
calculable from the corresponding extreme pressure
ranges. The extreme pressure range and hence the ex-
treme stress range corresponding to the laden and ballast
cases are first calculated, and the larger of the two taken
as the extreme stress range to be used in the fatigue
analysis. In our case, the larger stress was estimated to
result from the laden pressure distribution, which is con-
sistent with the relative locations of the still water lines in
the laden and heavy ballast cases and also the fact that the
laden and heavy ballast side shell extreme dynamic pres-
sures are not vastly different. The pressure in the head
seas case was assumed to be the 20 year extreme pres-
sure, which adds some uncertainty to the stress range es-

28 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures

 Table 10 Fatigue analysis parameters for side flame
No. Item Capesize Panamax
Side Pressure
1 15.3 13.8
(ton/m:)
Internal Pressure
2 3.3 down 2.3 down
(ton/m 2)
3 Weibull Parameter 0.9 0.9
4 Cycles (20 years) 0.5 x 108 0.5 x 10s
~ with SCF
Ewith SCF
/ 9.3 Fatigue Damage Estimates
E with SCF
~ wilh SCF
(a) Panamax (b) Capesize
Fig. 25 Side shell details in way of bulkhead No. 1
timates in the sense that the other directions are not spe-
cifically considered. This could have been avoided, but
the head seas assumption in severe waves was felt to be
adequate for comparative purposes.
In the laden condition, the vertical distribution of
side shell pressure at the longitudinal location of interest
is idealized as uniform, with a value given by the average
of the values occurring at the top and bottom of the frame
ends (20.4, 10.2 for the Capesize, 18.4, 9.2 for tile
Panamax). This results in a uniform external pressure of
15.3 ton/m 2 for the Capesize and 13.8 ton/m 2 for the
Panamax, compared to the waterline values of 20.4 and
18.4; i.e., roughly 75% of the waterline values. The ac-
companying net dynamic pressures on the double bottom
structure were also estimated and included in the fatigue
calculations, but their effect for these particular vessels is
small, meaning that subsequent fatigue estimates may be
considered to be driven mostly by the side shell pressure
alone.
The Weibull shape parameter values defining the
long term stress range distribution for the side shell hold
Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
frame are estimated from Section C2.2 of the Bulk Car-
rier Guide, now part of the ABS Rules (1997). These are
0.912 for the Cape, size and 0.931 for the Panamax, so a
Weibull shape parameter of 0.9 was eventually used in
both vessels. The number of load cycles (zero to extreme
amplitude) is nominally taken as 0 5 x 108 in 20 years,
which should be adequate for comparative purposes al-
though specific values for pressure processes at specific
locations may difti:r somewhat from the assumed value.
The various fatigue analysis parameters are shown in Ta-
ble 10. The side frame spacing is 880 mm for the
Capesize and 830 mm for the Panamax, the plate thick-
ness being about 22ram in either case. Figure 25 illus-
trates related side shell details.
As previously noted, fatigue calculations are made
for the bracket lower end of the frame where it joins the
sloping plate of the hopper tank. The fatigue procedure
used is essentially the same as that suggested in the Safe-
Hull bulk carrier roles, except that three structural cases
are considered, namely the gross structure (i.e., no corro-
sion in 20 years), a 10% corroded structure (i.e., 10%
corrosion in 20 years), and a 20% corroded structure (i.e.,
20% corrosion in 20 years). Tile time variant nominal
stress range is calculated per the SafeHull side frame re-
sponse model. Cak:ulations for the Capesize do not give
credit to any bracket flange plate at the lower end, while
the calculations for the Panamax do, because of an inte-
gral bracket. The UK DEN E curve is used with an SCF
of 2.
The resulting damage estimates (e.g., by Miner's
rule) are shown in Table 1l. Fatigue lives for a Miner
sum of unity are also shown. Using the same S-N curve
and SCF, the sensitivity of fatigue damage estimates to
decrease in side .,;hell thickness, decrease in bracket
thickness, and decrease in side frame scantlings were also
investigated. The results supported the view that the side
frame scantlings and the end bracket thickness affect the
fatigue damage significantly, and that the damage is rela-
tively insensitive to the thickness of the side shell plating.
The following conclusions could be drawn from the vari-
ous fatigue calculations and related sensitivity studies that
we performed:
1) The side pressures calculated for the Capesize are
about 10% greater and the stiffener spacing is about 6%
more, meaning that the Capesize pressure force is about
15% higher than tile Panamax. This, together with the
added effect of the difference in unsupported span (which
is 15% larger in the case of the Capesize than the
Panamax) gives rise to fixed end moments at the Capesize
side frame that are nearly 50% greater compared to the
29
 Table 11 Comparative fatigue damage estimates, E curve and SCF=2

Vessel Corrosion Stress Range (kg/mm z) 20 Year Miner Sum Fatigue Life (Years)
Gross 29.69 0.61 20+
Capesize 10% 32.99 1.47 14.3
20% 37.12 2.24 !2
Gross 21.09 0.18 20+
Panamax 10% 23.43 0.46 20+
20% 26.37 0.72 20+

most affecting the difference is the effective flange used

Hold frames of 5 bulk carriers / with the bracket.
(Total measuring points = 622) / 3) Fatigue estimates for the particular Panamax are
acceptable. For the Capesize considered, the fatigue esti-
C = 8 Xl 0"4/T3 fl~ / mates may be unacceptable for corrosion levels exceeding
E NK DATA /O ~ / 10%.
X
oaAxu WEB / 9 / 4) For these two particular vessels, fatigue was the
o only failure mode that indicated lower safety margins for
Xil,~,l'A FACE / x : / the Capesize in relation to the Panamax. Yielding, buck-
e- ling and ultimate strength were also checked in the same
~ study, but in those failure modes this particular Capesize
e- actually fared better than the Panamax.

In summary, in the context of side shell fatigue in

\ X = 0.IT(1 +C'T 3)
5 10
Ship age T (Years)
Fig. 26 Corrosion damage of bulk carrier side frames
(Akita 1984)
Panamax (71.81 ton-m versus 44.79 ton-m). For identical
end details, the fatigue stress range is proportional to the
fixed end moment, and the fatigue damage varies roughly
as the stress cubed. Hence for identical end details one
would expect the Capesize side frame fatigue damage to
be more than three times that of the Panamax. In these
particular vessels, the difference is even greater because
the end details are obviously not identical.
2) In the two vessels / locations considered, the side
frame end connection details are not similar as was previ-
ously noted. The features of the end bracket are quite
important to fatigue performance. In general, an integral
bracket with an effective flange plate (such as that used in
the Panamax here) is far superior in terms of fatigue per-
formance than the non-integral bracket (which we as
sumed for the Capesize here). The calculation parameter
bulk carriers, the importance of corrosion and fatigue of
the end bracket connections should be emphasized. Lev-
15 els of corrosion in way of bulk carrier side frame have
occasionally been large, particularly in Capesize vessels
that tend to carry mostly coal and iron ore, see for exam-
ple Fig. 26 which shows corrosion data for bulk carrier
side frames as reported by Akita (1984). Also, in the par-
ticular vessels considered, the fatigue loading in the
Capesize is about 1.5 times the Panamax, due to the ac-
cumulated effect of unsupported span, frame spacing, and
local pressure differences between the two vessels, To
what extent such an observation would hold for Capesize
and Panamax bulk carriers in general needs to be studied.
Another aspect to be highlighted relates to account-
ing for corrosion effects in the fatigue calculation proce-
dure itself. Because of the complex nature of local struc-
tural behavior, and the sensitivity of fatigue lives to
stresses / corrosion, it would seem that fatigue damage
calculation procedures need to account for corrosion in a
time dependent manner (much as we did in the above
analysis). The question of how best to define an equiva-
lent "net" structure for design purposes in such a case
requires further study. Also, considering the relatively
high corrosion rates evident in some cases in the past, the
strength of fillet welds at the side frame end connections

30 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures

needs further study as well.
10. DESIGN C O N S I D E R A T I O N S F O R B U L K CAR-
R I E R SAFETY
Some important design considerations for improving
the safety and reliability of bulk carrier structures subject
to age and accidental flooding as obtained from various
facets of our study are noted below.
10.1 Control of Bulk Carrier Losses
Bulk carriers that start out being clearly adequate to
the demands of the sea and rigors of operation do not
always remain so with time. The average age of vessels
lost each year is generally 15 years or more. The loss rate
for aging Capesize bulk carriers is apparently more than
that of Panamax. A significant proportion of the vessels
were lost while carrying heavy iron ore in alternate holds.
According to our study of trade share estimates it is evi-
dent that Capesize vessels do carry either iron ore or coal
during a significant portion of their life, and coal is ad-
mittedly a corrosive type of cargo. In addition, cargo
holds in vessels built prior to the 1990s were uncoated.
Hence if one we:re to look for a potential initiator of these
bulk carrier losses, one could not blame any one factor,
but rather, a combination of them, including the rigors of
operation and human factors.
To reduce bulk carrier losses to acceptable levels,
one must address the problem on many fronts. Neither
age, nor alternate hold loading, nor iron ore as a cargo,
nor the carriage of coal can be blamed in isolation. It is of
course true that in particular cases, homogeneous hold
loading of dense., cargo instead of alternate uneven hold
loading may reduce the magnitude of extreme hull girder
loads. Similarly, a good corrosion protection scheme will
significantly delay the initiation and progress of corro-
sion. All effects of age on structural performance can be
monitored and controlled by maintenance and ongoing
inspection. With regard to side shell and hatch covers as
potential points of water ingress, structural, operational
and maintenance measures may be possible as means of
improving safety. It also follows that vessels must be
loaded and operated in a manner that is consistent with
their design assumptions. In this regard, improved termi-
nal operations have an important role to play.
10.2 Load Effects due to Accidental Flooding
In an accidental cargo hold flooding condition, the
hull girder loads are in general amplified. When the for-
ward hold is flooded in laden condition, the change in
draft and trim forvcard may initially not be dramatic so as
to be readily detected in heavy weather. But here again, it
does take a progression of circumstances (i.e., water in-
gress, loss of transverse bulkhead) to cause vessel loss.
Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
So both control of potential water ingress primarily
through side shell or occasionally the hatches, and
strengthening of bulkheads are viable options to improve
vessel safety.
In our example calculations, potential water ingress
in a Capesize hold loaded with iron ore is found to be
significantly more than in a similarly loaded Panamax,
mainly because of differences in the residual loaded hold
volume. The resulting increase in shear forces forward
(close to bulkhead No.l) and bending moments aft (in
hold No.4) over the intact values is somewhat greater in
the Capesize than the Panamax (by factor of 1.6 versus
1.4 in still water shear force and 1.9 versus 1.7 in the
bending moment).
In our example calculations, stresses were obtained at
six local locations, namely the deck at side, the bottom
plate in way of the outer double bottom girder, the inner
bottom plating at transverse bulkhead stool, the transverse
floor at mid-hold, and the side girder one offcenterline, at
bulkhead stool. With regard to the finite element calcu-
lated stresses in the hull, the bending moment case was
the most importanl:, followed by the shear force case. The
pressure load case was less significant.
The largest stress increases due to cargo hold flood-
ing occurred at the lower part of side shell in way of
bulkhead No.1 and were 40% above intact values in case
of the Capesize and 30% tbr the Panamax. The safety
factor against yiekiing was generally less for the Panamax
rather than the Capesize. This reflected a difference in
yield strength between the two vessels. Whereas the
Capesize as designed is all H36 steel, the Panamax is all
mild steel except fi~r the H32 steel deck region. Hence the
effect of flooding on the safety factor against yield should
be carefully interpreted. Further, the foregoing observa-
tions pertain to a particular set of vessels, and thus no
claims as to their generality can be made. The effect of
vessel size may however bear further investigation.
10.3 Corrosion Degradation
In a number of damage cases, it has been reported
that corrosion and fatigue cracking damages had been
suspected in prima~y member regions. In our calculations,
it has been obserw.~d that the corrosion damage could re-
duce ship hull girder ultimate strength as well as the
buckling strength of primary members. The corrosion rate
of hull structures i,; influenced by many factors including
the corrosion protection system and various operational
parameters. The corrosion protection systems usually
employed are coatings with or without anodes. The op-
erational parameters include the percentage of time in
ballast, frequency and method of hold cleaning, mainte-
nance and repair, etc.
To assess corrosion damage tolerance a priori, it is
necessary to have an corrosion rate estimate model for
31
 individual member regions, and our studies have contrib-
uted in this regard. We have studied the strength charac-
teristics of hull structures considering corrosion using
such models. Our calculations for the Capesize bulk car-
rier show, for example, a 10% or more reduction in ulti-
mate hull girder strength reduction due to corrosion dur-
ing the vessel life. These calculation models need to be
improved, however, with regard to the consideration of
spatial extents of corrosion in a more realistic manner.
Currently, uniform corrosion over large structural extents
is assumed in such calculations including the ones de-
scribed here.
10.4 Fatigue Cracking Damage
In our example calculations, the fatigue of the side
shell connection detail forward was checked. The fatigue
loads for the Capesize were found to be larger than the
Panamax, due to a combination of difference in local
(side shell) pressures, frame spacing and the length of the
side frame between supports. The effectiveness of the
flange of the end bracket (which is more with an integral
flange) also made a considerable difference in the fatigue
damage estimates. The fatigue damage was found to be
quite sensitive to the scantlings of the side frame and end
brackets used and to levels of corrosion. Explicit fatigue
design of the related hull girder details is thus a necessity.
10.5 Corrugated Transverse Bulkhead Strength
In the past, consistent with the International Load
Line Convention, transverse bulkhead locations in ships
were normally selected to prevent margin line immersion
with a cargo hold accidental flooded. Traditionally, the
design rules given by classification societies have used
nominal hydrostatic loads in the intact condition as design
loads for the bulkhead. As previously noted, there is the
possibility that the collapse of corrugated transverse
bulkheads and subsequent progressive flooding may have
been a factor in some of the recent bulk carrier losses. In
this regard, the enhanced bulkhead requirements recently
adopted by IACS should help improve both levels of
safety in design and the long-term maintenance of such
bulkheads.
Ideally, the strength of the transverse bulkheads in an
accidentally flooded cargo hold must be sufficient to
avoid collapse resulting in possible progressive flooding.
For bulk carrier safety, the set of design lateral pressure
load cases for the corrugated transverse bulkheads should
then include the condition that one adjacent compartment
has been flooded. If the maximum applied bending mo-
ment along the span of corrugation becomes larger than
the ultimate bending moment the corrugated bulkhead
will presumably collapse. The maximum (extreme)
bending moment acting on the corrugated bulkheads in a
flooded condition would be calculated by classification
32 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
society rules. And the ultimate strength of the corrugation
could be adequately predicted by using simple design
formulae using idealized (simply supported) end condi-
tions such as those recently adopted by IACS, as our
comparisons of such formulae against experimental re-
suits confirm.
We should note that the safety factors required for
design against an accidental loading situation are nor-
mally much less than that required under normal opera-
tion, reflecting the rarity of the accidental loading. In
direct calculations related to the strength of bulkheads
under accidental (flooding) loads, the end conditions of
the corrugations should thus be carefully accounted for,
considering the rigidity of adjoining structures at both
ends. For this purpose, the non-linear finite element
method will be a useful tool as we demonstrated.
Through our studies, we have developed and validated
such tools for potential future use.
10.6 Buckling Strength
Buckling strength of some primary members subject
to accidental flooding together with corrosion may some-
times be important. In our example calculations, the shear
buckling strength of the side shell forward was checked in
way of bulkhead No.l, using IACS unified formulae,
although no details are given in this paper. Again, the
safety factors in the flooded condition were greater for
the Capesize than the Panamax example vessels. The
safety factors corresponding to the 20% corroded case
were only marginally adequate as may be expected for
such levels of presumed uniform corrosion. Because of
the potential sensitivity of buckling strength estimates to
initial deformations, there may exist a future need to
study the effects of in-service deformations such as those
due to mechanical unloading processes on buckling
strength, in order to help clarify the situation.
10.7 Hull Girder Ultimate Strength
Due to age and maintenance related factors, e.g., cor-
rosion, fatigue cracks and other structural deterioration,
the residual strength of hull structures may decrease sig-
nificantly. Even if the vessels may be able to initially sur-
vive accidental hold flooding, they can eventually foun-
der by hull girder collapse resulting from increase of ex-
treme hull girder loads together with decrease of the re-
sidual strength, particularly of parts if the structure (e.g.,
the side shell) are lost.
Technology is now emerging to assess the ultimate
bending and shear strengths of the hull girder in as-built
and corroded conditions against the applied loads, both
intact and flooded. The same technology may make pos-
sible the design of structures with "graceful" post ultimate
strength characteristics. Such considerations imply that
ultimate strength may be a better basis for structural de-
sign, particularly for an accidental scenario (Ghose et al.
1995, Paik, Thayamballi & Che 1996, Paik, Thayamballi
& Yang 1998). It is worth pointing out that hull girder
ultimate strength estimates are sensitive to the level of
initial deformations, lateral pressure and also to initial
damage (e.g., corrosion and fatigue degradation). Further,
better safety estimates may need more accurate prediction
of the loads involved than we are presently able to. Addi-
tional studies related to the various aspects potentially
affecting strength sensitivity and accidental load predic-
tion are then to be recommended.
1 I. CONCLUD][NG REMARKS AND FURTHER R &
D NEEDS
As a consequence of several bulk carrier losses dur-
ing the last decade, the safety assessment of bulk carrier
structures has recently been of interest. Extensive investi-
gations have thus been carried out with a view to reduc-
ing such vessel incidents. As a result, most recently, bulk
carrier structure requirements have been enhanced by
IMO and IACS.
This paper has reviewed and summarized recent re-
search and development in several important areas related
to the strength and reliability of bulk carrier structures in
the intact, damaged and flooded conditions. Certainly,
there still remain various areas in which new or continu-
ing additional work is necessary, some of which are as
follows:
I) Fatigue and corrosion are the fundamental deter-
minants of age related ship conditions. In aging vessel
structures, corrosion damage and fatigue cracks can exist
together. Therefore, studies that consider the simultane-
ous influence of both corrosion and fatigue cracking
damage on the ultimate strength of hull structures are
desirable. A simplified direct procedure for predicting the
ultimate strength of ship hull structures considering the
degradation due to corrosion and fatigue cracking damage
is needed for ewduating the strength reliability of aging
vessel structures. Since ship hulls are normally subject to
combined loads, such a procedure must adequately ac-
count for them. Due to progress of corrosion and fatigue
damage in the structure, the sequence and potential cou-
pling of failure modes may change, which also need to be
taken into consideration.
2) Existing corrosion rate estimation models for hull
structures are useful for the evaluation of time variant
strength reliability of a vessel considering degradation
due to corrosion. However, such models have so far been
developed based on limited number of corrosion correla-
tion parameters. The corrosion models should then be
continuously updated and expanded. In particular, the
treatment of pitting (which one speculates to be an in-
Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
creasingly common type of corrosion that is likely to be
found in ship structures in the future) and the spatial ex-
tent of corrosion needs further investigation.
3) To effectively evaluate the collapse strength reli-
ability of corrugated bulkheads in the damaged and
flooded condition:z, similar attention is desirable tbr the
ultimate strength of co~Tugated bulkheads as well, consid-
ering both corrosJton and fatigue effects as appropriate.
The related dewdopment of procedures and criteria
should take into ',account the potential influence of ad-
joining structures at the upper and lower ends of the cor-
rugation.
4) One of the possible scenarios for water ingress
into the cargo hoi[ds is through the failure of the hatch
covers themselves. Due to the dynamic pressure of green
water in heavy weather, hatch cover failure can poten-
tially occur, but not unless the water head so applied sig-
nificantly exceeds the head representing hatch cover ulti-
mate strength. In view of some recent controversy in this
regard, clarificatory investigation of the loads and the
strength aspects of this particular aspect of bulk carrier
design would be desirable in the future.
In conclusion., we should note that structurally and
operationally, bulk: carriers are more complex than tank-
ers, and the dynamic loads imposed on them are more
intricate. Previous SafeHull studies identified five struc-
tural areas and conditions unique to existing bulk carriers
that warrant further investigation, namely transverse cor-
rugated bulkheads in cargo holds, vertical hold frames,
cross deck structures, fore body structures, and cargo
overloading (Liu 1994). The various efforts reviewed in
this paper clearly illustrate that significant progress has
been made in all these fronts in the past few years, and
that the related research continues at a desirable pace.
ACKNOWLEGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the American Bureau of
Shipping and the Pusan National University for support-
ing this research. "]'he comments of D. Liu, J.S. Spencer,
J.F. Conlon and H.H. Chen on this paper are acknowl-
edged. The use of SafeHull technology in various parts
of the study is gratefully acknowledged. The effort of
Sung Geun Kim, a graduate student of Pusan National
University, for preparing the tables and figures is appreci-
ated. The views expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and not necessarily those of the institutions the
authors are affiliated with.
REFERENCES
ABS (1995). Guide for dynamic based design and
evaluation of bulk carrier structures, American Bureau of
33
Shipping, SafeHull Project, March.
ABS (1997). Rules for building and classing steel vessels,
American Bureau of Shipping.
Akita, Y. (1984). Reliability analysis in strength of ships
(lst report), J. of the Society of Naval Architects of Ja-
pan, Vol. 155, pp. 207-214 (in Japanese).
Brown, D. (1997). Rapid failure, rapid sinking, Proc. of
International Conference on Design and Operation for
Abnormal Conditions, RINA, Glasgow, October.
BTCE (1993). Structural failure of large bulk ships, Bu-
reau of Transport and Communication Economics, Report
85, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra,
December.
Byme, D. and Evans, J. (1998). Hatch covers- Failures on
laden bulk carriers in heavy weather with reference to
current design practice, Proc. of International Conference
on Design and Operation of Bulk Carriers, Paper No. 12,
RINA, London, 30 April & 1 May.
Caldwell, J.B. (1955). The strength of corrugated plating
for ships' bulkheads, Trans. RINA, Vol. 97, pp. 495-522.
Clarkson Research (1996), Shipping review and outlook,
Spring.
Cramer, E.H., Loseth, R., Olaisen, K. and Valsgard, S.
(1995). Fatigue design of ship structures, Proc. of the 6th
International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships
and Mobile Units (PRADS'95), Vol. 2, Seoul, September,
pp. 2.898-909.
Emi, H., Yuasa, M., Kumano, A., Yamamoto, N., Arima,
T. and Umino, M. (1993). A study on life assessment of
ships and offshore structures (3rd report): Corrosion con-
trol and condition evaluation for a long life service of the
ship, J. of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol.
174, pp. 735-747 (in Japanese).
Faulkner, D., Corlett, B.J. and Romeling, J.U. (1996).
Design for hatch covers and coamings for abnormal
waves, Proc. of International Conference on Watertight
Integrity and Survivability, RINA, London.
Frystock, K. and Spencer, J. (1996). Bulk carrier safety,
Marine Structures, Vol. 33, No. 4, October, pp. 309-318.
Ghose, D.J., Nappi, N.S. and Wiernicki, C.J. (1995). Re-
sidual strength of damaged marine structures, Ship
Structure Committee, Report No. SSC-381.
34 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
Hattori, K., Sakato, T., Iwahashi, Y. and Mikami, K.
(1984). A consideration of the phase difference between
the wave induced stresses for longitudinal and transverse
Strength, J. of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan,
Vol. 156, pp. 273-282 (in Japanese).
HMSO (1995). Lord Donaldson's Assessment
(Derbyshire), Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London,
December.
Ivanov, L.D. (1993). Bulk carriers- Brief analysis of
structural failures based on department data files, ABS R
& D Department Internal Report, American Bureau of
Shipping, New York, November.
Ivanov, L.D. (1994). Bulk carriers- Strength criteria for
corrugated bulkheads, ABS Internal Document, American
Bureau of Shipping, New York, July.
Kawamura, A., Hashimoto, K., Inoue, S., Kuramoto, Y.
and Toki, N. (1986). Ship structure design based on syn-
thetic evaluation of wave loads (1 st report), J. of the So-
ciety of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 160, pp. 246-258
(in Japanese).
Kawamura, A., Hashimoto, K., Inoue, S. and Kuramoto,
Y. (1987). Ship structure design based on synthetic
evaluation of wave loads (2nd report), J. of the Society of
Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 161, pp. 242-249 (in
Japanese).
Kondo, Y. (1987). Prediction method for corrosion fa-
tigue crack initiation life based on a corrosion pit growth
mechanism, Trans. of the Japan Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Vol. 53, No. 495, pp. 1983-1987 (in Japa-
nese).
Liu, D. (1994). Advanced technology enhances ship
safety, ABS Annual Report, pp. 18-22.
Liu, D., Jan, H.Y., Chen, H.H., Scotto, F.J. and Akiyama,
A. (1995). Recent development of design criteria for hull
structures of bulk carriers, Proc. of the 6th International
Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Mobile
Units (PRADS'95), Vol. 2, Seoul, pp. 2.883-2.897.
Liu, D. and Thayamballi, A.K. (1997). The durability of
ships considering fatigue cracking. J. of Ship and Ocean
Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, The Society of Naval Archi-
tects of Korea, October, pp. 57-72.
Loukakis, T.A. and Chryssostomidis, C. (1975).
Seakeeping series for cruiser stem ships, Trans. SNAME,
Vol. 83, pp. 67-127.
LR (1997). World casualty statistics, Lloyd's Register.
Mano, H., Nishihara, T. and Kawabe, H. (1976). A study
on the wave loads of bottom structure under the influence
of cargo, J. of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan,
Vol. 140, pp. 157-164 (in Japanese).
Nitta, A., Arai, H. and Magaino, A. (1992). Basis of
IACS unified longitudinal strength standard, Marine
Structures, Vol. 5, pp. 1-21.
Paik, J.K. (1994). Hull collapse of an aging bulk carrier
under combined longitudinal bending and shearing force,
Trans. RINA, Vol. 136, pp. 217-228.
Paik, J.K. and Kim, C.Y. (1989). A simplified finite ele-
ment method for the ultimate strength analysis of plates
with initial imperfections, J. of the Society of Naval Ar-
chitects of Korea, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 24-38.
Paik, J.K. and Mansour, A.E. (1995). A simple formula-
tion for predicting the ultimate strength of ships, J. of
Marine Science and Technology, The Society of Naval
Architects of Japan, Vol. 1, No. 1, December, pp. 52-62.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K. and Che, J.S. (1996). Ulti-
mate strength of ship hulls under combined vertical
bending, horizontal bending, and shearing forces, Trans.
SNAME, Vol. 104, pp. 31-59.
Paik, J.K. and Thayamballi, A.K. (1997a). An empirical
formulation for predicting the ultimate compressive
strength of stiffened panels, Proc. of the Seventh Interna-
tional Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
(ISOPE'97), Vol. IV, Honolulu, May, pp.328-338.
Paik, J.K. arid Thayamballi, A.K. (1997b).
CORBHD/FEM: A special purpose nonlinear finite ele-
ment computer program for the ultimate strength analysis
of corrugated bulkheads, Report of Joint PNU-ABS Re-
search Project on Ultimate Strength of Corrugated Bulk-
heads, Pusan National University Report, May,
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K. and Kim, S.G. (1998). The
influence of adjoining structures on the ultimate strength
Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
of corrugated bulkheads, Proc. of the 7th International
Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Mobile
Units (PRADS'98), The Hague, September.
Paik, J,K., Thayamballi, A.K. and Chun, M.S. (1997).
Theoretical and experimental study on the ultimate
strength of corrugated bulkheads, J. of Ship Research,
Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 301-317.
Paik, J.K., Kim, S.K., Yang, S.H. and Thayamballi, A.K.
(1998). Ultimate ,;trength reliability of corroded ship
hulls, Trans. RINA, Vol. 140, pp. 1-18.
Paik, J.K., Kim, S.K. and Lee, S.K. (1998). A probabilis-
tic corrosion rate estimation model for longitudinal
strength members .of bulk carriers, Ocean Engineering,
Vol. 25, No. 10, pp. 837-860.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Kim, S.K. and Yang, S.H.
(1998). Ship hull ultimate strength reliability considering
corrosion, J. of Ship Research, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 114-
125.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K. and Yang, S.H. (1998).
Residual strength assessment of ships after collision and
grounding, Marine Technology, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 38-
54.
RINA (1996). Derbyshire- The search, assessment and
survey, The Naval Architect, The Royal Institution of
Naval Architects, May, pp. 44-48.
Shama, M.A. (1995). Ship casualties- Types, causes and
environmental impacts, Alexandria Engineering Journal,
University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Vol. 34, No. 2.
Turan, O. and Vassalos, D. (1994). Dynamic stability
assessment of damaged passenger ships, Trans. RINA,
Vol. 136, pp. 7%104.
Yamamoto, N. and Ikegami, K. (1996). A study on the
degradation of coating and corrosion of ship's hull based
on the probabilistic approach, Proc. of the Offshore Me-
chanics and Arctic Engineering Symposium (OMAE'96),
Vol. II, pp. 159-166.
35
 Discussion
Douglas Faulkner, Member
The question of bulk carrier safety is so important that it
does seem an opportunity has been lost by the organizers in
arranging for Papers 1 and 3 to be presented simultaneously in
different rooms and not sequentially; it is for this reason that
I (and no doubt others) am not able to personally read this con-
tribution and compliment Prof. Paik and Dr. Thayamballi. Their
excellent paper continues the very welcome sequence of their
recent publications supported by the American Bureau of Ship-
ping.
My own discussion attempts to redirect attention away from
what may now be called conventional analyses such as those
presently employed by class societies toward the response to
the highly nonlinear wind and wave systems which actually sink
most ships, that is, toward the real sea. Leaving aside human
errors in the navigation and operation of ships, there are three
basic hazards arising from rough weather which can sink a ship:
(a) breaking their backs through inadequate strength
(b) flooding and foundering through poor watertight in-
tegrity
(c) capsize due to insufficient roll stability
These weaknesses are mainly design- and sometimes con-
struction-related. But losses may also be induced by machin-
ery or equipment failures which often cause the ship to be-
come beam on to the prevailing weather, thus facilitating loss
scenarios (b) and/or (c).
Back breaking seldom occurs at sea and yet scenario (a)
still occupies much of our attention but with wave loads equiv-
alent to no more than 10.75 m wave height. Once RO/RO fer-
ries lose their watertight integrity they can then be very vul-
nerable to capsize, as the traveling public now realize. There
has been a spate of bulk carrier losses since about 1980. These
ships are generally very stable, so they are mostly lost through
flooding scenario (b). The most vulnerable structure to col-
lapse and therefore flood is the side plating and stiffening in
older single-skin ships and hatch covers and coamings in all
bulk carriers.
Regarding hatch covers, they can occupy 30% or so of the
upper deck area, and yet their strength to withstand green sea
actions is usually no more than 10% of the capability of the
rest of the deck. This anomaly must surely be put right, espe-
cially as casualty data and theory (Faulkner, Corlett and Romel-
ing, 1996) support the gross inadequacy of the present hatch
cover rules. Estimates show that 30 or more seamen serving
in bulk carriers lose their lives every year through this cause
alone. And now we have confirmation that this was the fun-
damental weakness that led to the loss without trace of the Cape-
sized bulker Derbyshire in 1980 (Williams and Torchio 1998,
Faulkner 1998a).
The northeast seaboard of North America and Canada is re-
ferred to as the graveyard of the Atlantic, and the Northwest
Pacific between Japan and Papua, New Guinea, is referred to
as the graveyard of the Pacific; the latter accounts for nearly
30% of all shipping losses;The common denominators for these
regions are the occurrence o~ extreme revolving tropical storms
(hurricanes and typhoons) and the occurrence of opposing cur-
rent and wave systems. Extreme temperature changes also oc-
cur on the Northeast wall of the Gulf stream. All of these con-
ditions lead to steep elevated waves whose:
9 height H, often exceeds 25 m
9 crest elevations can be 0.6 H to 0.7 H
9 mean crest front slopes approach the wave breaking limit
of 0.6
36 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
It has therefore been suggested recently that additional ex-
treme survival conditions need to be defined and applied for the
safe design and operation of all ships (Faulkner and Williams
1996, Faulkner and Buckley 1997). The need for more refined
satellite measurements of wind and wave have very recently
been defined in order to provide better data on wave profiles
and crest velocities, and in particular for long-crested wave
fronts (Faulkner 1998b).
It is stressed that near-breaking wave conditions occur rea-
sonably frequently in such conditions, and it may not be widely
appreciated that crest velocities can exceed the normal wave
celerity defined by ),/T by 2 to 4 times. Green Sea impact pres-
sures are then much higher (~2 effect) and this is certainly not
considered in the present design of hatch coamings, bridge
fronts, and other vertical structures. Again, casualty data show
that substantial damage does occur in such structures, often 10
m to 20 m and sometimes up to 30 m above the MWL.
These remarks in no way detract from the value of this ex-
cellent paper. They are offered to suggest that we are not at pre-
sent designing for conditions which actually do sink ships, and
that universities and the research departments of ship classifi-
cation societies as represented by the authors should be exam-
ining survival design as a matter of urgency. Arguing that
weather routing ensures that such storms are avoided is naive
in the extreme. With the exception of car carriers, such prac-
tices are driven by economy and not by ship safety, as any ship-
master would tell you.
Additional references
Faulkner, D. (1998a). An independentassessmentof the sinkingof the
M.V. Derbyshire, Transactions, SNAME, Vol. 106.
Faulkner, D. (1998b). Definingthe ocean environmentfor the safe de-
sign and operation of ships, Keynote Address, COST Conference, Provi-
sion and Engineering/OperationalApplicationsof Ocean Wave Spectra,
Paris, September 21-25.
Faulkner, D. and Buckley, W.H. (1997). Critical survival conditions
for ship design, Proceedings, RINA InternationalConference,Design and
Operation for AbnormalConditions,Glasgow, October 21-22.
Faulkner, D. and Williams, R.A. (1996). Design for abnormal ocean
waves, RINA SpringMeetings (with full discussionin RINA Transactions,
PartA, Vol. 139, 1997).
Williams, R.A. and Torchio, R. (1998). M.V. Derbyshire surveys,
UK/EC Assessors' Report, DETR EnvironmentTransport Regions, March
1988 (ISBN 1-85112-286-0).
John B. Caldwell, Member
Many naval architects have often believed that the design
of watertight transverse bulkheads was one of the more straight-
forward aspects of ship structural design. It is now clear that
this is not the case; and their correct design has now been rec-
ognized as a crucial factor in ensuring satisfactory standards
of safety for ships. Hence the authors have performed a valu-
able service in giving prominence to this feature of their ex-
tensive research into bulk carrier strength and reliability. Also
by focusing on the ultimate strength properties of corrugated
bulkheads, their work will help towards a more rational for-
mulation of bulkhead design rules and procedures, properly
based on limit state, rather than limiting stress design.
The authors kindly refer to this writer's work on this topic
carried out more than 45 years ago, and the tests described in
the paper form a valuable extension of that earlier work. For
vertically corrugated bulkheads on which the predominant load-
ing is lateral hydrostatic pressure, there appears to be four limit
states to be considered in developing a design:
1. Overall failure due to the troughs collapsing as beams
bending between upper and lower supports. Hinges may form
due to plasticity combined with buckling of the compressed
parts of the corru~,ation;
2. Shear failure of corrugations near upper and lower sup-
ports;
3. Premature failure due to local buckling of the compressed
parts of flange and web, leading rapidly to loss of trough bend-
ing strength; and
4. Local failure of flange plating (or web, if that is wider)
under the applied pressure, leading to 3-hinge bending failure
of these elements of the troughs.
Mode 2 above is only likely to be of concern in short span
bulkheads under very high lateral pressures. Modes 1 and 3
are discussed quite fully in the paper. However, rather litlle is
said about mode 4; and, in the writer's view, this can have an
important influence in the design of corrugated panels.
It can be shown that mode 4 is likely to be more important
than mode 3 if the design ultimate pressure exceeds approxi-
mately 0.6x yield stress squared divided by Young's modulus;
and this will generally be the case for large bulk carriers. This
possible limit state tends to restrict the width of flange and web,
and encourages the sue of designs in which these widths are
roughly equal, leading to trough forms which are more likely
to be trapezoidal than rectangular. Indeed, by carrying out an
early kind of design optimization using the above considera-
lions the writer showed, in Caldwell (1961), that a design with
a trough angle of .about 58 degrees and web width 1.11 times
flange width could be weight-optimal. Hence the authors' view
that rectangular troughs should be preferred to trapezoidal
troughs seems open to question. Certainly the comments in Sec-
tion 6 of the paper about the relative strengths of these alter-
native forms need to be debated. With modern optimization
techniques, the design problem of selecting optimum values
of trough dimensions and pitch (which is not the number, but
the spacing of troughs) could perhaps be formalized so that more
definitive guidance: could be given to designers. Perhaps the au-
thors could clarify their opinions on this matter?
Additional reference
C a l d w e l l , J.B. (1961). N o t e s on the structural d e s i g n o f w e l d e d ships,
Proceedings, Symposium on Welding in Shipbuilding, Institute of Weld-
ing, London, pp. 14-22.
Sverre Valsg&rd, Member
The authors are', to be commended for a most comprehen-
sive paper covering a lot of ground and containing a wealth of
useful information.
The basic structural design of bulk carriers has been kept
unchanged for quite some time. Although some double-side de-
signs have been built, the dominating design is with transverse
framed single-skin construction between the hopper and top
wing tanks. The structure is rather flexible with no longitudi-
nal bulkheads supporting the double botton~. Tl+.e same basic
configuration is used for all sizes of vessels.
Further, design optimization has in most cases taken away
every second web frame in the top wing tanks leading to spans
of the deck strips of up to 6 m. Keeping in mind that the deck
strips act more or less as single, deck panels, the inherent re-
dundancy of these parts of the vessel is much less than in the
double bottom structure. Hence, deck strips may have a quite
marginal compressive strength, making the deck construction
sensitive to sagging overloads as well.
Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
Bulk carriers are: the workhorses of the seas and are subject
to quite rough handling. The day-to-day wear and tear result-
ing from rough handling, such as grab unloading etc., will grad-
ually take its toll on the vessels. Corrosion and fatigue play
important roles in the aging process as well. Hence, with a
normal "maintenance by breakdown" philosophy, age becomes
a parameter. This is illustrated by statistical data for the IACS
fleet of vessels as shown in Fig. 27 (Ekenes et al 1996). This
study is based on casualty data relating to heavy weather, heavy
cargo and age.
Traditionally, design codes as Classification rules implic-
itly use the concept of Limit States. Buckling and yielding are
examples of extreme loads which are usually considered to have
a return period of 20 years, and are defined as Ultimate Limit
State (ULS) conditions. Fatigue evaluation, on the other hand,
is defined as a Fatigue Limit State (FLS) condition and is as-
sociated with day-to-day loads. These are very useful concepts,
but should not always be looked at in isolation as interactions
may occur. As an example, the loss of the bow of Neptune
Sapphire off South Africa in the 1970s occurred because of a
combination of buckling of the deck due to excessive bow flare
loads leading to tension overloading in the bottom which made
the whole bow fall off.
It may well happen that a failure starts as a fatigue crack.
When subjected to an extreme overload a large-scale rupture
may occur. This is one possible initiating event for accidental
flooding of bulk carrier holds, e.g., the side shell cracks due to
fatigue leading to water ingress of the hold. If the transverse
bulkhead(s) does not stand up to the increased pressure the ad-
jacent hold(s) is filled, and the ship either sinks due to lack of
floatability and/or most probably breaks her back due to over-
loading. Another initiating event may be hatch cover failure due
to shipping of green seas.
1.0E-01
lral
S-
1.0E-02
s__
=
-~, 1.0E-03
O
L,, ~_
I,d
g i 0E-04
~r
1.0E-05
I.OE-06 .
I I0 100
Nuni~r of fatalities, N
Fig. 27 Risk diagram for bulk carrier losses
37

Fig. 28 Capesize bulk carrier in irregular seas.
Nonlinear SWAN simulation
The paper discusses the above aspects and offers a quite
interesting case study of the effect of accidental flooding on
two conventional single-hull bulk carrier designs--a Capesize
and a Panamax vessel. The still water effect of forward hold
flooding and mid-hold flooding is studied showing that the
larger Capesize vessel is more affected by hold flooding than
the smaller Panamax vessel. The still water loads increase with
up to 60% for shear and 95% for bending moments for the Cape-
size and 40% and 70% for the Panamax, respectively. These
are quite substantial increases which combined with the wave
loads may easily exceed the extreme design load values.
The authors have apparently, like many others, faced the
problem that the effect of hold flooding on the wave loads could
not be properly calculated with linear hydrodynamic wave load
programs, and have therefore assumed the wave loads in the
flooded condition to be equal to the wave loads in the intact
condition. This may not necessarily be correct as the flooded
hold(s) will significantly change the ship's mass distribution,
trim and draft. This, however, calls for a new generation of non-
linear hydrodynamics programs capable of taking the relevant
physical parameters into account. One such possibility is the
SWAN program, (Kring et al 1996). Figure 28 shows a snap-
shot from a nonlinear computer simulation of a Capesize bulk
carrier in irregular seas. This type of computer tool holds
promise for future, more precise investigations.
The authors present an interesting experimental and theoret-
ical investigation of the strength of transverse corrugated bulk-
heads. In the numerical analysis a limiting value of plastic rup-
ture strain of 15% is included in the nonlinear FEM model. I
strongly support the physical thinking behind such an approach,
the idea being that plastic "hinges" will develop in the corruga-
tions as a combined action of short wave buckling in the com-
pression flange followed by plastic rupture due to high local
strains on the tension side. This is actually the same mechanism
(chain of events) as with Neptune Sapphire when she lost her
bow ,~.smentioned earlier. This kind of "hinge" failure will hap-
pen at the lower bulkhead stool leading to water ingress in the
adjacent hold. This is probably why the IACS formula only al-
lows for 50% of the nominal bending capacity at the lower stool.
Due to weld imperfections tension rupture failure invari-
ably start at welds in welded steel structures. For normal bulk-
head thicknesses scale effects should probably lead to a lower
plastic rupture strain than the 15% used here. Admittedly, this
to a certain extent depends on how the limiting plastic strain
criterion is implemented in the FEM code.
38 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures
I support the authors' view that the integrated hull bending
moments and shear force capacities are better suited for over-
all collapse strength assessment than the strength of single struc-
tural elements in the cross section and therefore should be used
for intact as well as accidental strength check scenarios. In
Andreassen et al (1998) ultimate hull girder capacity as well
as local strength of bulk carrier hull girders are examined. For
given coating qualities and maintenance strategies future steel
replacement and associated Net Present Value (NPV) of repair
costs are calculated using a probabilistic analysis process (us-
ing the Nauticus Life Cycle Cost (LCC) program with Monte
Carlo simulation) accounting for the uncertainties in the input
parameters.
The same corrosion model as in the present paper was used
in Kim (1997). It is shown that if damaged coating is properly
maintained, (or a very good coating quality is used) and steel
renewal is carried out as required due to local requirements,
the reduction in hull girder moment capacity up to 30 years of
vessel age will be on the order of 7 to 10%. Moreover, if the
"missing" deck frames are put back in place the Hull Girder
Capacity in sagging will increase up to about 20%. This is a
quite substantial improvement and provides a better balance be-
tween Hull Girder Capacities in sagging and hogging.
Additional references
Andreassen, E., Kim, S-K. and Valsg~d, S. (1998). Developmentof
ultimatehull girdercapacity,Proceedings, InternationalConferenceon De-
sign and Operation of Bulk Carriers, April 30-May 1, London.
Ekenes, M.L., Astrup, O.C., Ronald, K. and Gran, S. (1996). Statisti-
cal data for bulk carrier casualties where structural failure may have been
a factor, Det Norske Veritas, Report no. 96-2042.
Kim, S-K. (1997). Ultimatestrength reliabilityassessment of corroded
ship hulls, Departmentof Naval Architectureand Ocean Engineering,Pu-
san National University,Pusan, Korea, June.
Kring, D., Sclavounos,P., Vada, T. and Braathen, A. (1996). Nonlin-
ear ship motionsand wave-inducedloads by a Rankinemethod, Proceed-
ings, 21st Symposiumon Naval Hydrodynamics,Trondheim.
Robert J. vom Saal, Member
The authors are to be commended for this significant con-
tribution to our understanding of the causes and cures for the
recent rash of bulk carrier failures. One of the frustrations of
the ship design profession is the inability to determine the root
cause of the most interesting accidents, and this paper shows
how many different scenarios must be considered.
There are some areas of the paper where some clarification
appears desirable. First, Table 2 on page 1-4 gives the average
age of various classes of bulk carriers at loss. This statistic is
only meaningful in comparison to the average age of the total
fleet of each class, i.e., was the average age of lost ships greater
or less than the average age of ships not lost?
Second, Figs. 9.b and 9.c on page 1-9 show no apparent re-
lationship between corrugation geometry and ship length. Cor-
rugation geometry generally seems more closely related to cor-
ruga-,'ion length than to ship length. Could the authors rework
these figures to plot the corrugation geometry against corruga-
tion length rather than ship length?
Third, the paragraph on page 1-23 discussing Fig. 19 seems
to be saying that neglecting the bottom shell pressure loads is
nonconservative because the seawater pressure reduces end fix-
ity. In fact, Fig. 13 (on page 1-18) and 17 (on page 1-21) im-
ply that the inner bottom girder loads have the effect of in-
creasing the end fixity moment, and could even over-fix the end
if the holds are long and depth is small. Could the authors clar-
ify this point with some sample deflection plots from their fi-
nite-element analysis?
Finally, page 1-30 notes that the fatigue life of the side shell
brackets for the Capesize bulk carrier is much less than that of
the Panamax, though all other safety margins are higher for
the Capsize than for the Panamax. Page 1-31 notes that the Cap-
size "is all HT36 steel" while the Panamax "is all mild steel,"
implying that the Capsize has proportionately reduced scant-
lings. The relatiw~ fatigue strengths of the two materials are
not mentioned anywhere in section 9.3, but are usually con-
sidered nearly identical. Could the authors clarify whether in
fact HT36 is considered identical to mild steel in fatigue strength
and whether this is the primary reason for the relative lack of
fatigue strength in the Capsize bulker?
Again, I would like to thank the authors for their contribu-
tion to furthering our understanding of the intricacies of bulk
carrier structural design and the many environmental influences
which must be considered.
Authors' Closure
To start with, we thank all the discussers for their kind re-
marks regarding our paper. We thank them even more for the
time they spent developing their various discussions.
We ourselves were disappointed at not being able to attend
the presentation of Prof. Faulkner's own paper on the Der-
byshire. Prof. Faulkner has been in the forefront of the recent
discussion related to hatch cover strength and also the design
of oceangoing ships for what he terms additional extreme sur-
vival conditions in his discussion. Upon reflection, it occurs to
the authors that Prof. Faulkner was also one of the first to com-
prehensively investigate and to champion other important is-
sues in the past such as design for compressive strength, re-
ducing skewness in strength models and the benefits of
reliability-based design, which our profession has now come
to generally accept. One can readily agree with Prof. Faulkner
about the need for research into hatch cover strength and also
structural design for survival conditions. In both cases, the loads
remain the single largest unknown. Additionally, when de-
signing for survival conditions, the availability of technology
required to predict structural response well beyond the linear
elastic regime may also be of some concern.
We share Prof Caldwell's hope that the profession will come
to regard our own corrugated bulkhead structural model tests
as a useful complement to his pioneering earlier work. Prof.
Caldwell takes us to task for not having considered a particu-
lar failure mode pertinent to corrugated bulkhead design, namely
the local failure of flange plating (or web, if that is wider) un-
der the applied pressure, leading to 3-hinge bending failure of
such elements. He also notes that, had we considered this fail-
ure mode as well, we might have made different observations
regarding the optimal shape for bulkhead corrugations. Our
explanation in thi:~ regard is that, to the extent we could as-
certain from our structural model tests and nonlinear finite-
element analysis, the failure mode that he draws our attention
to was apparently not important. One needs to bear in mind,
however, that, we ]nave in this work dealt with corrugated bulk-
head cross sections of certain ranges of structural characteris-
tics typical to the conventional bulk carrier structures that we
considered. Thus our study and the observations resulting from
it, including those related to the optimal corrugation shape are
not completely gelaeral. Prof. Caldwell is undoubtedly correct
in his observations regarding the behavior of corrugated shapes
in general, and we do thank him for pointing out a potential
misinterpretation of the results of our study.
It is always a pleasure to have Dr. Valsgg~rd share his wide
and varied experience with us. We agree with him on the need
Strength of Sulk Carrier Structures
to consider rupture as a potential failure mode. In fact, the non-
linear finite-element calculations of the present paper did in-
clude a rupture criterion. We would agree with Dr. Valsg~rd
that further research is desirable as to the value of the rupture
strain to be used in the structures of the type we are dealing
with. Dr. Valsgfird also notes that we in our calculations as-
sumed, perhaps unnecessarily, that the wave-induced loads in
the condition with a hold flooded could be estimated using de-
sign load formulae which are indeed based on an intact condi-
tion. We did this not only to simplify matters, but also because
our calculations indicated the draft and trim changes with a
single hold flooded were not overly significant. In principle, the
new generation of nonlinear ship motion programs of the type
Dr. Valsgfrd alludeA to may also be used for the same pur-
pose. At the presenl: time, the computational resources needed
to do this remain significant, which is a potential drawback to
the routine use of such technology. For example, in our expe-
rience, a full nonlinear time domain simulation can require a
computational effort in the order of ten times the real time.
We are grateful for the many incisive and practical com-
ments of Mr. vom Saal. We agree with him that, in the con-
text of retrospective', analysis, one can never know for certain
what caused a particular vessel loss. The difficulty in estab-
lishing the possible ,causes of a vessel loss is even greater when
the vessel and crew are lost at sea without warning, and the
physical evidence is not recoverable. Regarding the average age
of vessels lost as quoted in Table 2 of the paper, this is sim-
ply the sum of the ages of all vessels lost divided by the num-
ber of vessels lost. We do agree that this statistic needs to be
interpreted with full consideration of the age profile of the fleet
in general.
Although specific information is not provided in the paper,
the world bulk carrier fleet consists of vessels of all ages as
one might imagine. Further to another suggestion of Mr. yore
Saal, we have replctted Figs. 9.b and 9.c to judge the depen-
dence of corrugation geometry against corrugation length rather
than ship length, see Figs. 29 and 30 of this authors' closure.
It is seen that distribution of the ratio of corrugation flange to
web breadth for conventional bulk carrier corrugated bulkheads
against ship length has a trend that is similar to that against
corrugation length, but the distribution of the corrugation sec-
tion modulus against corrugation length becomes even more
20
ge
~ ~ 1.0 00 00(110 6) 0 0
O@ 0
0
0
0.0 I I [ I 9
80oo 1o~o ~=ooo ~4ooo leOOo lSOOO
Corrugation Length (mm)
Fig. 29 The relationship between corrugation length and
the ratio of corrugation flange to web breadth for
conventional bulk carrier corrugated bulkheads
39
 3.0- scattered than the corresponding one against ship length. Mr.
0 vom Saal correctly takes us to task for our not having dis-
0 cussed in detail the effect of differences in material yield
0 strength in the context of fatigue. Regarding fatigue capacity,
0 0
0 there indeed is typically little difference in the fatigue strengths
S~ 2.0
0
of welded structural details in the range of yield strength that
0 a naval architect typically deals with, namely 32 to 55 ksi.
This is because the fatigue performance of such details is dri-
1.5 0
m 0 ven largely by the very local high stress concentration at the
C 0
O weld, the effect of which is significantly greater than the ef-
8 c~
t~ 1.0 fect of yield strength differences themselves. There indeed is
bid
a difference in operating cyclic stresses between the Capsize
o and the Panamax because of material yield strength differences,
O
C.~ 0.5 the effect of which we perhaps should have discussed in greater
detail than we did in the paper. But equally important is the
0.0
fact that even for identical structural details in the two cases,
I I I I I
8o0o ~oooo ~2ooo ~4ooo ~6ooo ,8ooo
the fatigue loading in the Capsize side shell structure is sig-
nificantly greater than the Panamax for the various reasons we
Corrugation Length (mm)
noted in the paper.
Fig. 30 The relationship between corrugation length and In closing, the authors are indeed pleased to have the ben-
the corrugation section modulus for conventional bulk efit of the high quality discussions to their paper, which sig-
carrier corrugated bulkheads nificantly add value to the paper, serve to emphasize various
aspects of the bulk carrier structural safety issue, and also high-
light the need for continued research and development effort
in related areas.

40 Strength of Bulk Carrier Structures