Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 678–691

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

An algorithm for shear stress evaluation in ship hull girders

Gajanan K. Choudhary, Karan M. Doshi n
Research and Rule Development Division, Indian Register of Shipping (IRS), Mumbai 400072, India

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Common Structural Rules for Oil Tankers (OT) and Bulk carriers (BC) of IACS mandate the compu-
Received 30 January 2015 tation of shear flow in hull girders. Such computation involves determinate as well as indeterminate
Accepted 25 August 2015 shear flow evaluation due to the multi-celled nature of the OT and BC transverse sections. This neces-
sitates formulation of an algorithm for automatic detection of closed cells within a ship section as well as
Keywords: for automatic determination of positions of virtual slits for computation of indeterminate shear flows. It
Shear flow is also common practice to neglect the effect of longitudinal stiffeners when evaluating the shear flow in
Shear stress distribution cross sections or to consider such effect using a gross approach. In the current work, the computation of
Statical moments shear flow in practical ship transverse sections has been performed. For this purpose an algorithm and
Ship structures
subsequent program was developed to automate shear flow calculations which is applicable to any ship
Thin-walled beams
type. The results of the program were validated against benchmark examples as well as finite element
results. Case studies were performed on VLCC and BC midship sections. The results also prove that
consideration of longitudinal stiffeners does not significantly affect the magnitude of the shear stresses
developed in the ship plating.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction also considered essentially making the hull girder a composite

Ship structures are assessed for their integrity against classifi-
cation society rules. It is an established practice to evaluate the
hull girder longitudinal strength against applied still water and
wave bending moments. The present rule practices for evaluating
adequacy of scantlings against shear stresses are approximate in
nature as they mainly consider the vertical longitudinal plate
elements (bulkheads and side shell) which contribute to resisting
the applied vertical shear forces. However, the recently released
Common Structural Rules (CSR) for Oil Tankers (OT) and Bulk
Carriers (BC) (IACS, 2014) mandate the actual computation of
shear flow and shear stresses in hull girder cross sections sub-
jected to applied still water and wave induced shear forces.
Ship hull girder cross sections are essentially multi-celled cross
sections. Evaluation of shear flow in open cross sections (i.e., cross
section with no cells or loops) is a relatively straight forward task
as such a section is determinate with respect to shear flow cal-
culations. Evaluation of shear flow distribution in multi-celled
cross sections, however, involves computation of determinate as
well as indeterminate components of shear flow which arise due
to multiple flow paths for shear in such sections. Complexity of
manual calculations further increases if longitudinal stiffeners are
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 91 22 30519400; fax: þ 91 22 25703611.
E-mail address: karan.doshi@irclass.org (K.M. Doshi).
combination of open and multi-celled closed cross sections, i.e., an
open-closed section. For aiding the automation of such analyzes as
required in CSR, an algorithm is required which is the subject of
this research.
The present work explores the calculation of shear stresses in
ship hull girder sections using first principles of the Euler-Ber-
noulli beam theory in combination with the theory of thin-walled
structures. The effects of longitudinal stiffeners without any
approximations have also been considered which adds further
generality to the present work. The developed algorithm enables
the present work to be applied not only to any ship section, but
also to any general homogeneous linear isotropic prismatic arbi-
trarily shaped thin-walled beam cross section.
2. Literature survey
2.1. Theory
Hull girder bending moments have been extensively resear-
ched in literature. However the consideration of hull girder shear
forces (still water and wave) has not been so elaborate. The theory
behind shear flow and shear stress calculations for thin-walled
open or single-celled closed cross sections is well established
(Neiman, 1948; Pilkey, 2008, 2007; Shama, 2010; Slivker, 2007;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.08.048
0029-8018/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G.K. Choudhary, K.M. Doshi / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 678–691
Srinath, 2003, Vlasov, 1961). Ship hull girders being multi-celled
open-closed cross sections, however, present difficulties for eva-
luation of shear flow and shear stresses as the automation algo-
rithm for such sections is not adequately clarified from the
aforementioned references.
Conventional practices for calculating shear stresses have
sought to consider the cross section areas of the longitudinal
vertical members, such as longitudinal bulkheads, side shell, gir-
ders, and projected areas of inclined members on a vertical plane,
for e.g., hopper tank, to get the average shear force generated in
the vertical members. Thus conventional practices are based on
engineering approximations. However, the maximum stresses are
higher than the average shear stresses, and it is not straightfor-
ward to calculate these peak stresses from their average and
hence, the use of this approach is not advisable. Hence, attempts
were made to develop empirical formulae and parametric rela-
tions between ship scantlings and shear flow.
Shama (1969) used five independent parameters of main
plating scantlings, breadth-to-depth ratio and distance of trans-
verse bulkheads from the centerline of the section to study their
effect on shear stress distribution in ship hull girders. In this
parametric study, the effect of stiffeners and girders was assumed
to be taken into account by smearing their total area over the main
plating of the section. Shama (1971) concluded from a parametric
study on oil tankers using effective thickness approach that the
transverse position of longitudinal bulkheads and the relative
effective thicknesses of the side shell and the longitudinal bulk-
heads influence the maximum shear stress values significantly.
Shama (1975) then performed a parametric study of shear stresses
in bulk carriers considering variables such as the scantlings of the
hopper plate, top wing tank, internal partitions of the top wing
tanks, width of hatch openings, and depth of the double bottom
structure. Further study (Shama, 1976) concluded that double
bottom plates do not contribute to resistance to vertical shear
forces and the side shell between the hopper and top wing tanks
carries about 35% of the total shear force making it a critical por-
tion insofar as shear stresses are concerned. Effects of longitudinal
stiffeners were neglected. Shama (2010) again proposed thickness
smearing for bulk carriers and oil tankers.
In aerospace applications, particularly in aircraft wings, the
general practice is to lump the stiffeners as point masses or areas
called ‘booms’ assuming the size of the stiffeners to be small
compared to the dimensions of the cross section (Megson, 2012).
References of this methodology being applied to ship structures,
however, were not available within the references studied in the
present work. Stiffener lumping is a better approach as compared to
thickness smearing since moments of inertia, position of center of
gravity, etc. are better approximated by lumping rather than by
smearing which only approximates the area correctly and not other
section properties. However, if an automatic shear flow calculation
algorithm and a convenient 2-D modeling methodology are avail-
able, then stiffener lumping as well as the as-is consideration of
stiffeners require roughly the same amount of effort from the user
since in the former case, stiffener properties (positions, areas, and
moments of inertia) have to be manually fed to the program,
whereas in the latter case, stiffeners have to be directly modeled.
Also, stiffener lumping is more suited for manual shear flow cal-
culations since automating these calculations requires exactly the
same algorithm as that required for evaluation without lumping.
Thus has been the gradual shift from average shear stress
determination to equivalent thickness by stiffener smearing per-
taining to ships. To the best of the authors' knowledge, stiffeners
have not been considered in ships either by lumping or as-is
within the literature surveyed.
679
2.2. Implementation of automatic calculation of shear stresses in
multi-celled sections
A number of computer program implementations to automate
shear flow evaluation have been proposed. Shama (1971) wrote a
program to perform shear flow analysis specifically for tankers and
used it for optimization of shear carrying members. Marshall (1974)
developed a FORTRAN program based on Batho-Bredt equations for
the calculation of shear flow in multi-celled thin-walled beams. Its
application to a ship hull girder was demonstrated. However, the
program had limitations as it assumed a symmetric structure, and
the positions of virtual slits and closed cells had to be manually fed
as user inputs to the computer program. Alfano et al. (1996) used
the Depth First Search algorithm developed by Tarjan (1972) and an
Open Section Cut algorithm they proposed to automate shear flow
calculations with bare minimum inputs of section geometry, and
demonstrated the application to a ship hull girder. However, the
formulation of the program was unclear due to the academic nature
of its description in terms of tensors, vectors and integrals (Edlund,
1997). Accordingly, Edlund (1997) expanded the work of Alfano
et al. (1996) and gave formulae for the integrals and matrices
appearing in the computer program. Utility of the procedure was
demonstrated by computation of shear stresses for a passenger ship
section, however, without including longitudinal stiffeners. Prokić
(2000) also developed a program on the lines of Alfano et al. (1996).
The coordinate system had to be rotated to the principal coordinate
system of the beam which decreased the efficiency of the program
by increasing the number of calculations.
Thus computer programs have been proposed for shear flow
evaluation. However, all the programs except for the one written
by Edlund (1997) have limitations.
2.3. Classification society approaches
Rules of various classification societies (BV, 2013; DNV, 2014; GL,
2013; IRS, 2014; LR, 2013; NK, 2013) and CSR (IACS, 2014) prescribe
simplistic evaluation of the net shear force carried by the vertical
hull girder members for an applied vertical shear force for various
candidate ship configurations. The effect of stiffeners appears to be
neglected/implicitly considered in all these configurations, and the
empirical formulae given are only valid for a vertically applied shear
force. These simplistic evaluations may need to be augmented for
consideration of horizontal shear forces as well. However it is
acknowledged that some of the rules also recommend the use of
explicit shear flow calculations (ABS, 2014; CSR IACS, 2014, etc.).
2.4. Summary from literature survey
From the literature survey, the following salient findings were
noted:
1. Analysis of shear stresses in ship hull girders can be performed
by considering them as thin-walled multi-celled open-closed
cross sections.
2. While theoretical background for shear analysis of open-closed
thin walled cross sections is available, illustrative examples
providing insight into step by step calculation of shear flow in
complex multi-celled open-closed sections is scarce. Also rele-
vant literature with application to ship structures is also rare.
3. Computer implementation of automatic shear analysis of thin-
walled cross sections has been performed previously. However
the practical applications attempted were relatively simple
when compared to ship hull girders. Hull girders have been
analyzed with such programs (Alfano et al., 1996; Edlund, 1997),
but stiffeners were not considered.
680 G.K. Choudhary, K.M. Doshi / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 678–691
4. With regards to analysis of ship sections, longitudinal stiffeners
are either not considered, or are empirically considered by
smearing the stiffeners as an enhanced thickness as given in
Shama (2010). To the best of the authors' knowledge insofar as
literature is concerned, stiffener lumping used in aircraft indus-
try has not been applied to ship structures.
5. Shear stress evaluation in ship hull girders is based on a sim-
plistic approach from the perspective of rules of classification
societies.
The above findings elucidate that shear flow analysis of ship
hull girder cross sections requires further investigation. Con-
sideration of stiffeners with smearing/lumping approximations
can be eliminated by automating shear flow calculations based on
first principles of structural mechanics. It is possible to then obtain
the shear flow at any given location within the ship hull girder
considering the longitudinal stiffeners as well.
The objective of the present paper is to demonstrate an algo-
rithm for the automated shear flow analysis of a complete hull
girder section including stiffeners. The algorithm requires the user
to supply the hull girder cross section geometry and the applied
shear force as inputs. Complex steps such as detection of closed
loops, location of virtual slits, and calculation of determinate and
indeterminate shear flow are automated to provide the final shear
flow output at any given location.
The remainder of this paper is arranged as follows. Section 3
explains the notations and terminology used in this paper, Section
4 summarizes the theory and explains the algorithm of the
MATLAB program developed in this research, Section 5 demon-
strates the application of the program on two hull girder sections
with stiffeners, and lastly, Section 6 gives the conclusions of this
research.
3. Terminology
3.1. Coordinate system
The origin of the coordinate system may be placed anywhere in
the plane of the cross section as per user convenience for mod-
eling the section. The X axis is the axial direction of the beam, and
the Y and Z axes are in the plane of the cross section of the beam,
oriented in any manner as per user convenience. The point of load
application for calculation of shear flow is assumed to be the shear
center as the current research does not deal with torsion induced
due to eccentrically applied shear loads.
3.2. Definitions
Member: an unbranched, undivided portion of a given cross
section.
Nodes: points at the ends of members of a given beam cross
section.
Free node: a node which has only a single member passing
through it.
Bridge node: a node which has at least three members passing
through it.
Path: directional route chosen (for integration) along members
and nodes of a given cross-section with a starting point and an
ending point. Paths must satisfy the following two conditions:
1. Any member may be traversed exactly once in any given path.
2. All members of the section are traversed exactly once in all the
chosen paths put together.
Consecutive nodes: two nodes at the two ends of a member
along which a path is being traversed.
3.3. Symbols
A Area of the beam cross section
E Young's modulus of the beam material
G Shear modulus of the beam material
Iyy, Izz, Moments of inertia about the neutral axes parallel to
Iyz the Y and Z axes
N Number of independent loops or circuits in a given
beam cross section
Known determinate shear flow at a given point A
qAd
qBd Unknown determinate shear flow to be calculated at
point B
qid * Known determinate shear flow in the members of the
ith loop
qid Unknown indeterminate shear flow in the jth loop
j
s Distance traversed along the section from point A to B
Sy, Sz Statical moments or first moments of area about the
neutral axes
t(s) Thickness as a function of s
Vy, Vz Y and Z components of the applied shear force on the
section
yc, zc Y and Z coordinates of the center of gravity of the
beam cross section
4. Theory and algorithm
Detailed equations of structural mechanics utilized in the present
work may be referred to from Slivker (2007) and Srinath (2003). Only
the direct formulae have been given in this section and the procedure
is described with the algorithm itself. Following are the summarized
steps for automatic shear flow analysis in ship cross sections:
1. Supplying the input data.
2. Automatic detection of loops and creation of virtual slits.
3. Automatic choice of flow paths and calculation of determinate
shear flow.
4. Automatic calculation of indeterminate shear flow in loops, if
any.
5. Automatic superimposition of determinate and indeterminate
shear flows to find the final shear flow distribution.
The aforementioned steps have been explained in detail below.
4.1. Input data
The section geometry and applied shear force are required from
the user as inputs. All the remaining steps are automated. The nodal y–
z coordinates in the user-defined coordinate system are given in a
double column format with the row number being the node number.
Similarly, member connectivity is specified in a double column format
with the row number being the member/element number. Member
thickness is specified in a single column format with the row number
being the thickness of the corresponding member number. The shear
force is specified in terms of its components along the user-defined
coordinate axes. Since the current research is for homogeneous iso-
tropic linear elastic structures, the material property inputs required
are the Young's modulus and the Shear Modulus.
 G.K. Choudhary, K.M. Doshi / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 678–691 681

4.2. Automatic loop detection and creation of virtual slits
For a cross section with N independent cells or loops, N virtual
slits are created in the loops such that no loop exists after the
creation of the slits, and no portion of the structure gets com-
pletely disconnected from the original structure, i.e., a single
structure exists before and after the creation of virtual slits. So
long as the aforementioned conditions are adhered to, the position
of virtual slits can be chosen arbitrarily.
The loop detection and slit creation algorithm proposed in this
research is understood easily due to its intuitive nature. Fig. 1 gives
the flowchart of the algorithm. The general steps of the algorithm
given below are to be performed on a copied set of variables as
these have to be modified as per the algorithm:
1. If no free nodes exist, proceed to the next step. If any free nodes
exist, one by one, traverse paths starting from free nodes and
ending at the first bridge node encountered at the respective
paths. Along the path, delete all the nodes and members that
are encountered except for the last (bridge) node where the
path was stopped. Update the set of bridge and free nodes as
this may or may not result in the dynamic creation of additional
free nodes and removal of bridge nodes. This step is repeated till
no unvisited free node exists in the structure, including the ones
created after deletion of members and paths in this step.
2. Check if any members are still left after step (i). If none exist,
loop detection ends at this stage as this means no more loops
exist. If any members still exist, at least one more loop exists,
and the next step is proceeded to.
3. At this stage, label all the left over nodes and members as
unvisited. Start a path from any node and traverse randomly until
a previously visited node is encountered, which means a loop has
been detected. While traversing a path, when bridge nodes are
encountered, any member may be randomly chosen to continue
with the path. This further illustrates the generality of the algo-
rithm, knowing that the final solution is path-independent.
4. Record the nodes and members of the detected loop in the
proper order. Create a temporary slit in that loop randomly at
any one of its nodes and store its node number in a separate
variable. This node number is later used in the creation of vir-
tual slits. Creation of temporary slit results in the creation of at
least one free node. Go to step (i).

START

Update the sets of NO NO

Is there a free Is there any
free nodes and
node remaining? node remaining?
END
bridge nodes

YES YES
Stop path and start
a new path Start a new path at There is at least one
any free node: loop. Start anywhere:
i = Current node i = Current node

Assign ‘j’ as the Check which member Mark member ‘m’

Current Node: node ‘i’ belongs to: and node ‘i’ as visited.
i =j m = Current member

Choose any one of the

Assign ‘j’ as the
Delete member ‘m’ Go from node ‘i’ to unvisited member(s)
Current Node:
and node ‘i’ remaining node of node ‘i’ belongs to:
i =j
member ‘m’: m = Current member
j = Next node

Go from node ‘i’ to

YES remaining node of
Is node ‘j’ a member ‘m’:
END free node? j = Next node

NO
NO
NO Is ‘j’ a previously
Is node ‘j’ a visited node?
bridge node?

YES
Delete member ‘m’ YES
and node ‘i’
New Loop Found.
Cut the newly found Store the members &
loop at any node. node numbers.

Fig. 1. Algorithm for detection of closed loops.

682 G.K. Choudhary, K.M. Doshi / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 678–691

At the end of the aforementioned steps, no members will exist. The
original geometry of the section stored in memory is used to create
virtual slits (if loops exist) at positions same as those of the temporary
slits stored in memory from the aforementioned steps. To create a
virtual slit at a given node in a given member, a new node is created at
the position of the given node and the node number of the given node
appearing in the row corresponding to the given member in the
member connectivity variable is simply replaced with the new node
number. These new node numbers are stored in memory and are later
replaced with original node numbers after paths are chosen. The
coordinates of the new nodes are appended at the end of the existing
node coordinate variable. The above algorithm ensures that no two
temporary slits are created in the same member, i.e., the single
structure does not get split into two new structures. Thus, at this stage,
loops have been automatically detected and virtual slits have auto-
matically been created. Note that at this stage at least two free nodes
exist in the structure.
4.3. Choosing shear flow paths and calculation of determinate shear
flow
The steps outlined in Section 4.2 convert originally closed or
open-closed sections into (temporarily) determinate open sections,
whereas originally open sections remain unaffected. A set of paths

START

Count the number of members radiating from all nodes

and store node -wise in variable ‘nm.’ Create variables
‘vn’ and ‘vm’ as sets of zeroes of lengths same as
number of nodes and number of members, respectively,
to be used for counting the number of times nodes and
members have been visited at each stage.

NO Is there an unvisited
Stop path and start Is there any member with a
a new path unvisited free node node ‘i’ such that
remaining? vn(i) = nm(i) – 1?
YES NO

NO
Is node ‘i’ a END
bridge node? YES YES

NO Start at any unvisited Start a new path at

free node: this node:
YES i = Current node i = Current node
Is node ‘i’ a
vn(i) = vn(i) + 1 vn(i) = vn(i) + 1
free node?

Determinate shear
flow at this node is 0:
Assign:
q d (i) = 0 Determinate shear
i =j
flow going OUT of this
node is superposition
Check which member
Calculate determinate of all shear flows
node ‘i’ belongs to:
shear flow qd (j) at flowing INTO the
m = Current member
node ‘j’ as per (4) node ‘i’ from the
(nm(i) – 1) previously
visited members
Go from node‘i’ to
Assign:
remaining node of
vm(m) = vm(m) + 1
member ‘m’:
vn (j) = vn(j) + 1
j = Next node

END

Fig. 2. Algorithm for choosing paths and finding determinate shear flow.
 G.K. Choudhary, K.M. Doshi / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 678–691 683

Fig. 3. Comparison of results with CSR (IACS, 2014).

Table 1 Table 2
Principal Particulars of VLCC and S1 BC hull girder sections. Section properties of the VLCC and S1 BC hull girders.

Principal Particulars Unit VLCC S1 BC Item Comp. Units VLCC properties S1 BC properties

Deadweight tonnage tons 300,000 71,000 Present ANSYS Present ANSYS

Length over all m 332.00 223.70
Length between perpendiculars m 320.00 215.00 Area – m2 10.30 10.22 3.08 3.06
Rule length m 315.82 219.99 Position of Y mm  0.36  0.36 0.07 0.07
Molded breadth m 58.00 32.20 neutral axis Z mm 13479.65 13476.87 7699.19 7690.28
Molded depth m 31.00 18.60 Moment of YY m4 1405.95 1394.56 178.99 177.79
Design draft m 20.80 12.40 inertia ZZ m4 4049.40 4017.74 412.15 410.12
Scantling draft m 22.00 13.43 about neu- YZ m4 0.04 0.04  0.00  0.00
tral axis
Position of Y mm 0.25 0.29 0.10 0.06
has to be chosen for calculation of determinate shear flow in the shear center Z mm 9471.99 9478.34  10416.30  10395.12
section with virtual slits. The underlying principle behind the choice
of paths is to always begin a path at a free node or a bridge node
from which exactly one unvisited member exists, and traverse along sB
consecutive nodes until a free node or a bridge node is encountered. ∆Sz = ∫s ( y (s) − yc ) t (s) ds
A (3)
All members have to be traversed exactly once. In this manner, the
entire open section is guaranteed to be covered, with the first path The direction of shear stresses at any given point of the section is
always starting at a free node. The order of the paths is completely in the direction of the chosen path at that point if the value of the
random, however subject to the aforementioned conditions, which shear flow is positive; otherwise, the direction of shear stresses is
ensures the generality of the algorithm and its applicability to opposite to the direction of path. If the direction of the path is
arbitrarily shaped cross sections including ship hulls. The algorithm flipped, then the sign of the shear flow value gets flipped; however
flowchart has been shown in Fig. 2. note that the final shear flow is physically in the same direction
Knowing that the continuity equation for shear flow holds true at irrespective of the path. This property is used whenever path tra-
all nodes and particularly at bridge nodes, i.e., shear flow gets added verse directions have to be compared or flipped during calculations.
arithmetically in a fashion similar to the flow of fluids in pipes or the At the end of this step after the determinate shear flow is cal-
flow of electric current in circuits, and knowing that at all free nodes, culated, the node numbers of the virtual slits created using Section
the shear flow is zero owing to free surface boundary conditions, 4.2 are replaced with the original node numbers in all variables and
determinate shear flow for the section with virtual slits or for an the virtual slits are removed. The rows corresponding to the virtual
originally open section can be calculated using (1)–(3). slits at the end of the node coordinate variable are deleted.

4.4. Calculation of indeterminate shear flow

⎛V I − V I ⎞ ⎛V I − V I ⎞ This step is only required if loops exist in the given cross sec-
∆q AB = qB − q A = − ⎜⎜ ⎟ ∆Sz − ⎜ z zz ⎟ ∆Sy
y yy z yz y yz
2 ⎟ ⎜ 2 ⎟ tion. Creation of virtual slits results in strain incompatibility at the
⎝ Iyy Izz − Iyz ⎠ ⎝ Iyy Izz − Iyz ⎠ (1)
position of virtual slits as there is slipping there. Using the
determinate flow calculated as outlined in Section 4.3, strain
compatibility conditions are imposed in the form of a no-slip
sB
condition at the nodes where the virtual cuts have been created.
∆Sy = ∫s ( z (s) − zc ) t (s) ds There are N unknowns as the indeterminate shear flows, viz.,
(2)
A
q1id , q2id , …, qNid , and a set of N simultaneous compatibility equations
684 G.K. Choudhary, K.M. Doshi / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 678–691

Fig. 4. Midship Section of VLCC.

given by (4). The direction of integration of the paths in open

section analysis and that in closed line integrals given in (4) has to
⎧ −1 for members common to loops i and j with opposite direction
be taken into account at this stage, for which (5) is used. On sol- ⎪
χij (s) = ⎨ 0 for members not common between loops i and j
ving the system of equations (4), the indeterminate loop shear ⎪
flows are obtained in each loop. ⎩ 1 for members common to loops i and j with same direction (5)

⎡ χ11 (s ) ds χ12 (s ) ds χ1N (s ) ds ⎤

⎢ ∮ t (s )
∮ t (s )
⋯ ∮ t (s ) ⎥
⎥
⎢ cell 1 cell 1 cell 1
⎢ ⎥ 4.5. Superposition of determinate and indeterminate shear flows
⎢ χ21 (s ) ds χ22 (s ) ds χ2N (s ) ds ⎥
⎢ ∮ t (s )
∮ t (s )
⋯ ∮ t (s ) ⎥
⎢ cell 2 cell 2 cell 2 ⎥ For open sections, the determinate shear flow calculated as
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ outlined in Section 4.3 is itself the final shear flow. For open-closed
⎢ χN1 (s ) ds χN2 (s ) ds χNN (s ) ds ⎥ and closed sections, the determinate and indeterminate shear
⎢
∮ t (s )
∮ t (s )
⋯ ∮ t (s ) ⎥⎦
⎣ cell N cell 2 cell N
flows found using Sections 4.3 and 4.4 have to be superimposed to
⎧ give the final shear flow distribution over the entire section. The
q1d * (s ) ds ⎫
⎪ ∮ ⎪ direction of determinate paths and contour integration in loops as
⎪ t (s ) ⎪
⎧ q id ⎫ ⎪ cell 1 ⎪ in (4) has to be taken into account while superimposing the shear
⎪ 1⎪ ⎪ q2d * (s ) ds ⎪ flows, thus giving the final shear flow. The shear flow at any given
⎪q ⎪id ⎪ ∮ ⎪
⎨ 2⎬= −⎨ t (s ) ⎬ point divided by the thickness at that point gives the shear stress
⎪ ⋮⎪ ⎪ cell 2 ⎪ at that point. Note that the shear flow calculation is theoretically
⎪ id ⎪ ⎪ ⋮ ⎪
⎩ qN ⎭ ⎪ ⎪ exact at all nodes, and shear flow results are only available at the
d*
⎪ q (s ) ds ⎪
N
∮ defined nodes.
⎪ ⎪
⎩ cell N t (s ) ⎭ (4) The above steps have been illustrated using a simple example
of a hypothetical beam cross section in Appendix A
 G.K. Choudhary, K.M. Doshi / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 678–691 685

Fig. 5. Midship Section of S1 BC.

Table 3
Summary of ANSYS and present results of VLCC: starboard part.

Member Maximum shear flow (N/ Maximum shear stress (N/mm2) Horizontal shear force Vertical shear force (kN) % share in vertical
mm) (kN) shear

Present ANSYS Present ANSYS Present ANSYS Present ANSYS

Bottom 320 319 16 16 4323 4313 0 0 0.0

Bilge 379 379 19 19 857 854 995 997 2.0
Side shell 615 615 30 30 0 0 13642 13631 27.3
Sheer strake 323 332 17 17 369 369 425 429 0.9
Main deck 463 463 24 24 5811 5801 291 291 0.6
Inner bottom 325 325 17 17 3502 3499 0 0 0.0
Bilge hopper 605 606 29 29 2503 2505 3037 3039 6.1
Inner side shell 579 580 32 32 0 0 10873 10884 21.7
Long. bulkhead 747 748 43 43 0 0 19151 19158 38.3
Bottom girders 314 315 21 21 0 0 1510 1513 3.3
Center girder 135 135 8 8 0 0 322 322 0.3
Side stringers 74 74 5 5 274 274 0 0 0.0

4.6. Program validation
The proposed algorithm was implemented in MATLAB. A pro-
gram was developed for modeling thin-walled beam cross sections
and for computing the shear flow in response to transverse shear
applied in any direction. The program was validated against ana-
lytical shear flow solutions of thin rectangular, channel, ‘I’ and
single-celled hollow rectangular cross sections available in litera-
ture. The program was also validated against results of finite ele-
ment (FE) analysis of a user-defined beam section in the com-
mercial FE software, ANSYS, as illustrated in the illustrative
examples given in Section 5. Other validation methods include
checking adherence to the continuity equation of shear flow (net
inflow of shear flow at a given node equals net outflow), com-
paring the position of the shear center (obtained by a ‘no net
torsion’ equilibrium condition) with that given by ANSYS, and
integrating the shear stresses over the section to obtain the net
internal shear force generated in the section to compare it against
the external applied shear force. The program satisfies all the
aforementioned checks; however, some of these have not been
shown here for the sake of brevity.
Comparison was also done with available shear flow results
(IACS, 2014) for a representative bulk carrier cross section con-
sidering unit vertical shear force. The comparison of shear flow
results is shown in Fig. 3. It is observed that the present results are
in good agreement with reference results.
686 G.K. Choudhary, K.M. Doshi / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 678–691

Table 4
Summary of ANSYS and present results of BC: starboard part.

Member Maximum shear flow (N/mm) Maximum shear stress (N/mm2) Horizontal shear force Vertical shear force % share in vertical
(kN) (kN) shear

Present ANSYS Present ANSYS Present Present

Bottom 207 207 14 14 1745 0 0.0

Bilge 251 250 16 16 425 473 4.7
Side shell 614 616 38 39 0 6787 67.9
Sheer strake 267 267 15 15 164 317 3.2
Main deck 214 215 12 12 698 66 0.7
Top tank bottom 252 253 20 20 1521 770 7.7
Inner bottom 225 225 13 13 1314 0 0.0
Bilge hopper 331 332 24 24 1479 1373 13.7
Bottom girders 55 55 5 5 0 151 1.4
Center girder 18 15 1 1 0 13 0.1

at the shear center of the VLCC whereas a vertical shear force of 2.0✕
107 N is assumed to act at the shear center of the S1 BC.

5.2. Comparison of results with ANSYS

The overall results of the net forces generated in various parts

of the VLCC and the S1 BC hull girders have been given in
Tables 3 and 4, respectively. The schematic view of the shear flow
distributions are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.
As observed from Tables 3 and 4, the results of shear flow are in
good agreement with FE analysis using ANSYS. Note that in the hor-
izontal and vertical shear force columns, the results are given for half
of the section and hence (also considering the symmetry), the total
horizontal shear force on the section is zero and the net vertical force
Fig. 6. Shear flow distribution in VLCC due to a vertical shear force using present
method. is twice the total of that given in the vertical shear force column. Since
post-processing of results of ANSYS is manual and tedious, comparison
of part-wise generated shear forces has only been done for the VLCC.
Node-wise comparison of shear flow results were done for VLCC and
were found to be in excellent agreement except at corners where
ANSYS gave stress concentration results (as evident in Section 5.3)
preventing realistic comparison at such locations. All the results have
not been shown here for the sake of brevity.

5.3. Stiffener results

Fig. 7. Shear flow distribution in BC due to a vertical shear force using present method.
5. Application and results
The application of the program has been demonstrated with the
help of two ships modeled along with their stiffeners, viz., a Very Large
Crude Carrier (VLCC) and a BC. The results were compared with those
given by the commercial finite element software ANSYS with its
BEAM188 element assigned with the properties of a user-defined
beam cross-section (modeled and stored separately using MESH200
plane elements) of the ship hull girder section. The principal parti-
culars of the VLCC and the S1 BC are given in Table 1. The cross section
properties of both the midship sections calculated by ANSYS and the
proposed algorithm are given in Table 2. It is seen from Table 2 that
the properties found by the algorithm agree well with ANSYS.
5.1. Program input data: ship geometry and loads
The schematic the VLCC and S1 BC ship cross sections can be found
from Figs. 4 and 5. A vertical shear force of 1.0✕108 N is assumed to act
The shear flow in the stiffeners can also be obtained using the
proposed algorithm as well as ANSYS. Since there are 362 stif-
feners in the VLCC, the shear flow results of some sample stiffeners
have been shown below for illustration. It is notable that the total
contribution to vertical shear resistance of all the 362 stiffeners
combined together was less than 1% of the applied shear.
The comparisons of shear flow results in the webs of stiffeners
at various locations of the VLCC section are shown in Fig. 8(a)–(f).
It can be seen from the figures that the present results agree well
with those given by ANSYS except towards the ends of the stif-
fener webs where deviation is observed owing to stress con-
centration effects due to the presence of sharp corners.
6. Comparison with rules of classification societies
Classification societies provide simplistic formulae for the cal-
culation of shear forces in the side shell and longitudinal bulk-
heads of ships. The present results of shear forces obtained have
been compared with the forces that are obtained by the empirical
formulae of some of the classification societies. Some society for-
mulae give the combined forces in the inner and outer side shell
whereas others give separate formulae for the inner and outer side
shell. The values in Table 5 have been given accordingly.
 G.K. Choudhary, K.M. Doshi / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 678–691 687

75 40
ANSYS Result ANSYS Result

Shear Flow in the web (N/mm)

Shear flow in the web (N/mm)

60 32
Present Results Present Results
45 24

30 16

15 8

0 0
0 375 750 1125 1500 0 255 510 765 1020
Distance along the Tee web (mm) Distance along the Tee web (mm)

15 200
ANSYS Result ANSYS Result

Shear flow in the web (N/mm)

Shear flow in the web (N/mm)

12 160
Present Results Present Results
9 120

6 80

3 40

0 0
0 87.5 175 262.5 350 0 150 300 450 600
Distance along the Angle web (mm) Distance along the Tee web (mm)

175 12.5
ANSYS Result ANSYS Result
Shear flow in the flat bar (N/mm)

Shear flow in the web (N/mm)

140 10
Present Results Present Results
105 7.5

70 5

35 2.5

0 0
0 82.5 165 247.5 330 0 145 290 435 580
Distance along the Flat Bar (mm) Distance along the Tee web (mm)

Fig. 8. (a)-(f). Shear flow result comparison in stiffeners at various locations of the VLCC hull girder.

Table 5
The following conclusions are drawn based on the analysis of
Comparison of empirical formulae of various societies with present results.
the obtained results in Table 5:
Rules Longitudinal Outer side Inner side Total side
bulkheada shella shella shella 1. The formulae of LR and NK give results within engineering
accuracy.
DNV 20302 (1.56%) – – 29698
(0.36%)
2. The remaining rules (IRS, DNV, GL and CSR) give results within
GL 17492 (12.50%) – – 32508 acceptable accuracy. However, the side shell double skins are
(9.85%) considered together instead of separately calculating the forces
IRS 20075 (0.43%) – – 29925 (1.12%) carried by each skin.
LR 20551 (2.81%) 14970 14479 –
(0.61%) (0.35%)
NK 20075 (0.43%) 15412 14512 –
(2.33%) (0.12%) 7. Conclusions
CSR 20551 (2.81%) – – 29449
(0.48%) Following summarize the findings of this research:
Present 19990 15062 14530 29592

a
Values given in brackets are % deviation between shear forces of the empirical 1. Shear flow and stress distribution can be found accurately using
formulae from the shear force given by MATLAB. the methodology proposed in this research. The method has
688 G.K. Choudhary, K.M. Doshi / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 678–691
been validated against analytical solutions of beam sections,
manual calculations and FE analysis of ship hull girder sections.
2. Stiffeners can be modeled in the proposed method. Current
methodology of shear flow calculations in ships uses stiffener
smearing with the main plating as an increased equivalent thick-
ness. However, this restriction is lifted by the proposed method,
enabling the shear flow calculation even within the stiffeners.
3. Stiffeners do not directly provide significant amount of shear
resistance. The total resisting force of stiffeners even after all of
them are considered together is still negligible. This is evident
from the VLCC example wherein the contribution of shear force
of stiffeners is of the order of 1% of total applied force.
4. The results of analysis of a VLCC hull including the stiffeners
using the proposed method have been compared with the
empirical formulae of international classification societies to
find the adequacy and accuracy of the given formulae for cal-
culating shear forces in the hull. It has been found that these
formulae give results with a good accuracy, at least for the hull
girder considered in this research.
5. Empirical formulae for quick evaluation of shear flow due to
horizontal shear forces may not be readily available. Manual cal-
culations that are hence required are tedious for a complicated
section such as a hull. The proposed method can be used for the
quick determination of shear flow even in these cases.
6. The proposed methodology also has applications in shear flow
calculations in thin-walled structures in other fields of engi-
neering, such as aircraft wings in aerospace engineering and
bridge box girders in structural engineering.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Mr. A.R. Kar (Vice President – Research) of
Indian Register of Shipping (IRS), Mumbai, India, for his support,
and IRS for funding this research under project number RRD13018-
RR. Any views expressed in this publication are solely the views of
the authors and not necessarily those of IRS.
Appendix A. : example illustrating the proposed algorithm
A beam cross-section with relevant details for calculations is
shown in Fig. A.1. The cross section is composed of closed cells as
well as members not within closed cells thus ensuring generality.
A vertical shear force of 1 MN is assumed to act on the cross-
section. Following sections explain the steps followed by the
algorithm.
Fig. A.1. Beam cross-section data for demonstration of the algorithm.
A.1. Loop detection
1. The first stage of the algorithm is to delete all members not
belonging to any loop.
2. The algorithm starts its first path at free node 10, moves to node
9 and detects it as a bridge node. The current path is stopped
and member 13 is deleted. Node 9 is no longer a bridge node.
3. A new path is started at free node 11. Member 12 is traversed
and a bridge node is detected at node 8. The path is stopped and
member 12 is deleted. Node 8 is no longer a bridge node.
4. Another path is started at free node 12. The algorithm traverses
member 11 to reach node 8 (which is currently not a bridge
node), and continues along member 10 onto node 7 which is
detected as a bridge node. The path is stopped and members 11
and 10 are deleted.
5. No new free nodes are detected at this point, and all the
remaining members (if any) are now part(s) of some loop(s).
The second stage of loop detection begins next.
6. A new path is started at a random node, and is randomly tra-
versed until a previously visited node is encountered. In this
case, say nodes 1–7–2–3–9–6–5–2 are traversed, and the path is
stopped at node 2 since it has already been visited. This means
that nodes 2–3–9–6–5–2, i.e., members 3–8–9–5–7 form a loop,
which is stored in memory. A cut is made in the loop at a ran-
dom member, say in member 9 at node 9. In this case two free
nodes are generated at node 9 (say 9 and 9’).
7. Since free nodes 9 and 9’ are detected, the first stage of loop
detection (step 1) is restarted on the remaining structure.
Members 3, 8, 9, and 5 are deleted at this stage.
8. Similar steps are carried out till the remaining loop with nodes
1–7–2–5–4–1 and members 1–2–7–4–6 is detected and stored in
memory. A virtual cut is created in member 7 at node 2, which
again results in two free nodes (2 and 2’) and stage 1 is restarted.
9. At this point, the nodes 2–5–4–1–7–(2’) are traversed. All
members are deleted, no structure remains, and the loop
detection stage ends with 3 things stored in memory: nodes
contained in the loops, members making up the loops, and
locations (member and node) of the virtual cuts.
A.2. Determinate shear flow
In this stage, computation of the determinate part of shear flow
begins.
1. Virtual cuts are recreated in members 9 and 7 at nodes 9 and 2,
respectively. Paths for determinate shear flow calculation are
chosen next.
2. Each new path is started from a node such that the number of
unvisited members from that node is 1 less than the total
number of members being joined at that node. Each path is
 G.K. Choudhary, K.M. Doshi / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 678–691 689

stopped when a bridge or a free node is encountered. The fol- 2. Table A.2 is created, for generating equations using (4). The
lowing paths are obtained in that order: relevant values are highlighted in bold in the table. For this
a. Path 1: Nodes 10–9–3–2–7 example, Eq. (A.1) and two unknowns viz. the indeterminate
b. Path 2: Nodes 11–8 shear flows in loops, are obtained and solved for.
c. Path 3: Nodes 12–8
d. Path 4: Nodes 9–6–5 (Node 9 in member 9 is a free node due
to the virtual cut)
e. Path 5: Nodes 2–5 (Node 2 in member 7 is a free node due to ⎧ id ⎫
⎡ 600.00 − 100.00⎤ ⎪ q1 ⎪ ⎧ 71855.63 ⎫
the virtual cut) ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎨ id ⎬ = ⎨ ⎬
− 100.00 466.67 ⎪ ⎩ 144245.03⎭
f. Path 6: Nodes 5–4–1–7 ⎩q ⎪ ⎭ 2 (A.1)
g. Path 7: Nodes 7–8
3. The determinate shear flows are then calculated by formulae 3. The first equation in (A.1) is obtained as follows, for example.
(1)–(3), and are given in Table A.1, starting with 0 shear flows at The first coefficient turns out to be 600 as per (4) and the
all free nodes, and for bridge nodes we make use of the property second coefficient turns out to be -100 because the directions of
that the net directional inflow at any node equals the net the loops overlapping the common member (i.e. 7) are opposite.
directional outflow. Finding the right hand side from (4) is a matter of integration of
shear flow along the members of the loops and adding them up.
(Note that for members of constant thicknesses, shear flow
A.3. Indeterminate shear flow variation is at most parabolic.) On solving, the indeterminate
shear flows in loops 1 and 2 are 177.62 N/mm and 347.16 N/mm,
In this stage, computation of indeterminate part of shear flow is respectively.
performed.
1. The two loops stored by the loop detection algorithm are used Superposition of determinate and indeterminate (directional)
along with the determinate shear flows calculated above in shear flows is straightforward. The final results of shear flow
Table A.1. analysis are given in Table A.3. The schematic diagram of shear

Table A.1
Determinate shear flows calculated by the algorithm.

Path number Member number Nodes traversed Determinate shear flow (N/mm) Remarks

Node 1 Node 2 Node 1 Node 2

1 13 10 9 0.00 0.05 Node 10: free

8 9 3 0.05 51.95
3 3 2 51.95 281.37
2 2 7 281.37 356.42 Node 7: bridge
2 12 11 8 0.00 6.19 Node 11: free
3 11 12 8 0.00 6.18 Node 12: free
4 9 9 6 0.00  51.08 Node 9: virtual cut ⇨ free
5 6 5  51.08  285.08
5 7 2 5 0.00  4.89 Node 2: virtual cut ⇨ free
6 4 5 4  289.98  449.55  298.98 ¼  285.08 þ  4.89
6 4 1  449.55  458.25
1 1 7  458.25  383.92
7 10 7 8  27.51  12.36  27.51¼  383.92 þ356.42

Table A.2
Indeterminate shear flow calculation.

Loop Member Node 1 Determinate Sh.Fl. Length/thickness Integrated Determinate Remarks

number at node 1 (N/mm) ratio Sh.Fl. within member (N)

LOOP 1

Anti-clock- 3 2  281.37 200.00  33439.44

wise 8 3  51.95 50.00  870.96
9 9 0.00 50.00  847.93
5 6  51.08 200.00  33509.25
7 5 4.89 100.00  3188.04 Member common with loop 2
Total 600.00  71855.63

LOOP 2

Anti-clock- 1 1  458.25 66.67  28076.55

wise 2 7  356.42 66.67  21263.52
7 2 0.00 100.00 3188.04 Member common with loop 1
4 5  289.98 133.33  49270.06
6 4  449.55 100.00  48822.94
Total 466.67  144245.03
690 G.K. Choudhary, K.M. Doshi / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 678–691

flow distribution in the beam section obtained by the algorithm is
shown in Fig. A.2. (A few intermediate nodes have been added in
the figure for illustration purposes.)
In a separate FE analysis, stresses generated in the beam cross-
section are obtained and given in Table A.4 for comparison. For
this purpose, the locations of stress evaluation in FE model were
chosen to be slightly away from the nodes (by approx. 3 times the
thickness of the applicable member). This is because FE based
evaluation also captures actual stress concentration effects which
cannot be accounted for with the present analytical method. The
stresses at the same location coordinates were also evaluated
using the present algorithm for ensuring a logical comparison. A
minute difference between the stresses at the actual “nodes” is
observed when comparing Table A.3 and Table A.4 because of this
reason. It is observed that the results of the algorithm and FEM
are in good agreement with each other. Accuracy is further
improved as one moves away from the member end nodes where
stress concentration effects decay rapidly.

Table A.3
Final shear flows calculated by the present method.

Path number Member number Nodes traversed Shear flow by present method (N/mm) Shear stress by present method (N/mm2)

Node 1 Node 2 Node 1 Node 2 Node 1 Node 2

1 13 10 9 0.00 0.05 0.000 0.003

8 9 3  177.57  125.67  8.878  6.283
3 3 2  125.67 103.75  8.377  3.231
2 2 7  65.79 9.26  4.385 0.617
2 12 11 8 0.00 6.19 0.000 0.515
3 11 12 8 0.00 6.18 0.000 0.515
4 9 9 6 177.62 126.54 8.880 6.327
5 6 5 126.54  107.46 8.435  7.164
5 7 2 5 169.54 164.64 8.476 8.232
6 4 5 4 57.18  102.39 3.812 6.822
6 4 1  102.39  111.10 5.119 5.554
1 1 7  111.10  36.77 7.406 2.451
7 10 7 8  27.51  12.36 2.292 1.030

Fig. A.2. Schematic diagram of final shear flow distribution in the cross-section as per the algorithm.

Table A.4
Comparison of results of proposed algorithm and FE analysis (ANSYS).

Member Number Nodes traversed Shear stress by present method (N/mm2) Shear stress by FEM (ANSYS) (N/mm2)

Node 1a Node 2a Node 1a Node 2a Node 1a Node 2a

1 1 7 7.004 2.717 7.021 2.746

2 7 2 0.330 4.073 0.321 4.067
3 2 3 6.623 8.058 6.643 8.050
8 3 9 6.706 8.870 6.699 8.858
9 9 6 8.876 6.745 8.864 6.738
5 6 5 8.156 6.891 8.149 6.899
4 5 4 3.336 6.525 3.319 6.528
6 4 1 5.548 5.938 5.549 5.949
7 2 5 8.900 8.646 8.914 8.656
10 7 8 2.028 1.219 2.042 1.236
11 8 11 0.330 0.000 0.329 0.000
12 8 12 0.260 0.000 0.259 0.000
13 9 10 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.000

a
Not the actual nodes but locations in close proximity to the nodes indicated in the Fig. A.1.
 G.K. Choudhary, K.M. Doshi / Ocean Engineering 108 (2015) 678–691
References
Alfano, G., Marotti De Sciarra, F., Rosati, L., 1996. Automatic analysis of multi celled
thin walled sections. Comput. Struct. 59, 641–655.
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), 2014. Rules for Building and Classing Steel
Vessels: Part 3 Hull construction and equipment.
Bureau Veritas (BV), 2013. Rules for the Classification of Steel Ships: Part B: Hull and
Stability.
Det Norske Veritas (DNV), 2014. Rules for Classification of Ships Part 3: Hull and
Equipment – Main Class.
Edlund, S., 1997. Arbitrary and Thin Walled Cross Sections: Theory and Computer
Implementation (Licentiate thesis). KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, ISSN 1103-4270.
Germanischer Lloyd (GL), 2013. Rules for Classification and Construction: Part 1:
Seagoing Ships.
Indian Register of Shipping (IRS), 2014. Rules and Regulations for the Construction
and Classification of Steel Ships: Part 3: General Hull Requirements.
International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), 2014. Common Struc-
tural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers.
Lloyd’s Register (LR), 2013. Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships:
Part 3: Ship structures.
Marshall, R.W., 1974. Shear flow distribution in multi-cell girders. Comput. Struct. 4
(2), 307–325.
Megson, T.H.G., 2012. Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students, fifth ed. Elsevier,
Boston.
Neiman, A.S., 1948. Shearing stress distribution in box girders with multiple webs.
Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 114 (1), 162–168.
691
Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NK), 2013. Rules for the Survey and Construction of Steel
Ships: Part C: Hull Construction and Equipment.
Pilkey, W.D., 2008. Formulas for Stress, Strain, and Structural Matrices, second ed.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Pilkey, W.D., 2007. Analysis and Design of Elastic Beams: Computational Methods,
first ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Prokić, A., 2000. Computer program for determination of geometrical properties of
thin-walled beams with open-closed section. Comput. Struct. 74 (6), 705–715.
Shama, M.A., 2010. Torsion and Shear Stresses in Ships, first ed. Springer.
Shama, M.A., 1976. Analysis of shear stresses in bulk carriers. Comput. Struct. 6,
75–79.
Shama, M.A., 1975. Shear stresses in bulk carriers due to shear loading. J. Ship Res.
19 (3), 155–163.
Shama, M.A., 1971. On the optimization of shear carrying material of large tankers.
J. Ship Res. 15 (1), 74–96.
Shama, M.A., 1969. Effect of ship section scantlings and transverse position of
longitudinal bulkheads on shear stress distribution and shear carrying capacity
of main hull girder. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 16 (184), 357–369.
Slivker, V., 2007. Mechanics of Structural Elements: Theory and Applications.
Springer.
Srinath, L.S., 2003. Advanced Mechanics of Solids, second ed. Tata McGraw Hill,
New Delhi.
Tarjan, R., 1972. Depth first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM. J. Comput. 1
(2), 146–160.
Vlasov, V.Z., 1961. Thin-Walled Elastic Beams, first ed. National Science Foundation,
Washington, D.C..