Assignment 1

JEE332 Structural Analysis

Team 1:
Angus Cameron
Anwarul Awalludin
Kevin Bone
Liam Chan
Maison Carstensen
Sukhith Caldera

(192418)
(188383)
(428543)
(151795)
(429288)
(425818)

Lecturer: Dr Shinsuke Matsubara

Due Date: 20th of May 2016

Abstract
Bulk carriers form perhaps the most fundamental mode of material transport globally, critically
sustaining global economy demands for offshore trade. Cape size bulk carriers are one of the largest
form of trade vessel, defined not only by size but also their inability to traverse the Panama Canal.
Due to vessel dimension, purpose and global population the consequences presented by the
structural failure of a large bulk carrier are both sever and of significant likelihood. To ensure design
incorporates an appropriate degree of safety classification societies such as Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
and Lloyds Register exist, providing strict rules and guidelines that engineers must adhere to.
This report presents previous research regarding typical loads associated with bulk carrier design,
motions, wave loading and mooring conditions. By examining current and past design characteristics
of bulk carriers using the processes of similar vessel analysis, a typical capesize bulk carrier vessel
was selected. The vessel selected was the 300m long, 50m wide vessel Goliath which has a DWT just
exceeding 200,000 ton. Following this, investigation was undertaken into the methods defined by
DNV and Lloyds Register for calculating global bending moment in still water and vertical wave load
conditions. Upon completion of sample calculations it could be concluded that loading was most
severe in the vertical wave load condition, whilst sagging moments exceeded those in the hogging
state. DNV was seen to overestimate bending moment but incorporate fewer vessel design inputs
compared to Lloyds Register, thus suggesting that Lloyds Register provides a significantly more
accurate calculation.

Contents
1.

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7

2.

Literature investigation ................................................................................................................... 8

2.1.

Design ..................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.

Structure ................................................................................................................................ 10

2.3.

Motions ................................................................................................................................. 13

2.4.

Wave loading ........................................................................................................................ 18

2.5.

Mooring................................................................................................................................. 22

3.

Capesize Bulk Carriers.................................................................................................................. 26

4.

Similar Vessel Analysis ................................................................................................................ 27

5.

Classification Rules ...................................................................................................................... 33

5.1.

DNV ...................................................................................................................................... 33

5.2.

Lloyds ................................................................................................................................... 38

5.3.

Discussion and Results ......................................................................................................... 44

6.

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 48

7.

Appendix A .................................................................................................................................... 50

8.

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 52

Table of Figures
Figure 1. Hatch covers on a bulk carrier at sea (Left), bulk carrier hatch cover removed (top right) and
hatch cover structure showing the stiffened plate (bottom right) (Um & Roh, 2015) ............................ 9
Figure 2. Identification of the dimensional inputs used in the computational analysis (Um & Roh,
2015) ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3-Midship cross section comparison of single skin side and double skin side (Ozguc, Das, &
Barltrop, 2005) ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4-Stress distribution under ultimate state (Hu, Zhang, & Sun, 2001) ...................................... 11
Figure 5. Six degrees of motion freedom with respect to a vessel (Chen, Huang, & Wang, 2013) ..... 13
Figure 6. Relative motion profiles associated with the linear response using a modified Pierson
Moskowitz spectrum (Drake, 2000)...................................................................................................... 15
Figure 7. Measured and calculated vertical force at bow area with measured wave motions obtained
from the participants of the study (Drummen & Holtmann, 2014)....................................................... 16
Figure 8. Typical midships stress response spectra of the M/V Stewart J. Cort, showing wave-induced
and springing stresses (Alford & Troesh, 2009) ................................................................................... 17
Figure 9. Vertical bending due to waves (M. Mano et al., Design of Ship Hull Structures, 2009) ...... 18
Figure 10. Proposed Mathematical model (Samsung Heavy Industries Co. LTD 2010) ...................... 24
Figure 11. Bulk carrier similar vessel analysis of Deadweight vs. Year .............................................. 27
Figure 12.Ccomparison of vessel speed in knots and year built ........................................................... 28
Figure 13. Comparison of vessel Deadweight / Capacity versus Year ................................................. 28
Figure 14. Bulk carrier similar vessel analysis, Speed versus Length ................................................. 29
Figure 15. Similar vessel analysis for bulk carrier comparing deadweight with respect to length ....... 30
Figure 16. Bulk carrier comparison, speed versus engine power ......................................................... 30
Figure 17. Block coefficients versus Froude number for the bulk carrier vessels exmained ............... 31
Figure 18. Non-dimensional capacity versus beam draft coefficient for the analysed bulk carriers. ... 31
Figure 19. Bending Moment Sign Convention ..................................................................................... 34
Figure 20. Wave bending moment distribution. ................................................................................... 35
Figure 21. Value of kSM against Proportion of Length (DNV, 2015) ................................................. 36
Figure 22 Development of vertical bending stresses along the length of bulk carrier, Goliath. ........... 41
Figure 23. Still water bending moments for sagging conditions for the capsize bulk carrier Goliath,
comparing the predictions obtained using the Lloyds and DNV methods ............................................ 44
Figure 24. Still water bending moments for a hogging conditions for the capsize bulk carrier Goliath,
comparing the predictions obtained using the Lloyds and DNV methods ........................................... 45
Figure 25. Wave condition bending moment for Capesize bulk carrier, Goliath, in hogging condition,
comparing predictions using Lloyds and DNV methods. .................................................................... 46
Figure 26. Wave induced bending moment for hogging condition along the length of the Capesize
bulk carrier Goliath, comparing the predictions using Lloyds and DNV methods ............................... 46

Nomenclature
Symbol

Description

Units

Beam

CB

Block coefficient

CW

Wave coefficient

Distance from fwd or aft to point of consideration

DWT

Deadweight tonnage

ton

f1

Ship service factor

f2,-1

Coefficient considering nonlinear effects applied to hogging

f2,1

Coefficient considering nonlinear effects applied to sagging

ksm

Stillwater bending moment distribution factor along the ships length

kwm

Vertical wave bending moment distribution factor along ships length

LOA

Overall length of all vessel

LPP

Length between perpendiculars

LWL

Waterline length

MSO

Stillwater bending moment amidships

kNm

MSOS

Stillwater bending moment amidships sagging

kNm

MSOH

Stillwater bending moment amidships hogging

kNm

MS

Stillwater bending moment

kNm

MWO

Vertical wave bending moment amidships

kNm

MW

Vertical wave bending moment

kNm

MWOH

Vertical wave bending moment (hogging)

kNm

MWOS

Vertical wave bending moment (sagging)

kNm

Draft

Forward distance from aft perpendicular

Displacement

tonnes

Volumetric displacement

m3

Permissible combined stress

N/mm2

Maximum hull stress at deck

N/mm2

Maximum hull stress at keel

N/mm2

Force of hull member above and below the neutral axis

Minimum hull section modulus

m3

Design load scenario coefficient

1. Introduction
Bulk carriers are large vessels used to transport goods between countries and are a vital part
of the worlds economy. They are able to carry significant quantities of cargo and it is
therefore crucial that they are both efficient and safe. Due to this, there are various design
rules and guidelines put in place to ensure that they are capable of operating in a range of sea
states in a safe manner.
This report investigates and compares two sets of rules; Lloyds Register (LR) and Det Norske
Veritas (DNV). Calculations were made using each set of rules, which were then compared to
one another and discussed. Supporting this, literature reviews examining various aspects of
bulk carriers such as wave loading, mooring, ship structure and motions were investigated
and related back to the overall longitudinal strength of bulk carriers.
For the investigation of the rules, this report focused on one class of bulk carriers, Capesize
carriers. In order to examine the significant loading that these vessels experience as a result of
their size, the carriers need to meet a set of rules and guidelines to ensure sure that they can
operate safely and efficiently.

2. Literature investigation
2.1.

Design

Literature: Propulsion of 200,000-210,000 dwt Large Capesize Bulk Carrier

(Man Diesel and Turbo, 2015)

CO2 regulations imposed by International Maritime Organisation (IMO) are constantly

becoming harder for ship owners to achieve, thus the design of the combined propellerengine propulsion system must be optimised to increase vessel efficiency and reduce fuel
consumption. The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEID) imposed by IMO for vessels
contracted after 1 January 2013, categorises vessels according to Deadweight Tonnage
(DWT), geometric dimensions, fuel type, specific fuel oil consumption and design speed. The
EEDI is quantitatively assessed in units of mass CO2 produced per ton of DWT per nautical
mile travelled.
Large Cape-size bulk carriers typically have a maximum length of 299.3m, beam of 50m and
scantling draft of 17.9-18.4m, boasting a dtw between 205,000 and 210,000 ton. The
expected design operating speeds for these vessels lies between 14-15 knots, however due to
emission regulations these values are likely to reduce in the near future. Increasing propeller
diameter is known to benefit propeller efficiently, thus current focus for the design of future
bulk carriers is to optimise the aft body, hull lines of the ship and ideal operational ballast
condition, such to allow integration of larger propellers with lower optimum propeller speed.
For such vessels gearing is not required to provide increased efficiency over a wide range of
operational speeds, thus typically the propeller shaft is directly coupled with the engine. At
lower operational speeds this has allowed development of the new two stroke MAN G70MEC9.5 compact ultra-long stroke engine, which operates with increased engine and propeller
efficiency at these conditions.
By comparing the currently dominant MAN S70ME-C8.5 series (super-long) two stroke
engine with the proposed ultra-long stroke G70ME-C9.5series, alongside differing propeller
diameters at 14 and 14.7 knots, a greater understanding of the ideal operational conditions
was developed for large size bulk carriers. Clear trends were evident revealing increased
efficiency of 3-8% for G70ME-C9.5 over the currently popular S70ME-C8.5 depending upon
propeller diameter.
Whilst the ultra-long stroke engine does present advantages of efficiency over its super-long
stroke counterpart, it is 1.2m longer and 0.4m wider, thus weighs significantly more. Due to
this, serious consideration must be made to ensure the engine does not exceed a weight which
could prove detrimental to the structure and global bending stresses applied to the vessel.

Literature: Optimal dimension design of a hatch cover for lightening a bulk carrier.
(Um & Roh, 2015)
Due to constantly increasing international oil and material prices and subsequent operational
and constructional costs, the demand for weight reduction in vessel design is high. Hatch
covers as seen in Figure 1 are integral components of bulk carriers used to protect cargo form
ocean conditions. Hatch covers consist of stiffened plate (Figure 1) and contribute to
approximately 8% of construction costs, however little prior optimisation has been conducted
to improve this vital feature.

Figure 1. Hatch covers on a bulk carrier at sea (Left), bulk carrier hatch cover removed (top
right) and hatch cover structure showing the stiffened plate (bottom right) (Um & Roh, 2015)
The optimisation process was computationally programmed using C++ language, following
the SQP (Sequential Quadratic Programming) iterative method for non-linear design
optimisation. Validation of the developed algorithm was conducted using comparative tests
and the program was applied to the hatch design of an 180,000 ton dead weight vessel.
Optimisation limitations were defined by structural safety standards according to IACS and
Lloyd and geometric limitations were governed by maximum permissible stress and
deflection, minimum thickness of a plate, minimum section modulus and shear area of
stiffeners. The dimensional inputs used in computational analysis can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Identification of the dimensional inputs used in the computational analysis (Um &
Roh, 2015)

Results obtained for the optimisation of the fwd most hatch cover of the 180,000 ton DW
vessel presented weight reduction of up to 8.5%, however this term is likely to increase for
hatches closer to the vcg as they experience less reaction forces due to acceleration. Via
reduction in hatch mass, the weight and load distribution derivatives of global bending
moment are subsequently reduced.
9

2.2.

Structure

Literature: A Comparative Study on the Structural Integrity of Single and Double Side Skin
Bulk Carriers under Collision
(Ozguc, Das, & Barltrop, 2005).
Bulk carriers experience significant fatality rates in the occurrence of accidents, rates which
are far greater than those experienced by other vessel types. As a result, the International
Association of Classification Societies (ICAS) recently announced new safety requirements
for bulk carriers. In addition, the Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) have commenced a study
to investigate whether bulk carriers with double skin side construction are meeting the
structural requirements of SOLAS Chapter XII. There are two main advantages to a double
skin side bulk carrier with respect to the single skin side (See Figure 3). The existence of
redundancy in case of penetration, and the primary structural members are no longer
subjected to corrosive effects from being in contact with cargo loading and unloading
equipment. Double skin side hulls also moderate the effects should the vessel be involved in a
collision, as the cargo will not immediately spill, assuming the inside plating is intact.
However, there is also a chance for a loss of vessel if the inner plating remains intact due to
the additional sectional forces induced due to the accident, collapsing the hull. As a result, it
is important to compare the structural strength in both intact and damaged conditions.

Figure 3-Midship cross section comparison of single skin side and double skin side (Ozguc,
Das, & Barltrop, 2005)
Sixteen different collision cases were studied using ANSYS LS-DATA. The speed of
collision was 10.5m/s and the total collision time was 0.3s. The element was 125mm thick in
contact areas and 375mm in all other areas. It was found that the energy absorption when
rupture of the outer skin occurs is 10% lower for the double skin side (DSS) than the single
skin side (SSS). However, the maximum energy absorbed when the inner shell of the DSS
and outer shell for SSS is 2.2 times more for DSS. It was shown that the DSS bulk carriers
have a higher safety index than SSS bulk carriers in hogging and sagging collision moments.
This contributes to an overall greater longitudinal strength of the bulk carrier.
10

Literature: Analysis on the ultimate longitudinal strength of a bulk carrier by using a

simplified method
(Hu, Zhang, & Sun, 2001)
The longitudinal strength is the most important element of a ships hull design. This is
generally represented by the maximum bending moment that can be withstood by the ships
hull cross-section. Over the last 20 years, researchers have found that the linear elastic theory
which was previously employed is now inadequate to estimate the longitudinal strength of a
ships hull. It is necessary to take into account the following considerations; various failure
modes, progressive and interactive behaviour of the failure of structural members, and the
residual strength of members after buckling or collapse. There are three main methods to
calculate the ultimate longitudinal strength of a bulk carrier; the non-linear finite element
method (NFEM), the idealised structural unit method (ISUM) and the simplified method
(SM). Of these methods, the simplified method has proven to be the most straightforward
method with an adequate degree of accuracy. For this reason it has caught the attention of
naval architects. This paper analyses the longitudinal strength of a 34,000 tonne bulk carrier
using the simplified method. Firstly, vertical bending is considered. The values of the
ultimate longitudinal bending moments and the locations of the instantaneous neutral axes at
ultimate states of both hogging and sagging are calculated (See Figure 4). Following this, the
ultimate strength under combined vertical and horizontal bending moments is considered. An
interaction curve was obtained according to the results of a series of calculations for the hull
subjected to bending conditions with different curvature angles. It was found that the
interaction curve was asymmetrical. This was due to the hull cross section not being
symmetrical about the horizontal axis, and the behaviour of the structural members under
compression being different from the behaviour under tension due to the non-linearity caused
by buckling.

Figure 4-Stress distribution under ultimate state (Hu, Zhang, & Sun, 2001)

11

Literature: Statistical properties of bulk carrier longitudinal strength

(Campanile, Piscopo , & Scamardella, 2014)
Ship structures are continuously exposed to age related damages such as fatigue, cracking,
localised dents and corrosion. These all relate and contribute to a vessels loss of life and its
impact on the environment. While corrosion effects can be managed, thickness reductions
need to be considered for old vessels operating beyond their service life, such as bulk carriers.
Corrosion wastage was not considered up until the 1980s, the scantlings of merchant ships
were determined by more or less empirical formulas, implicitly accounting for corrosion
safety margins. To harmonize the safety margins, ICAS decided to prioritise the development
of Common Structure Rules (CSR) in 2006. These rules are based on the net scantling
approach to address the corrosion effects that a bulk carrier is likely to experience in its
operating lifetime. The method takes into account corrosion based on explicitly defined
corrosion additions for one side of each structural element, depending on both the
compartment category and the structural member such as platings or primary supporting
members. The rules of scantling compliance depend on the considered structural
requirements (local strength, hull girder strength, fatigue assessment) and analysis type
(buckling and collapsing, thickness and hull cross section). This net scantling approach is
easy to be applied in the building process, however it does not take into consideration the
annual corrosion rate. The paper focuses on statistical properties of time-variant hull girder
section modulus and ultimate bending moment capacity, determined by a Taylor series
expansion method and Monte Carlo simulation.
Hull girder section modulus and ultimate bending moment capacity follow the normal
distribution, not only under the assumption of uncorrelated variables, to which the
LindebergFeller Central Limit Theorem applies, but also when full correlation exists.

12

2.3.

Motions

Literature: Bulk Carriers Motion Analysis with Sloshing Effect in Water Ballast Cargo Hold
(Chen, Huang, & Wang, 2013)

Roll motions combined with the lateral wind loads can cause dangerous heeling angles, or in
extreme cases even capsizing. Ship motions are defined by six degrees of freedom that a ship
may experience and can be seen in Figure 5. Of these motions, heave pitch and roll are
oscillatory, whilst surge, sway and yaw are not. Oscillatory motions are typically produced by
wave excitation, however any instantaneous excitation will result in some degree of
oscillatory motion until motion damping produces equilibrium.

Figure 5. Six degrees of motion freedom with respect to a vessel

(Chen, Huang, & Wang, 2013)
For bulk carriers, encountering severe environmental conditions during a voyage is ordinary.
The main objective is to try and reduce the damage incurred during such circumstances. One
method of motion reduction is to vary the mass distribution with ballast water by permanently
or temporarily distributing mass distribution of the vessel during the voyage. These methods
are known as passive and active stabilisation respectively. Loading a suitable amount of
ballast water can reduce the harm caused to the vessel by abnormal waves, and increase a
ships safety and stability. By adding ballast water and increasing the draft, prevention of
cavitation effects on propellers and reduction of slamming effects may be reduced. To
confirm and validate motion predictions, model and computational analysis is required.
To investigate the ship motions, different loading conditions are carried out; during normal
ballast condition, heavy ballast condition and design load condition. The deadweight capacity
of the bulk carrier is 9300 MT and the water ballast is located amidships. The ship speed for
all tests was taken to be 5 knots. After the ballast water is loaded, numerical computations are
simulated in the frequency domain by using the commercial code HydroSTAR, developed by
Bureau Veritas. To validate the obtained data from HydroSTAR, it was compared with the
software SMP (Ship Motions Program). SMP is based on strip theory and is widely known to
be reliable in simulating ship motions. The strip theory introduced by Korvin-Kroukovsky
and Jacobs in 1957 has been revised and is still being used today to predict the six different
motions.
13

Results show that the HydroSTAR results are quite similar to those obtained from SMP,
except for the roll motion around resonant frequencies. Due to this, practical tests are
required to achieve further information into vessel roll option about the free damped
frequency, where resonance will occur. Practical tests may be used to develop understanding
of motion in regular or irregular seas if tested in regular seas. This is achieved by applying
the linear superposition principle in correspondence to some idealised wave spectra which
suits the operational conditions.
Practical and computational tests have provided conclusive evidence suggesting that vessel
seakeeping severity is increased in the heavy ballast condition compared to standard ballast
conditions, when specifically operating in 5 metre height waves and beam seas. Conversely,
the seakeeping performance is generally improved when the ballast tank is partially filled.
However, precautions must to be taken to ensure the free surface within the tank does not
jeopardise either the tank structure or the overall vessel stability. Further investigation into
the optimum ballast load is required, due to the correlation between the global bending load
acting on the vessel due to both motions and vessel ballast weight distribution.

14

Literature: Transient Design Waves for Green-Water Loading on Bulk Carriers

(Drake, 2000)
Extreme relative motion occurs at the forward hatch cover location when a bulk carrier
encounters steep fronted waves with pronounced asymmetry. This can result in green water
on the deck and high loads acting on the hatch covers, which in certain cases they have been
unable to withstand. From the investigation conducted, it has been identified that extreme
immersion of the bow can be attributed to the vessel pitching downwards into a steep fronted
wave, most notably when that wave has pronounced asymmetry. Furthermore, extreme
midship bending has be associated with instantaneous symmetric wave profiles where a crest
or trough is located at midships, an example of the asymmetric wave profile is shown in
Figure 6, and shows the extreme wave as it encounters the vessel.

Figure 6. Relative motion profiles associated with the linear response using a modified
Pierson Moskowitz spectrum (Drake, 2000)
This investigation examined the influence of extreme vessel motions due to the shape of the
encountered waves. For this investigation Drake, implemented linear wave profiles, linear
transfer functions, as well as calculating the vessels non-linear motions. From this study it
was concluded that due to relative extreme motion between the wave and vessel, the highest
loads were seen to occur when the vessel was close to being level and encountered a steep
fronted wave with pronounced asymmetry.

15

From this article it can be identified that in the design and development of a bulk carrier,
investigation into the sea states in which it will operate and the waves that it will encounter
will be essential to ensure the vessel can withstand the bending moments applied.
Furthermore, care should be taken to ensure that the motions and loading experienced by the
vessel are accounted for and that the vessel will be able to withstand them. From this article,
with respect to the documentation produced by the classification societies, the regulations are
simple cases and all endeavours need to be made to ensure that the vessel not only complies
with the regulations, but is also able to withstand all conditions that it may encounter.

Literature: Benchmark Study of Slamming and Whipping

(Drummen & Holtmann, 2014)
Vessel such as Bulk carriers, travelling in harsh environments can experience significant
Slamming. The slamming motions results in significant loading on the vessel, commonly
attributed to a change in acceleration due to the interaction between a water surface and the
vessel. According to Drummen and Holtmann (2014), when slamming occurs in vessels over
200 metres in length or longer, a transient dynamic structural response known as whipping
can occur. The vertical bending moments induced through whipping when combined with
wave bending can be double that of wave bending on its own. Slamming is aspect of vessel
motion and loading that requires significant investigation to ensure that it is adequately
accounted for.

In the maritime world considerable resources have been invested in the prediction of the
loads resulting from slamming, however very little investigation as to the accuracy of the
results obtained has been conducted. To analyse the accuracy of the prediction methods used
to predict the loads induced by slamming a number or research facilities and classification
societies were involved in a benchmarking analysis. This investigation compared the results
of towing tank data and finite element analysis data across the institutions, as can be seen in
Figure 7. It was concluded that in general good agreement of the results using similar
methods at different institutions resulted and there was a high level of correlation to the
experimental data obtained. However, it was observed that some complex methods used
within finite element analysis may incur additional uncertainties.

Figure 7. Measured and calculated vertical force at bow area with measured wave motions
obtained from the participants of the study (Drummen & Holtmann, 2014)
16

Therefore it can be identified that in order to effectively design and develop vessels such as
Capesize bulk carriers, the various motions that the vessel will undergo must be examined
and means of calculation utilised. From this study it can be seen that the theoretical methods
available to the engineer and naval architect can be effective in predicting the loads resulting
from extreme motions, but in-depth understanding of the methods is required for accurate
results.
Literature: Generating Extreme Ship Responses using non-uniform Phase Distributions
(Alford & Troesh, 2009)
To produce an effective design it is paramount that estimates of loads that will be applied to
the vessel are accurately obtained. However, according to Alford and Troesch (2009)
estimating ship responses and loads considering only extreme waves can have a negative
effect. This is because this methodology does not take into account the dynamic responses
and behaviour of the vessel. Therefore, it is suggested that through the methods developed by
Lindgren, Boccotti and Taylor, utilising linear wave theory, the maximum extreme wave
value is inserted into the desired wave train to provide an extended irregular wave record
(Alford & Troesh, 2009). This will allow for investigation to examine the correlation between
extreme waves and extreme vessel motions.
This method was utilised to predict the springing of a Great Lakes bulk carrier. Springing
occurs when the encounter frequency of the waves, or a harmonic of the encounter frequency
of the waves, excites the ship at its two-nodal excitation frequency (Alford & Troesh, 2009,
p. 644), according to Alford and Troesch when springing occurs the bending moment of the
vessel can significantly increase. The stress response spectra of a Great Lakes bulk carrier is
shown in Figure 8, this plot shows the relationship between the extreme responses. This
behaviour is especially important in very large carriers due to the implications that it can have
on structural integrity. When springing occurs, due to the elastic nature of the behaviour,
there is a change in the extreme response, as well the shape of the wave train, producing large
responses. Wave induced bending varies with frequency, at lower frequencies it relates to the
rigid body dynamics, while at high frequencies it is related to the effects of springing (Alford
& Troesh, 2009).

Figure 8. Typical midships stress response spectra of the M/V Stewart J. Cort, showing waveinduced and springing stresses (Alford & Troesh, 2009)
17

Therefore from the work of Alford and Troesch (2009) it can be identified that there are a
number of different phenomena and behaviour that go into the motion of a bulk carrier. It is
also noted that the excitation forces of the waves must be understood effectively, in order to
provide the most accurate predictions. Furthermore, the effect of springing must be
acknowledged by the designer to ensure effective mitigation of the inherent risk that it causes.

2.4.

Wave loading

Literature: Design of Ship Hull Structures, Chapter 2 Structural Design Loads

(Mano, Okumoto, Takeda, & Okada, 2009)
All ships are subjected to different types of loads; such as hydrostatic pressure, hydrodynamic
pressure and environmental loads caused by wind, currents, and waves. Among the variety of
loads, accumulative wave induced hydrodynamic pressure can have a significant effects on
the ship structure and eventually contribute to the structural collapse. Subsequently, it is
obligatory for every naval architect to analyse, in depth, all loads a vessel hull structure may
experience and, with emphasized significance placed on wave induced loads.
In conjunction, global loads act on the entire hull girder while the local loads are more
involved with panels, girders, beams, and stringers. When looking at a global deformation
perspective, a ship will behave like a beam due to its slender shape as a wave generates a
vertical and horizontal bending moment which acts to provide buoyant force unevenly
distributed along the vessel length resulting in hogging and sagging bending moments
(Figure 9). Hogging is the condition where amidships is deflected upwards, so the top
longitudinal layer of the ship experienced tensile stress whilst the below the neutral axis the
vessel experiences compression. On the other hand, sagging is the condition where the
amidships is deflected downwards. Nonetheless, the hogging and sagging bending moment
act interchangeably on the hull girder along the ship across the progressive waves, increasing
the global stresses applied to the vessel due to cyclic loading and subsequent fatigue.

Figure 9. Vertical bending due to waves (M. Mano et al., Design of Ship Hull Structures,
2009)

18

Each classification society, which is tasked to provide analysis methods to ensure all vessels
are designed safely, quantify the degree of the global load in terms the strength. The
International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) standardized the rules in the
Unified Rule Requirement of 1989 which has been recognized by all classification societies.
It was stated that the minimum allowable bending moment a vessel must withstand is roughly
equal to the worst case scenario or one in 20 year extreme wave load, with a probability of
10-8 that wave induced loads will exceed such value.
Literature: Loads for use in the design of ships and offshore structures
(Hirdaris, et al., 2014)
In recent years, since bulk shipping has proved itself as the most cost and energy effective
way of transporting a great deal of cargo at once, the number of bulk carriers has dramatically
increased. Such demand has also gradually enlarged the size of existing bulk carriers and
transformed their shape, pushing the limits of structural design. The problem involving such
trend is the influence of the wave loading that becomes larger with the increase of the hull
size. Subsequently, particulars of new bulk carriers could exceed the valid ranges of methods
used to predict vessel wave loading, thus increasing the need for new quality experimental
data, particularly pertaining to the measurement of global loads from model tests. Evaluation
of wave induced loads is consistently conducted using partly nonlinear methods whilst
comparing predictions with model tests. Furthermore, increasingly complex analysis
techniques are becoming popular, allowing fully nonlinear analysis, particularly using CFD
based methods. The potential flow formulation of slamming problems has continued to also
raise interest. Recent studies have focused on the evaluation of slamming loads on symmetric
and asymmetric sections using the Wagner approach. Furthermore, hybrid CFD based
methods (e.g. RANS or SPH) have become commercially available and significantly more
popular.
When it comes to the maximum longitudinal strength of the hull, severe abnormal waves
should be taken into consideration. Moreover, fatigue caused by continuous wave loads could
have a larger impact on the hull girder than the relatively less frequent higher magnitude
extreme wave loads.
Literature: Effect of ship length on the vertical bending moments induced by abnormal waves
(Foneseca, Guedes Soares, & Psacol, 2007)
The most significant component of interaction between abnormal waves and vessel loading is
the high extent of non-linearity. The main focus of this article is to evaluate the influence of
the ship dimension on the vertical bending moment generated by the rogue waves. The
magnitude of global loads induced by these abnormal waves compared to the hull strength
will depend on the relationship between the wavelength and the ship length. The investigation
was carried out on geometrically similar type of bulk carriers between 100m to 350m. The
analysis was then performed using the time domain sea keeping program which solves
equations of motions and structural loads.
19

It is usually very hard to predict the maximum wave induced loads on ships during their
lifetime, and there are a couple of uncertainty predictions made; one of which is associated to
the stochastic nature of the waves and the other basis is examining excessive wave conditions
which approach the restrictions imposed by numerical methods due to highly nonlinear vessel
response.
Many approaches have been taken to calculate the design wave loads on ships. If the loads
are basically linear, then it is possible and efficient to apply the linear long term distribution
method. The other procedures that have been taken into account are based on the assumption
that the linear seakeeping model is able to accurately identify the conditions in which the
extreme wave loads occur. The focus is to quantify the worst conditions that the ship will
encounter in a long period of time by applying similar linear sea keeping methods and
conducting more accurate and time consuming nonlinear time domain simulations only for
selected range of extreme conditions.
From investigations it can be concluded that the bending moments are maximized when the
ship length is roughly similar with the wavelength of the abnormal waves. Results show that
the relationship between the abnormal wave height and the maximum moment is almost
linear, however when the significantly increased wave height, linearity breaks down. Results
also confirmed that increased wave height yields higher values of global bending moments ,
whilst increased ship lengths has a similar influence on bending moments.
Literature: Experimental and Numerical extreme motions and vertical bending moments
induced by abnormal waves on a bulk carrier
(Vasquez, Fonseca & Guedes Soares, 2013)
An issue which arises occasionally, is the degree of breakdown of a bulk carrier when
exposed to severe wave loads. Nowadays ships try retain maximum stability when faced with
severe sea conditions. This article exhibits an investigation which concentrates on the global
structure loads and motions produced by abnormal waves on a bulk carrier.
A systematic study was done on the wave generated vertical ship motions and structural loads,
showing that the global loads are mainly effected by the combination of the bow flare and the
wave steepness. To foresee the response of the ship, the strip theory method based with a
non-linear time domain is used. A simulation on a real storm situation (New Year Wave)
which included extreme freak waves is replicated at the seakeeping model test tank and by
the numerical code to test the ships. After which the gathered experimental and numerical
data were compared.
The two real storm wave situations considered for the investigation were the New Year Wave
(NFW) and the Single Freak Wave North Alwyn (SFWNA). The experimental data was then
compared with the time domain simulations from the bulk carrier model tests in head sea
conditions at a static condition (Fr=0) and slow ahead (Fr=0.1).The magnitude for both the
waves was the same.

20

Results show even though the SFWNA had a smaller height the sagging moment was much
greater when compared with the NFW since the length was a lot closer to the length of the
ship, resulting in the encounter frequency approaching free damped frequency of the vessel,
subsequently inducing resonance. Analysing both the linear and non-linear simulations, the
data obtained was seen to be fairly close, comparing well with measured values.
Literature: Ultimate hull girder strength of a bulk carrier under combined global and local
loads in the hogging and alternate hold loading condition using nonlinear FEA.
The failure of a bulk carrier hull is often associated with severe wave loading and certain hold
loading conditions which can cause the hull to fail due to degree breakdown. The loads
caused by the interaction between large wave loading can cause elasto-plastic deformation of
the ships hull. There are two types of loads that act on the ship structure; local loads
(experienced by stiffened panels, girders and beams) and global loads (which act on the
ships girder, the vessel as a whole).
When a bulk carrier experiences hogging the mid-ship of a ship experiences an upwards
deflection. This deflection results in the top longitudinal layer of the ship experiences tension
whilst the bottom layer of the ship experiences compression. The main cause of this load case
is the alternate hold loading (AHL) condition. This condition is caused by high density cargo
being loaded into all odd numbered holds leaving the even holds empty.
To analyse this problem and incorporate its implications in design, finite element analysis
(FEA) with the ABAQUS software is used to study combined AHL conditions effect on the
ultimate hull girder strength of a bulk carrier. The reference vessel used for this investigation
was an old model a design modification factor (DMF) of 1.4 was used to correlate the
findings with the new common structural rules (CSR).
Calculations were completed using the ultimate strength under just longitudinal bending in
the hogging condition. These results were then compared with Smiths method also known as
the simplified method. This method produced ultimate longitudinal strengths which were
similar but generally smaller than the FEA method which was used calculate the bulk carrier
strength under AHL conditions.
Results have shown that irregularities and imperfections in vessel construction, such as poor
welds, and residual stresses can alter the hull girders ultimate strength. Furthermore, it was
found that the DMF has a larger influence on the ultimate bending capacity under combined
global hogging moment and local load than pure hogging and bending loads. This evidently
shows that the bending capacity under combined global and local loads can be optimised by
strengthening bottom panels.

21

2.5.

Mooring

Literature: Movements of Moored Ships in Harbours

(Elzinga, Iribarren, & Jensen, 1992)
The motions of a moored ship at a berth can be categorised as either horizontal (surge, sway,
and yaw) or vertical (roll, pitch, and heave). The vertical movements of a vessel can be
classified as an independent section to the mooring line but on the other hand, the horizontal
movements rely significantly on the berthing line. The movement of a vessel could cause
unsynchronised forces to act on the mooring line and fenders between the vessel and berthing
area. The Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC) therefore
authorised a special working group to investigate the developments of moored ships in
harbours with the intent to produce new criteria for ship movements in safe working
conditions (i.e. at the point when operations must be minimised or even stopped), and
additionally for safe mooring conditions (i.e. at the point when ships need to leave the berths).
The working group explains the rules as issued by different arrangement social orders that
concern the number and type of mooring lines to be carried on board. The rules ought to
mirror that a moored ship is a dynamic framework having uncommon necessities as for safe
working and additionally safe mooring conditions. Accordingly, the mooring operations of
bulk carriers could be enhanced by utilizing delicate spring lines for ships which are
presented to long stretch waves.
Literature: The vessel in Port; Mooring Problems
(Schelfn & Ostergaard, 1995)
A safe mooring should be capable of resisting the forces imparted on the moored ship by
wind, swell, and other vessels. It is fundamental to establish operational standards which
appropriately account for the forces experienced by the ship and mooring. The magnitude of
the environmental forces imparted on a moored ship change dramatically at different ports. It
is important to know the route that will be operated by a ship as this will determine the
typical forces which will be imparted on the ship while moored. The design of the mooring
system should take the varying magnitudes of environmental forces into account but should
also have enough headroom in order to be able to safely deal with adverse conditions.
International regulatory authorities have not developed strict rules regarding the design of
mooring systems since it is hard to allow for the variation in conditions experienced by
different ships. It is critical for a ship to have an adequate mooring standard practice for the
safety of the ship, mooring infrastructure and the environment. When developing mooring
standards it is important to have a good understanding of the environmental forces which will
act on a ship and the mooring infrastructure so standards can be developed accordingly.
At most berths the mooring system is designed to the maximum wind and current strengths
experienced at its location, as well as forces imparted from different sources including waves.
For each of these circumstances and mooring configurations, static examination strategies can
be employed to determine the correct mooring line strength for that particular situation.
22

Due to their size, bulk carriers are often required to berth at deeper open water moorings
which can experience greater environmental forces than protected shallow water berths. Due
to the severity of the environmental forces experienced by the moored ship that it is critical
that they are correctly calculated. It is possible to use three-dimensional potential streams to
develop a simulation for the first-order hydrodynamic forces and subsequent high-recurrence
movements experienced by a moored ship. These are then able to be used to ensure that the
correct standards are employed to prevent the breakage of mooring lines when ships undergo
extreme motions, preventing damage to the ship and mooring structure. A safe mooring
should be capable of holding forces from the surroundings such as wind, swell, and from
other vessels. To set up an operational standard that guarantees the ship is appropriately
prepared for safe mooring, it is fundamental, tangent upon the trading route, to decide the
environmental forces that would typically be experienced by the moored ship. At exactly that
point can the ship be legitimately outfitted with a mooring arrangement of adequate
restriction capacity to oppose these forces and to permit some level of adaptability inside
ordinary security resistances. Thus, strict rules for mooring systems are not specified by
international regulatory authorities such as the United Requirements of the IACS. A
proficient mooring framework is fundamental for the safety of the ship, the terminal and the
environment. In managing the issue of improving the moorings with adequate restriction
ability, it is important to focus on the environmental forces applied on the ship, general
standards that decide how the forces are conveyed to the mooring lines, and utilisation of
these standards to build up a decent mooring course of action.
Literature: Passing Ships Effects on Moored Capesize Bulk Carriers
(Hall, van der Molen, & Scott, 2013)
Numerous ports worldwide are being expanded to handle larger volumes of materials, and
inland ports are beginning to reach their capacity as there is a higher number of ships using
existing shipping channels. With this increase in shipping traffic and ship sizes in world ports,
passing ship interactions are becoming more of an issue. Passing ship interactions can cause
large vessel motions which can damage the ship, the berth, loading and unloading equipment
and endanger lives.
Through the use of a numerical model developed using PASSCAT it is possible to evaluate
the pressure field created by the passing ship. This can be used to determine the forces and
moments imparted on the moored ship. To show the PASSCAT results were reliable,
physical model tests were undertaken using 1/100 scale physical models of the same ships
used in the numerical simulation. The model testing was completed using defined limits for
passing speeds, as such the accuracy of this model at passing speeds outside these limits
could not be verified. Figure 10 shows the mathematical model used to investigate passing
vessel effects on a moored ship.

23

Figure 10. Proposed Mathematical model (Samsung Heavy Industries Co. LTD 2010)
This study has limitations due to the model developed. This simulation was only validated for
a passing distance of 200 meters in an empty port. More importantly, the results for this test
are only for a specific port and would require alteration to be applied to other ports.
The study proved the simulation to be reliable and proved very successful with interesting
results. Despite this simulation only being applicable for the tested port, it was proven that
with further study and the correct alterations it can be accurately applied to other ports around
the world.
It is crucial to consider the mooring forces exerted on a moored bulk carrier due to passing
vessels. The mooring force contributes to the load distribution acting on the vessel adding to
global bending moment the structure must withstand.
Literature: Open Water Berths and Single Point Moorings
(Mehaute & Chiu, 1980)
Liquid bulk carriers have the ability to load and unload their cargo through flexible transfer
lines. This allows these ships to complete unloading and loading despite relatively large ship
motions. With a thorough understanding of the dynamics of a berthed ship when acted upon
by waves, winds and currents and the methods used to secure ships at open sea berths, it is
possible to construct these terminals in relatively exposed locations without breakwaters.
The use of a single point mooring and flexible dolphin is the best and safest mooring for
ships to use in exposed berths. Many bulk carrier terminals around the world utilise open sea
berths as opposed to single point moorings. In these cases it is important to understand how
the motions of a ship are affected by normal and adverse weather conditions in order to
correctly design the mooring systems and ensure correct mooring standards.
The forces in mooring lines and fenders, and the amplitude of motions of a moored ship when
exposed to waves include a mixture of subharmonic, harmonic and superharmonic
oscillations. Harmonic motions are the oscillations of a ship in its six degrees of freedom
which correspond to the frequencies of the waves. These oscillations primarily affect the roll,
pitch and heave of the moored ship. Subharmonic motions on the other hand predominantly

24

affect the surge, sway and yaw of the ship and make up a substantial part of the ships total
motions since the natural frequency of these systems are low.
Liquid bulk carriers, unlike other ships which are often moored tight to fenders in smooth
water ports and can therefore be considered practically motionless, are often moored using
flexible loading arms. Due to the flexibility of this type of loading arm the moored ship is
able to move relatively freely. Fixed dolphins are no longer designed for open berths since
the most effective way to prevent excessive forces from mooring lines and fenders being
transferred in to the moored ship is to add flexibility.
Through mathematical models and model testing it was found that the use of a flexible
mooring system combined with the use of non-symmetric constant tension winches allow for
the berthing of ships at open sea berths without exceeding specified safety criteria.
Literature: Restricted water effects on berthed ship passing ship interaction
(Denehy, Duffy, Ranmuthugala, & Renilson, 2015)
Whilst underway, a ship generates a pressure field which imparts forces and moments on
objects in its surroundings, including ships at berth. This interaction causes the berthed ships
to move on their moorings. There have been a number of instances where excessive motions
experienced by a berthed ship have caused damage to mooring infrastructure and even loss of
life. Berthed ship motions can also affect a ships ability to load and unload safely.
Many studies have been performed by a number of authors to better understand the
interactions between passing and berthed ships. These studies have used both empirical and
semi-empirical methods to investigate and predict the interaction forces and moments
imparted on the berthed ship. However most empirical methods are only able to be applied
when passing interactions occur with a water depth to draft ratio of greater than 1.1 and with
no lateral restrictions, and the interaction moments and forces change with the square of
passing ships speed.
In order to more accurately model passing ship interactions, two channel widths and two
under keel clearances we investigated experimentally, empirically and numerically. The
different methods were then validated against each other. All of the tests we conducted using
the channel widths of 3.04 B and 8.25 B and under keel clearances of 1.04 T and 1.2 T with B
and T being the ships Beam and Draft respectively. All test were conducted with a constant
passing distance.
It was noted that in previous experiments the tow rigs used for the passing ships did not
restrict the sway of the passing ship or measure this motion. As a result the magnitude of
these forces and moments were unknown. To correct for this, a new tow rig was developed
which constrained the surge, sway and yaw of the passing ship which provided a constant
lateral separation between the models.
Since these ship interactions occur at low speed it is possible to neglect the wave-making
dissipation of the passing ship. As a result, using CFD software it is possible to determine the
25

velocity field developed around the passing ship using potential flow with the free surface
modelled as a rigid wall. The interactions of the forces and moments imparted on the berthed
ship from the velocity field around the moving ship were estimated using an inviscid double
body numerical model. Due to the complex hull design a simplified model was used for this
method. The effect of this simplified model on the simulation was not quantified in the study.
Upon comparing the results of the different models it could be seen that surge force
magnitude was not significantly affected by the reduction in under keel clearance. The sway
force and yaw moment imparted on the berthed ship increased considerably when the under
keel clearance was reduced. Once scaled to represent a 300m long ship, the experimental
results, inviscid CFD predictions and existing empirical predictions were used as inputs into
numerical simulation software to predict the motions of the moored ship. The predicted
motions using the forces and moments calculated using CFD correlated well with the
experimentally measured interaction forces for the surge and sway motions.

3. Capesize Bulk Carriers

In recent decades the need to the transport large amounts of raw materials around the globe
has increased dramatically. Subsequently the demand for materials has resulted in an
increased global fleet of large sized bulk carriers. Due to the reduced cost of buying materials
in bulk, combined with the astonishing load to required power ratio of large vessels, the
average size of bulk carriers has increased significantly to ensure ship owners are receiving
maximum return on their investment. (Fei, J. 2015)
Bulk carriers come in a range of sizes depending on the cargo to be shipped and the route to
be operated by the ship. One of the largest size of bulk carriers are known as Capesize bulk
carriers.
Capesize bulk carriers are designed primarily to handle raw materials from deep water
terminals. The raw goods most commonly transported by Capesize ships include iron ore,
bauxite, coal and other commodities. A typical Capesize bulk carrier may exhibit a
deadweight of approximately 100-200,000 tonnes and a draft of 17 metres. However
Capesize bulk carriers can also include larger sub-categories VLCC, ULCC, VLOC and
ULOC which can have a deadweight of up to 400,000 tonnes. (Lloyd's Register Foundation,
2014)
The overall size of a bulk carrier ultimately determines the route it must travel between ports.
Even with recent upgrades to the Suez and Panama Canals, Capesize bulk carriers still exceed
the maximum size limits for passage of these canals, thus they must transit around Cape Horn
and the Cape of Good Hope in order to deliver materials.
Despite Capesize vessels not having the restrictions on the maximum length, beam and draft
of other ship classes, they still have limits due the size of ports around the world. Due their
large size, in particular their large drafts, there are only a small number of deep water ports
and terminals which have the infrastructure to accommodate Capesize bulk carriers greater

26

than 200,000 tonnes. Therefore bulk carriers must be designed around the maximum size
limits of the ports and subsequent routes their owners intend to use. (Bhaskar, P. 2015)

4. Similar Vessel Analysis

Since Capesize bulk carriers can have a deadweight of anywhere from 100-400,000 tonnes, a similar
vessel study was performed to determine if any trends exist in the designs of these vessels. A random
selection of more than twenty Capesize bulk carriers were selected, covering a broad range of vessel
commission dates and sizes. Each vessels dimensions, deadweight, launch year, engine power and
operational speed were tabulated and used to compare all of the vessels. Both dimensional and nondimensional relationships were used to develop the comparison plots below. A tabulated version of
the full vessel particulars used for these calculations is included in Appendix A.
The design of large bulk carriers has evolved over the last twenty years. To investigate the trends in
design which have changed, a number of different vessel characteristics were plotted against the year
the vessel was launched. Such can be seen in the Figure 11.
350000
300000

Deadweight (tons)

250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Year

Figure 11. Bulk carrier similar vessel analysis of Deadweight vs. Year
As seen in Figure 11, in our selection of Capesize bulk carriers there has been an increased demand
for bulk carriers between 150-200,000 tonnes. This may be attributed to a number of factors including
demand for larger bulk carriers, particularly oil carriers, reducing. This is in part due to the impact of
marine incidents involving these ships. The main reason for this trend however, is that ship owners
are looking to increase the profitability their ships. This is best done through versatility. Since there
are very few ports which can handle ships of over 200,000 tonnes, owners are opting for ships very
close but just within the maximum permissible port dimensions, subsequently increasing the number
of possible trade routes the vessel may service.
Figure 12 shows how the operational speeds of bulk carriers has changed over past decades. It can be
seen that the required operational speeds for bulk carriers has reduced. This is due to a number of
global factors. The most likely factor influencing this trend is the dramatic increase in the cost of fuel.
This is critical as this is the largest component of a vessels operating costs. There is also a correlation
27

between the length of a bulk carrier and its designed average operating speed. This is further
investigated and discussed in Figure 13.
16

Speed (knots)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Year

Figure 12.Comparison of vessel speed in knots and year built

Deadweight / Capacity (tons)/m3

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Year

Figure 13. Comparison of vessel Deadweight / Capacity versus Year

To evaluate the how the efficiency of hold design has changed over years of development, the
ratio of deadweight to capacity was plotted against year. It can be seen that deadweight to
capacity has reduced since Capesize bulk carriers were introduced. This shows that the design
of the holds of these ships has evolved to use less volume more efficiently.

28

From the above figures it can be seen that the current trends for Capesize bulk carriers are for
increased numbers of smaller ships which are designed to operate at lower speed than in
previous decades. It can also be seen that the design of the holds on this size of ships has
become more efficient. However, due to the costs associated with manufacturing a new ship
bulk carriers are often in service for over two decades. For this reason it is important to
understand the general design trends for Capesize bulk carriers and not just current trends.
To get a better understanding of these general design trends a number of dimensional and
non-dimensional comparisons were investigated.

Dimensional Comparisons:
Figure 14, shows that for Capesize ships there are two interesting trends that occur when
speed is compared against length. The first expected trend is that in general, as a ships length
increases, its speed also increases. The other interesting trend is that for ships between 285m
and 295m there is a large range of operational speeds. This is due to the popularity of this
size of ship and the different requirements of ship owners in this size range.
16

Speed (knots)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

Length (m)

Figure 14. Bulk carrier similar vessel analysis, Speed versus Length

To investigate how the deadweight capacity of Capesize ships changes with length, each
vessels deadweight and length were plotted against each other as seen in Figure 15. It can be
easily seen that as a ships length increases, so does its deadweight capacity. This can be
understood, as larger ships have a greater displacement allowing them to carry more.

29

350000

Deadweight (tons)

300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

Length (m)

Figure 15. Similar vessel analysis for bulk carrier comparing

deadweight with respect to length
It was only possible to find information the engine power of 12 of the Capesize bulk carriers
investigated (As seen in Figure 16), however it was decided that this smaller sample would
still provide valuable insight into this relationship. This sample included ships of between
288.15m and 300m manufactured between 1999 and 2015. The downward trend observed in
the plot can be linked to improved efficiencies of engines and the design optimisation of hulls
in this size range since 1999.
14

Speed (knots)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
19000.00

20000.00

21000.00

22000.00

23000.00

24000.00

25000.00

26000.00

Engine Power (Hp)

Figure 16. Bulk carrier comparison, speed versus engine power

30

Non-Dimensional Comparisons:
To remove the influence of the ships dimensions on observed trends, a number of nondimensional relationships were investigated.
The block coefficient is a measure of the fullness of the ships hull form. When plotted
against Froude number it can be seen how close the ships hull design is to the recommended
block coefficient for that vessel and is shown in Figure 17.
0.86

Block Coefficient

0.84
0.82
0.80
0.78
0.76
0.74
0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

0.15

Froude Number

Figure 17. Block coefficients versus Froude number for the bulk carrier vessels exmained
To evaluate how efficiently each vessel hull was designed to maximise load capacity, the
hold capacity against its block volume was plotted against beam to draft ratio and is seen in
figure 18. It could be seen that as a ships B/T ratio increases the efficiency of its carrying
capacity decreases. This is as a result of the hull having a relatively larger volume.
1.20

Capacity/ LBT

1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80

2.90

3.00

3.10

3.20

B/T Ratio

Figure 18. Non-dimensional capacity versus beam draft coefficient for the analysed bulk
carriers.
31

Selected Average Capesize Bulk Carrier;

Using all of the above information we were able to select a suitable average ship which will
be used to compare the design standards developed by Lloyd's and DNV.
The particulars for the Capesize bulk carrier selected can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Selected Capesize Bulk carrier for investigation, from similar vessel analysis
Vessel Name
Deadweight (ton)
LWT (ton)
Displacement (ton)
Length (m)
Beam (m)
Draft (m)
Block Coefficient (CB)
Engine Make
Grain Capacity (m3)
Speed (knots)
Year
Class

Goliath
209 537
28 939
238 476
300
50
18.43
0.84
Man B&W
227 362
10.70
2015
ABS

There are a number of reasons why Goliath was deemed to be the best representation of an

average Capesize bulk carrier. Within the random sample of ships selected it could be seen
that Goliath was the ship which most closely met the current trends for Capesize vessels. It
could also be seen that for other relationships investigated, the Goliath was always close to
the trend and around the mean vessel. The Goliath's geometric specifications and deadweight
are also quite close to the average ship dimensions for Capesize bulk Carrier.

32

5. Classification Rules
5.1.

DNV

DNV is an international certification body which regulates the design and production of
maritime vessels, to ultimately ensure all the elements of vessel design incorporate the
appropriate factors of safety. Part B of Section 5 of DNV Rules for Classification of Ships
(Det Norske Veritas) details the processes required to calculate the global still water and
wave induced bending moments for vessels. Although the method described below is only
used for the preliminary design stage, the quoted probability of the vessel exceeding
calculated values is 10-8.
For ships with a small block coefficient, high speed and large flare, the hull girder buckling
strength in the body needs to be considered based on the distribution of still water and
vertical wave bending moments. The particularly applies to ships larger then 120m and with a
speed of larger than 17knotts.
For ships with large deck openings (width of hatch openings in a transverse section exceeding
65% of ships breadth or the length exceeds 75% of total ship length) the longitudinal strength
needs to be considered.
In addition to this, consideration needs to be given to ships with the following:
-CB=0.6
-L/B5
-B/D2.5
Ballast:
Ballast loading conditions involving partially filled peak and or other ballast tanks at either
departure, arrival or during intermediate conditions are not permitted to be used as design
conditions unless:
-design stress limits are satisfied for all tank levels.
Where multiple tanks are intended to be partially filled, all combinations of empty, full or in
between intended levels shall be investigated.
Prior to conducting calculations, it is essential to convey the sign convention. DNV states that
downwards load is assumed to be taken as positive values, which are to be integrated from
the aft perpendicular in the forward direction as shown in the figure 19 below.

33

Figure 19. Bending Moment Sign Convention

Wave Load Conditions
Vertical wave bending moment amidships
(1)

(2)
(3)

Where:
For seagoing conditions
For harbour and sheltered water conditions (enclosed fjords, lakes, rivers)
CB is not taken less than 0.6.
And,
CW is the wave coefficient and is dependent on vessel length as shown below:
(4)
(5)
(6)
When required in connection with stress analysis or buckling control, the wave bending
moments at arbitrary positions along the length of the ship are normally not to be taken less
than:
(7)
Where:

Values of kWM may also be obtained from the Figure 20 below.

34

Figure 20. Wave bending moment distribution.

Still Water Bending Moment

The design still water bending moments amidships (sagging and hogging) are normally not to
be taken less than:
(8)

(9)

(10)

Where:

When required in connection with stress analysis or buckling control, the still water bending
moments at arbitrary positions along the length of the ship are normally not to be taken less
than:
(11)
Where:

Between specified positions

shall be varied linearly from 0.15 to 1.0 as shown in the

figure 21 below.

35

Figure 21. Value of kSM against Proportion of Length (DNV, 2015)

Sample Calculations:
Vertical Wave Loading:
The vessel parameters are defined in Table 1
Table 2:Wave Coefficient for DNV

CW

L > 100

0.0792L

100 L 300

10.75 - [(300 L)/100]1.5

300 L 350

10.75

L > 350

10.75 - [(L-350)/150]1.5

Vertical Wave Bending Moment:

Finding the maximum bending moment about amidships:
From Table 1,
.
Where,

36

For sagging,

For hogging,

The distribution factor

is equal to 1 as the calculation takes place amidships, therefore
the wave moment for sagging is:

Hence, the wave moment for hogging is:

Calculations for still water

Calculation of the maximum still water moment about amidships for sagging:

For Hogging:

As the vessel is being calculated about amidships, the distribution factor,

is equal to 1,

hence the still water sagging moment is:

For hogging:

37

5.2.

Lloyds

Lloyds Register, Marine is one of the oldest and largest Classification Societies. Lloyds
works to ensure that the international safety and environmental standards of a ship are
maintained throughout its life (Alderton, 2004). During the design and development of a
vessel which will be entered into class, it is paramount that many considerations are
employed to ensure it meets the societys stringent regulations. For Lloyds, these are set out
in the Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships. The requirements employed by
Lloyds, with respect to the longitudinal bending moments are documented in Part Three,
General Ship Structures, and Part Four, Ship Structures (Ship Types) of the document. Key to
this investigation is Part Three, Chapter Four, Section Five. This section documents the
longitudinal strength requirements of vessel requiring Lloyds classification (Lloyds Register
Group, 2016).
Under Lloyds regulations, all ships greater than 65m in length are required to undergo
longitudinal strength calculations in order to determine the hull girder strength, calculations
must be conducted for the range of load and ballasting conditions proposed. If a
superstructure is fitted that is greater than 0.15L and the span of it extends 0.5L amidships,
then the requirements for the longitudinal strength in the hull and superstructure that is
erected, need to be considered for each individual case (Lloyds Register Group, 2016).
Within the Lloyds Classification
Of special consideration within the Lloyds Regulations, in ships between 120 and 170 metres
in length and a service speed of greater than 17.5 knots, that also have a bow shape factor of
greater than 0.15, the hull midship section modulus and the distribution of longitudinal
material in the forward half-length needs to be specially considered (Lloyds Register Group,
2016).
Direct calculation procedures:
The Lloyds Register direct calculation method involves the derivation of response to regular
waves, the short term response to irregular waves, and long term response predictions using
statistical distributions of sea states. Other direct calculation methods should usually include
all three elements and produce similar results to that of the Lloyds Register method.

38

Individual consideration with the direct calculation procedure will be needed for ships that
have the following characteristics;

An overall length greater than 400m

Unusual type or design
Unusual hull weight distribution
L/B ratio of less than or equal to 5
B/D ratio of less than or equal to 2
Large deck openings, or areas where warping stresses exceed 14N/mm
A CB of 0.6
Carriage of heated cargo

For an accurate assessment of the longitudinal strength of a ship to be made, the following
information is required:

The general arrangement of the ship, including the volume and centre of gravity of all
tanks and compartments.
Bonjean data (tables or curves) for a minimum of 21 equally spaced stations along the
length of the hull. May also require a lines plan.
Calculated lightweight and its weight distribution.
Loading manual.
The centre of gravity and weights of all deadweight items for each of the loading
conditions for individual ship types. This information can be submitted in the form of
a preliminary loading manual that includes the still water bending moments and shear
forces.

Design vertical wave bending moments:

The hogging or sagging design hull vertical wave bending moment at amidships is given by
the following formula:
(kNm)

(12)

The overall wave loading is predicted using the formula:

(13)
Where:
is the wave bending moment factor, shown in table 2
at the aft end of L and is the design vertical bending moment
between 0.4L and 0.65L from aft
at the forward end of L, intermediate values can be obtained through linear
interpolation

39

Ship service factor for unrestricted sea going service, should not be less than 0.5.
for sagging (negative) moment
for hogging (positive moments)

(14)

For vessels operating in sheltered waters or on short voyages, reduced still water bending
moments may be applicable. For a vessel operating in sheltered waters:
(kNm)

(15)

For a vessel operating on short voyages:

(kNm)

(16)

Still water bending moment [MS]:

Sagging and hogging are the maximum moments that are calculated under specific loading
conditions. Still water bending moments are calculated along the length of the vessel and
must satisfy the following relationship:
(17)

Ms Ms

The permissible still water bending moments for sagging and hogging are to be taken from
the following calculations and the lesser of the two used for the calculations:

(18)

(19)
Where:
the permissible combined stress in N/mm2
are reduction factors for the calculation of longitudinal stiffeners

40

Permissible hull vertical bending stresses:

To calculate the permissible vertical bending moments acting on the hull, the vertical bending
stress is required and can be seen in Figure 22. The methods for calculating the stress along
the length of the hull varies with the following formula:
(a) Stresses within 0.4L amidships:
*

(20)

(b) Outside of 0.4L amidships:

(

( ) )

(21)

Vertical bending stress [N/mm2]

Where d is the distance (in metres) from A.P or F.P

200.00
180.00
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00

Vertical Bending Stress

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Length from APP [m]

Figure 22 Development of vertical bending stresses along the length of bulk carrier, Goliath.

Local reduction factors:

Maximum hull stresses at the deck (D) and keel (B) are calculated by the following
equations;

(22)

(23)

41

Minimum hull section modulus:

The minimum section modulus at the midships section is required, this is calculated through
the use of the formula:
(24)
Where:
Higher tensile steel factor and is given in Table 4
is not to be taken less than 0.5
Table 3. KL Specified minimum yield stress in N/mm2 for steel (Lloyds Register Group, 2016)

Sample Calculation:
Calculations for Lloyds Vertical Wave Loading
The vessel parameters are defined in Table 1
From Table 2,

At midships,

The ship service factor for a seagoing vessel,

For a hogging moment:
=

42

For a Sagging Moment:

From Table 4, KL was assumed to be 1.0

At midships, the permissible still water plus wave stress for vertical bending is:

The section modulus at the hull midships section was calculated:

From Lloyds common structural rules calculations it was assumed that

Therefore the permissible still water bending moment for hogging is:

From Lloyds CSR it was assumed that

While the permissible still water bending moment for sagging is:

43

5.3.

Discussion and Results

Still water sagging condition

For the Capesize bulk carrier Goliath, the still water bending moments were calculated using
both Lloyds Classification as well as Det Norske Veritas prediction techniques. Although
both methods are derived from principles set out under the IACS, there remains a small
amount of variation between the methods for the permissible bending moment allowed.
Figure 23, shows the permissible bending moments for still water sagging. From this graph it
is evident that for still water sagging, DNV gives a higher maximum predicted bending
moment for sagging. DNV reached a peak bending moment of -4.84 x106 kNm, while the
Lloyds calculation predicted a peak magnitude of -4.94 x106 kNm. For both societies, the
permissible bending moments remains constant between 0.4 and 0.7 the length of the vessel.
This can be associated to the distribution factor utilised in the calculations, as this coefficient
remains constant through between these sections. This can be attributed to the inclusion of
the section modulus and hull bending stresses within the Lloyds calculations.
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Vertical bending moment [kNm]

0.00E+00
-1.00E+06
-2.00E+06
-3.00E+06
-4.00E+06
-5.00E+06
-6.00E+06

Lloyd's still water sagging

DNV still water sagging

Length from App [m]

Figure 23. Still water bending moments for sagging conditions for the capsize bulk carrier
Goliath, comparing the predictions obtained using the Lloyds and DNV methods

44

Still Water Hogging Condition

For the permissible still water hogging condition the permissible bending moments are shown
in Figure 24. For the Goliath, again DNV again produces a higher result than that predicted
using the Lloyds calculation. This can be attributed to different coefficients implemented into
the two calculations for hogging. The peak values for DNV and Lloyds are 5.32 x10 6 and
5.02 x106 kNm respectively.

Vertical bending moment [kNm]

6.00E+06
5.00E+06
4.00E+06
3.00E+06
2.00E+06
1.00E+06

Lloyd's still water hogging

DNV still water hogging

0.00E+00
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Length from APP [m]

Figure 24. Still water bending moments for a hogging conditions for the capsize bulk carrier Goliath,
comparing the predictions obtained using the Lloyds and DNV methods

Wave Water Sagging Condition

The results predicted for the bending moment for the waves and sagging condition are shown
in Figure 25. From this plot it can be identified that for wave and sagging conditions, Lloyds
predicts the same bending moments as DNV. The peak magnitude was identified as -8.19
x106 kNm. This can be attributed to the formulas used by the two societies being variations of
those implemented by the IACS under the common structural rules, and the same coefficients
being employed. From Figure C, it can be seen that the permissible bending moments vary
linearly outside of 0.4 to 0.65 of the vessel length. Again this can be attributed to longitudinal
distribution factor which is calculated using linear interpolation methods.

45

50

100

Vertical bending moments [kNm]

0.00E+00

150

200

250

300

Lloyd's wave
induced sagging

-1.00E+06

DNV wave induced

sagging

-2.00E+06
-3.00E+06
-4.00E+06
-5.00E+06
-6.00E+06
-7.00E+06
-8.00E+06
-9.00E+06

Length from APP [m]

Figure 25. Wave condition bending moment for Capesize bulk carrier, Goliath, in hogging condition,
comparing predictions using Lloyds and DNV methods.

Wave Water Hogging Condition

When the vessel is experiencing bending moments in hogging condition due to waves, the
bending moments allowed are the same for both DNV and Lloyds, as shown in Figure D. The
peak bending moment predicted through the two calculations was 7.72 x106 kNm. This is less
than that of sagging in the same water conditions. According to Tupper (2001) the decrease is
characteristic of vessels with a large block coefficient. This increase is accounted for the in
equations through the coefficients employed for the two conditions. Therefore care is
required by the designer to ensure that adequate consideration of both conditions are

Vetrtical bending moments [kNm]

employed.
9.00E+06
8.00E+06
7.00E+06
6.00E+06
5.00E+06
4.00E+06
3.00E+06

Lloyd's wave induced

hogging
DNV wave induced
hogging

2.00E+06
1.00E+06
0.00E+00
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Length from APP [m]

Figure 26. Wave induced bending moment for hogging condition along the length of the Capesize
bulk carrier Goliath, comparing the predictions using Lloyds and DNV methods
46

From the investigation conducted into Lloyds and DNV Classification regulations for the
bending moments of a Capsize bulk carrier, it was observed that the largest bending moment
would occur in waves when the vessel is sagging, with a bending moment of 8.19 x10 6 kNm.
The largest bending moments are predicted under DNV for sagging conditions. The smallest
bending moments at midship were predicted to occur while the vessel is hogging in still water
conditions. The magnitude 4.54x106 kNm, was produced using the Lloyds methods. The
largest bending moments being located at midships is an intuitive result, as from a primary
understanding of wave loading and ship structure design it is understandable that the bending
loads imposed on the vessel are going to be much higher in waves than for still water
conditions, which is confirmed by Tupper (2001). Throughout the investigation it was
observed that the methods employed by DNV were much more basic and abbreviated than
those of Lloyds. Furthermore, it was observed that DNV has a higher prediction for bending
moments than Lloyds, as the predictions calculated were the same or greater than those
obtained throughout the investigation. Lloyds required a significant amount more input about
the vessel and proposed construction than DNV. It is assumed that this would result in more
accurate calculations for the vessel. Therefore the regulations imposed by Lloyds would
enable the vessel to be built with less excess material, yet would decrease the safety
allowance inherent in the design. From investigation into the still water conditions it can be
identified that the bending moments the structure must be able to withstand varies along the
length of the vessel. From the graphs this development is linear, it is understood that in
practise, that this would not be true, as the dynamics conditions and development of the loads
would not develop in this manner. This is evident in the Lloyds calculation where the bending
moments is calculated with a quadratic equation, providing greater insight into the
development of the loads. However, the quadratic relationship does not represent the
potential deviations that may be caused by the randomly distributed loading. The decay to
zero about the ends of the vessel can be attributed to the small moments that would occur at
these locations due to the small levers from the centre of the vessel.
As this analysis was conducted was using readily available figures and required a number of
assumptions to be made there is a certain error inherent. To effectively conduct the Lloyds
calculations a number of assumptions were required, this included the calculations of the
section modulus along the length of the vessel. To provide an accurate estimation of this
value, the still water bending moment was calculated using the method described by Lloyds
CSR and then worked back to a desired section modulus along the length of the hull was
47

obtained. It was ensured that the resulting midship section modulus exceeded the minimum
requirements as defined by Lloyds. It should be noted that as the section modulus was
increased, the permissible bending moments also increased allowing for variation within the
obtained values to occur. Therefore it can be concluded that the larger the section modulus
implemented into a vessel, the greater the wave bending moment it can withstand.

6. Conclusion
Bulk carriers without doubt are the most crucial form of resource transportation required to
sustain growing economical and global trade demands. Cape size bulk carriers are among the
largest bulk carriers in production, boasting deadweight of up to 400,000 tons. The aim of
this investigation was first to research the contributing factors effecting loads experienced by
bulk carriers, in particular those which effect the global bending moment for large bulk
carriers. Topics discussed included design features, wave motions, wave loading and mooring
conditions which apply specifically to Bulk carriers, independent of size. The second task of
this investigation was to research, using similar vessel analysis, trends evident in the design
of cape size bulk carriers, finally deducing a vessel which successfully represents an average
Cape Size bulk carrier. Similar vessel analysis suggested that the Goliath Bulk Carrier well
represented a common Bulk carrier, with particulars including a deadweight of 200,000 ton,
total length of 300, a total beam of 50 and a block coefficient of 0.84.
Global demand not only requires the design of large bulk carriers, but the production of a
large quantity as well. Due to the immense size and severe implications of an accident, bulk
carriers must be designed with a high degree of safety considered. To enforce such standards
Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and Lloyds register classification societies exist, imposing strict
regulations regarding, in particular, the calculation of global bending moment. This report
investigated each method, comparing limitations and contributing factors that effected
calculations, providing samples to support discussion for still water and vertical wave load
conditions.

Calculations yielded quite intuitive results with significantly reduced wave

bending moment in still water conditions compared to the state of vertical wave load. It was
also seen that the global bending moment in the sagging condition exceeded that in hogging.
Following calculations it was concluded that the DNV predicted larger values of global
bending moment in both the sagging and hogging conditions when compared to Lloyds
results. However, the calculation for Global bending moment using DNV is significantly
more simplified, requiring far fewer dependant inputs than Lloyds, indicating less accuracy.
48

Thus, whilst DNV does account for this by incorporating an increased degree of safety, to
ensure the vessel is not designed in excess of already highly stringent safety factors; use of
the Lloyds register calculation method is recommended. Lloyds method is more resource
dependant and does require some vessel information that could not be acquired for the
calculations presented in this report, it is the most commonly used method due to increased
accuracy and the material savings achieved by not over-designing the vessel.

49

Leviathan
Obelix
Pantagruel
Star Angie
Big Bang
Star
Monisha
Star
Despoina
Goliath
Kymopolia
Star
Polaris
Peloreus
Star
Aurora

Vessel

20000.00
23238.00
20734.00
19728.00
25359.00
21564.00
21900.00

170162 288.97 44.98 17.65

209537 300.00 50.00 18.43

176990 288.97 45.00 14.43

179600 292.00 45.00 18.20

182496 292.00 45.00 18.15

171199 288.93 45.00 17.62

45.00
45.00
45.00
45.00
45.00

T
(m)

164218 288.15 44.00 17.63

292.00
291.98
288.90
291.95
289.00

B
(m)

18.18
18.23
18.17
18.32
18.12

182511
181433
180181
177931
174109

L
(m)

Engine
power
(Hp)
21564.00
25371.00
25330.00
22923.00
22923.00

DWT
(tons)

12.70

9.50

8.20

10.70
7.70

13.30

10.60

10.90
11.40
6.40
9.60
9.40

Speed
(kn)

0.85
0.84
0.83
0.82
0.82

Cb

2000 0.82

2014 0.85

2011 0.84

2015 0.84
2006

1999 0.81

2001 0.82

2014
2011
2004
2007
2007

Year

185183

188205

227362
198809

186689

180642

195291
201243
199725
194179
193247

Capacity
(m3)

238476
198776

191634

188172

207639
206429
202086
202711
197852

Disp
(tonnes)

0.12

0.09

192217

207156

0.08 205709.6

0.10
0.07

0.13

0.10

0.10
0.11
0.06
0.09
0.09

Fr

7. Appendix A

(Starbulk, Unknown)

50

(Zodiac Maritime, 2016)

Vessel
Cape
Falcon
Snowdon
Cape
Osprey
Cape Heron
Cotswold
Cape Eagle

DWT
(tons)

L
(m)

B
(m)

D
(m)

Speed
(kn)

Year

Cb

Capacity
(m^3)

Fr

displ
(tonnes)

161475

280

45

17.52

14

1993

0.80

176073

0.14

181049

170079

292.1

46

17.33

14

1998

0.80

185949

0.13

191911

172510

289

45

17.81

14.2

1999

0.82

191720

0.14

193787

177656

289

45

17.97

14.3

2005

0.83

197059

0.14

199007

179611

292

45

18.32

14.25

2016

0.84

197722

0.14

206518

45

18.23

14.5

2012

0.84

201243

0.14

206429

312

50

18.32

14

1996

0.81

228201

0.13

236770

333

60

19.67

13

1994

0.75

137950

0.12

304123

337

58

19.6

14

1989

0.79

141199

0.13

311663

13.5

1995

0.80

156451

0.12

318898

181529 291.98

Guofeng
211320
First
Handan
266076
Steel
Laiwu Steel
273670
Harmonious
Wugang
Atlantic

277345

Shagang
Giant

290169 332.04

60

21.34

14

1993

0.78

143713

0.13

340849

Shagang
Volition

298004

327

55

21.43

14.5

2012

0.85

184102

0.13

335668

Shangang
Faith

298085

327

55

21.42

14.5

2013

0.85

184102

0.13

335668

Wugang
Haoyun

298559

327

55

21.4

14.5

2011

0.85

171605

0.13

336160

327.5

57.2 20.82

51

8. Bibliography
(2016, May 9). Retrieved from Maritime Connector: http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/ship-sizes/
(2016, May 10). Retrieved from Ship Trade House: http://shiptradehouse.com/en/capesize
(2016, May 13). Retrieved from Zodiac Maritime: https://www.zodiacmaritime.com/public/getFleet.do?section=fleet&fleet=cape&item=fleetList
(2016, May 13). Retrieved from Vessel Finder: https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels
(2016, May 13). Retrieved from Lloyds Register: http://www.lr.org/en/_images/213-35657_30-shipsizes.pdf
Alderton, P. M. (2004). Reeds sea transport: Operation and economics (6 ed.). London: Adlard Coles
Nautical.
Alford , L. K., & Troesh, A. W. (2009). Generating Extreme Ship Responses Using Non-Uniform Phase
Distributions. Ocean Engineering(36), 641-649.
Bhaskar, P. (2015). Ship Operations Management course notes JNB155. Australian Maritime College.
Campanile, A., Piscopo , V., & Scamardella, A. (2014). Statistical Properties of Bulk Carriers
Longitudinal Strength. Marine Structures, 438-462.
Chen, K., Huang, C., & Wang, P. (2013). Bulk Carrier's Motions Analysis with Sloshing Effect in Water
Ballast Cargo Hold. Proceedinfgs of the Eighth International Workshop on Ship
Hydrodynamics. Seoul: Cr Classification Society.
Denehy, S., Duffy, J., Ranmuthugala, D., & Renilson, M. (2015). Restricted water effects on Berthed
Ship: Passing Ship Interaction. Australian Coasts and Ports Confrence 2015: Australian
Coastal an Ocean Engineering Conference and the 15th Austra;lian Port and Harbour
Conference (pp. 252-258). Auckland: IPENZ.
Drake, K. R. (2000). Transient Design Waves for Green-Water Loading on Bulk Carriers. Journal of
Marine Science and Technology(5), 21-30.
Drummen, I., & Holtmann, M. (2014). Benchmark Strudy of Slamming and Whipping. Ocean
Engineering, 3-10.
Elzinga, T., Iribarren, J. R., & Jensen, O. J. (1992). Movements of Moored Ships in Harbours. Coastal
Engineering, pp. 3216-3229.
Fei, J. (2015). International Transport Systems course notes JNB158. Australian Maritime College.
Foneseca, N., Guedes Soares, C., & Psacol, R. (2007). Effect of the Length on the Vertical Bending
Moments Induced by Abnormal Waves. Advancements in Marine Structures , 23-31.

52

Hall, E., van der Molen, W., & Scott, D. (2013). Passing Ship Effects on Moored Capesize Bulk Carriers.
Coasts and Ports 2013: 21st Australian Coastal and Ocean Engineering Confrence and the
14th Australiasian Port and Harbour Confrence (pp. 665-670). Sydney: Barton.
Hirdaris, S. E., Bai, W., Dessi, D., Ergin, A., Gu, X., Hermundstad, O. A., . . . Incecik, A. (2014). Loads for
the Use in the Design of Ships and Offshore Structures. Ocean Engineering, 78, 131-174.
Hu, Y., Zhang, A., & Sun, J. (2001). Analysis on the Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of a Bulk Carrier
Using a Simplified Method. Marine Structures, 14(3), 311-330.
Lloyds Register Group. (2016). Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships. London: Lloyds
Register Group.
Man Diesel and Turbo. (2015, Febuary 6). Propulsion of 200,000 - 210,000 dwt Large Caprsize Bulk
Carrier. Retrieved from Man Marine negines and systems:
http://marine.man.eu/docs/librariesprovider6/technical-papers/propulsion-of-200000210000-dt-large-capesize-bulk-carrier.pdf?sfvrsn=14
Mano, M., Okumoto, Y., Takeda, Y., & Okada, T. (2009). Design of Ship Hull Structures. London:
Springer.
Mehaute, L. B., & Chiu, H. (1980). Open Sea Berth of Liquid Bulk Carriers. Ocean Engineering, 429445.
Ozguc, O., Das, P., & Barltrop, N. (2005). A Comparitive Study on the Structural Integreity of Single
and Double Sking Bulk Carriers Under Collision Damage. Marine Structures, 18(7-8), 511-547.
Schelfn, T. E., & Ostergaard, C. (1995). The Vessel in Port: Mooring Problems. Marine Structures, 451479.
Um, T., & Roh, M. (2015). Optimal Dimension Design of a Hatch Cover for Lightening a Bulk Carrier.
Intenational Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 7(2).
Vasquez , G., Fonesca, N., & Guedes Soares, C. (2013). Experimental and Numerical Extreme Motions
and Vertical Bending Moments Induced by the Abnormal Waves on a Bulk Carrier. ASME
2013 32nd International Confrence on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. Nantes: ASME.
Vasquez, G., Fonseca, N., & Guedes Soares, C. (2015). Experimental and Numerical Study of the
vertical Motions of a Bulk Carrier abd a Ro-Ro Ship in Extreme Waves. Journal of Ocean
Engineering and Marine ENergu(1), 237-253.

53