Ships and Offshore Structures

ISSN: 1744-5302 (Print) 1754-212X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsos20

Whaleback forecastle for reducing green water

loading on high-speed container vessels

K. S. Varyani & X. Pham

To cite this article: K. S. Varyani & X. Pham (2008) Whaleback forecastle for reducing green
water loading on high-speed container vessels, Ships and Offshore Structures, 3:3, 229-237, DOI:
10.1080/17445300802057407

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445300802057407

Published online: 09 Sep 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 51

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsos20
Ships and Offshore Structures
Vol. 3, No. 3, September 2008, 229–237

Whaleback forecastle for reducing green water loading on high-speed container vessels
K.S. Varyani∗ and X. Pham
Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Universities of Glasgow & Strathclyde, UK
(Received 8 November 2007; final version received 17 March 2008)

This paper investigates the employment of whaleback forecastle tackling the problem of green water. Green water experimental
set-up is briefly described, and the hydrodynamic model of green water is introduced. Generic designs of whaleback forecastle
are also described, and the development of the model for computational fluid dynamics simulation is explained. Two green
water conditions (categorised by its severity) are considered for analysis, and the simulation results are analysed to understand
the changes in the green water loading. Conclusions are finally drawn on the effectiveness and adequacy of the whaleback
forecastle as an option to reduce green water loading on high-speed container vessels.
Keywords: green water loading; whaleback forecastle; container vessels

Introduction Generally, the inclusion of breakwater onboard greatly

As a vessel proceeds at sea, in critical conditions, water can
be shipped on board to form the green water phenomenon.
For vessels operating at relatively high speed such as
container vessels, such an event becomes a real threat
because when encountering waves of approximately the
same length as the vessel, green water can take place at
low-wave heights of 3 m (Varyani et al. 2004). Taking
into account the consequent costly damage including loss
of deck cargo (containers), dislocated deck machinery
and even loss of human lives, the preliminary design
process has nowadays frequently included innovative
forecastle designs, which help to reduce the green water
effect.
Buchner (2002) introduced popular design practices
for this purpose that include raising the freeboard, the
employment of breakwater of various designs, the transfor-
mation of forecastle into a kind of ‘whaleback’ shape, etc.
The first option has commonly been associated with the
construction of bulwark. However, beyond a certain limit,
any further increase of freeboard brings in very limited
reduction of green water risk (Buchner 2002). The extra
cost, additional weight and reinforcement required for
raised forecastle then become impractical (Buchner 2002).
Pham and Varyani (2006) have investigated in detail the
benefits associated with generic designs of breakwaters of
V-shape and vane-type in precluding green water problems
on container vessels. Varyani et al. (2005) also analysed
the application of double-skinned rectangular breakwaters
with and without holes in preventing green water damage.
helps to reduce the green water loading on deck containers
(Varyani et al. 2004, 2005; Pham and Varyani 2005, 2006,
2008).
The early 1990s saw new designs of container vessels
produced with shelter whaleback cover of the forecastle.
The coincidence of this design, with similar features in
fishing craft, was not entirely new but did add to the ‘Vessel
of the Future’ concept. To add shelter over the forecastle
head, thereby protecting both the forward deck machinery
and shedding water when the vessel is in a short swell and
heavy sea condition, increases confidence when achieving
the tight time schedules of the feeder vessel. The mariner
is likely to have some misgivings relating to the forecastle
whaleback shelters. Questions may arise regarding entrap-
ment of crew under the shelter in heavy sea conditions.
The aft sloping shape of such shelters may accelerate water
flow against container stows extending above the after
edge of the shelter and causing damage. The positioning
of mooring rope apertures or Panama leads through the
bulwark of the shelter would need to suit the operational
requirements of the vessel. As a final point, the major
purpose of shedding water off the forecastle head would be
to avoid the great water loading on the forecastle machinery
deck where as much as 300-mm set down occurred on one
vessel.
This paper focuses specifically on the ability of whale-
back forecastle in dealing with the green water prob-
lem, which is a common concern for high-speed container
vessels.

∗
Corresponding author. Email: k.s.varyani@na-me.ac.uk
ISSN: 1744-5302 print / 1754-212X online
Copyright 
C 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17445300802057407
http://www.informaworld.com
230 K.S. Varyani and X. Pham

Table 1. Principal particulars of container vessel S-175.

Particulars Full-scale Model Arm Structure Wave Probes

Lpp (m) 175.0 2.5

B (m) 25.4 0.363
D (m) 15.4 0.22
d (m) 9.5 0.136 Load Cell Plate

(t) 24742 0.07213
GM (m) 1.0 0.014
Stem Head
Cb 0.5716 0.5716 Wave Probe
Kyy/Lpp 0.24 0.24
Kxx/B 0.328 0.328
Press. Transducers

Side Wave Probe

Development of simplified model to represent green

water flow on deck
Green water experiments were carried out at the hydro-
dynamics laboratory of the universities of Glasgow and
Strathclyde. The model is a 1:70 scaled model of container
vessel S-175 (Table 1). One of the purposes of the experi-
Arm Structure
ment is to determine the general profile of green water flow
Load Cell Plate
on deck to obtain a simplified hydrodynamic model for
numerical simulation. It is known that green water flow is
highly turbulent. However, for applications, it is important
that these flows and their effects can be computed by numer- Press. Transducers
ical methods. Goda et al. (1976) recommended the use of
dam-break model to represent the water flow on deck. This
work was later extended in more detail by Buchner (1995a,
Figure 1. Set-up of green water experiments.
1995b, 1996, 2002) when he carried out research into
green water to Floating Production Storage and Offloading
(FPSOs). Ogawa et al. (2000) adopted the model of ‘flooded 15 cm plate constructed from nine square panels of 5 cm ×
wave’ to represent the water flow on deck. For spray wetting, 5 cm in size. These panels are located at station 9 and
Hamoudi and Varyani (1994, 1997, 1998) used dispersion roughly represent the deck containers. Panel loads are
factor to estimate the loading when water is thrown on board recorded via a system of strain gauges (details of which are
in small quantities, but this paper focuses more on shipment as in Varyani et al. (2004) and Pham and Varyani (2005)).
of solid water on deck. Pham et al. (2003) put together the There are also wave probes mounted at stem head and port
models of dam-break and water-jet to describe the flow wa- side at station 9 to measure relative motions. From time
ter on deck as an effective method to deal with green water histories of water elevation on deck, the average horizontal
loading problem, and this method is extended successfully velocity of water flow on deck is approximated and this
by Varyani et al. (2004, 2005) and Pham and Varyani (2005, is used with time histories of water elevation to produce
2006). Varyani et al. (2004) found that numerical solutions the geometrical profile of water on deck as in Figure 2.
of the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations are This profile is then simplified into a trapezoid having bases
adequate to solve green water loading. This paper, there- wu and wb defined by extending the front slope upwards
fore, aims to extend this method and adopt the green water and the highest point across as shown by dotted lines. The
model of Varyani et al. (2004, 2005) and Pham and Varyani
(2005, 2006) to investigate how the whaleback forecastle
can be used in reducing green water loads on container
vessels.
Figure 1 shows the experimental set-up for green water
tests. A system of wave probes is arranged on the forecastle
to record the time histories of water flow on deck. At the foot
of each wave probe there is a pressure transducer mounted
beneath the deck to measure the vertical loading. A vertical
wall or load cell plate as it is denoted in Figure 1 is a 15 cm × Figure 2. Sample green water profile on deck.
 Ships and Offshore Structures
Figure 3. (a) Set-up of light green water flow simulation for
the case of minimum-angled whaleback forecastle. (b) Set-up of
heavy green water flow simulation for the case of medium-angled
whaleback forecastle.
height of the trapezoid ht is the maximum elevation of the
water flow and the front slope can be determined (as 72◦
in this example). Once the sectional profile is obtained, the
3-dimensional water flow on deck is assumed to have more
or less homogenous section transversely, and volume of
water on deck has the shape as seen in Figures 3a and 3b.
This hydrodynamic model has been verified by Varyani
et al. (2004) and Pham and Varyani (2005), showing
the appropriateness of the application of this model to
represent green water flow on deck. Horizontal loading on
vertical wall downstream has been well predicted both in
magnitude and in trend, and this justifies the extended use
of this model for simulation of green water with whaleback
forecastle on container vessels. The vertical wall is also
simulated, and the panel loads on this wall are assessed
and used as criteria to judge the effectiveness of whaleback
forecastle in shedding off green water.
Generic designs of whaleback forecastle
There are specific rules for designing whaleback forecas-
tle. The back edges (AB, BC and CD) of the whaleback
forecastle (Figure 4) can be cambered, spline curved or
poly-lined, and the deck is smoothed to merge with the
deck edge. The whaleback forecastle in this paper follows
a simple design inspired by the whaleback forecastle of the
vessel SEA NORDICA and is based on the symmetrical
trapezoidal shape of the back end of whaleback forecastle
231
2m
full
-sc
Top row ale
C
Middle row
B h
Bottom row
D
θ
A
S
Figure 4. Design of whaleback forecastle.
(ABCD as in Figure 4). This trapezoid is set at a distance
equivalent to 2 m at full scale from the vertical wall and it
consists of three straight lines. The top line BC is parallel to
deck and has a width equivalent to the width of the vertical
wall (i.e. 15 cm). The other two lines AB and CD are simply
the connections of the two ends B and C of this top line to
the intersections A and D of the vertical plane that contains
the top line with the deck edges. The elevation h of edge BC
to main deck is varied systematically between three values.
The first value is the height of one panel on the vertical
wall (i.e. 5 cm); the second and third values are simply the
increase of the first value by an increment of 2.5 cm (i.e.
half the height of one panel on vertical wall). According
to this variation, the sloping θ of the whaleback forecastle
is, sequentially, varied systematically between three values
10.4◦ , 15.4◦ and 20.2◦ . This is set out to serve the generic
investigation purpose of the paper.
The surface of the whaleback forecastle is composed of
multiple elemental surfaces. The central surface is triangle
BCS where S is the stem head (Figure 4). The deck edges
are divided into multiple smaller edges, and these edges are
combined with vertices B and C to form the side surfaces
and finally the whaleback forecastle is formed from these
surfaces. The result of this variation is three generic designs
of whaleback forecastle with systematically varied slopes
(Figures 3a and 3b).
CFD modelling of green water flow onto whaleback
forecastle
Figures 3a and 3b pictorially describe the overall view of
how green water is modelled with container vessel having
forecastle. Ignoring the green water coming from the sides,
the main concern is the approach of green water at the front
of the vessel. Therefore, it is necessary only to model the
frontal body of the vessel (down to station 81 /2 ), and the
vessel body is extended by 5 cm under the main deck. The
width of the control volume is also chosen to avoid wall
reflection effects. For this, the control volume boundaries
are extended by one vessel breadth to either side.
232 K.S. Varyani and X. Pham

The volume of shipped water is initialised with a ve- 3.0

Min. angled
locity equivalent to the averaged horizontal velocity deter- whaleback
2.5
mined from time histories of deck water elevation (recorded Med. angled
whaleback
by wave probes) as described in preceding sections. In this 2.0

Force (N)
Max. angled
paper, a sample value is used, which is measured at 1.42 m/s. whaleback
1.5 1/5. Without
The maximum water elevation or the height ht (Figure 2) is whaleback
varied systematically at two values to represent three con- 1.0
ditions of green water flow in terms of severity, i.e. heavy
green water and light green water. The exact height of green 0.5

water for each condition is discussed later. 0.0

Whaleback forecastle is designed to reduce the green 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
water and loading on container stacks on deck. The effec- time (s)

tiveness of the design is, therefore, reflected through the (a)

amount of loading reduction on objects that it protects. For 7.0
Min. angled whaleback
comparison purposes, total loads on three rows of panels 6.0
Med. angled whaleback
(specified in Figure 4) on the vertical wall and their summa- 5.0 Max. angled whaleback
tion are monitored and compared between cases. The first

Force (N)
4.0 Without whaleback
condition or the light green water condition (Figure 3a) is
defined when the maximum green water elevation (ht as 3.0

in Figure 2) is equal to the smallest height h (Figure 4) of 2.0

the whaleback forecastle (equivalent to the height of one 1.0
panel of the vertical wall). The second condition or the
0.0
heavy green water condition (Figure 3b) is defined when 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
the maximum green elevation is equal to the largest height time (s)

h of the whaleback forecastle (equivalent to the height of (b)

two panels). All the figures presented are at model scale. 3.0
Min. angled
2.5 whaleback
Med. angled
Case 1: Light green water condition 2.0 whaleback
Force (N)

Max. angled
Figures 5a–5c show the loads on three rows of panels on 1.5 whaleback
the vertical wall of different whaleback forecastle and also Without
1.0 whaleback
for the case when no whaleback forecastle is applied. It is
noted that in Figure 5a, the load curve corresponding to the 0.5
case of no whaleback forecastle is reduced to one fifth of
its magnitude to compare with other load curves. 0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Because the bottom row is equal to the smallest height time (s)
of the whaleback forecastle, it is best protected from green (c)
water in all cases. Figure 5a shows that with whaleback 14
Min. angled whaleback
forecastle, the peak load on the bottom row of panels is 12
reduced by at least 80%. As the slope of the whaleback Med. angled whaleback
10
forecastle is increased, this load is further reduced. It is Max. angled whaleback
Force (N)

interesting to see that all the load curves recorded on the 8

Without whaleback
bottom row are double-peaked. Visual investigation of the 6
simulation reveals that the first peak load is caused when
4
water flow first interacts with the panels. Even though the
bottom row is lower than the whaleback forecastle and does 2

not face the incident green water flow directly, it is the 0

highly dynamic splashing of water after the impact near the 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9
time (s)
bottom row that causes the first peak load. In the beginning,
green water is approaching at high velocity and its direction (d)
is not much effected by gravity. It, therefore, strikes the
Figure 5. (a) Loading on bottom row of panels in light green
vertical wall at almost the location, which would be the water condition. (b) Loading on middle row of panels in light
intersection between the vertical wall and the whaleback green water condition. (c) Loading on top row of panels in light
forecastle if extended. Later, the water flow velocity reduces green water condition. (d) Total loading on vertical wall in light
and becomes weaker due to the gravity effect caused by green water condition.
 Ships and Offshore Structures 233

forward sloping of the whaleback forecastle. The impact

will then take place at lower locations on vertical wall, i.e.
more directly on the bottom row. Together with the run-
down of water splash on the wall, this results in the second
peak load as seen in Figure 5a.
Figure 5a shows that as the height of whaleback fore-
castle is increased by 5 cm (to medium-angled whaleback),
the peak load on the bottom row is reduced to two thirds
and another increase of 5 cm will see the first peak load
drop to one third of the original magnitude. So, the increase
of deck height reduces the impact load on the bottom row.
Figure 5b shows the load curves recorded on the
middle row of the vertical wall. The peak load on this row
is maximum when the whaleback forecastle is at medium
slope, which is about one and a half times the peak load
on this row when whaleback forecastle is at minimum
slope. This is because due to its height, the medium-sloped
whaleback forecastle directs the approaching green water
flow straight to the centre of the middle row (Figure 6b).
The minimum-sloped whaleback forecastle, on the other
hand, directs the water flow to lower locations, i.e. the area
between the bottom row and middle row of panels (Figure
6a). The green water loading is partly shared on to the
bottom row and, therefore, the peak load on middle row
in the case of minimum-sloped whaleback forecastle is
smaller than that in the case of minimum-sloped whaleback
forecastle. Maximum-angled whaleback forecastle is high
enough to cover the middle row of vertical wall behind
it. Therefore, it directs the incident green water flow
straight to the top row (Figure 6c). The large height of
this whaleback forecastle (also means large forward slope
of forecastle) reduces the quantity of water, which could
override the deck and reach the vertical wall. The load on
middle row results from the impact of this small volume of
water and is fractional as in Figure 5b.
Similar characteristics are noticed in Figure 5c in which
load curves are plotted for the top row of the vertical wall.
Referring to Figures 6b and 6c, the medium-sloped whale-
back forecastle directs the green water flow to an area be-
tween the middle row and top row whereas the maximum-
sloped whaleback forecastle directs this flow more on the
top row. However, maximum-angled whaleback forecastle
causes larger resistance to incident green water flow and, Figure 6. (a) Minimum-sloped whaleback forecastle directs
therefore, the water flow will be less strong. The quantity of green water flow to lower part of middle row on vertical wall.
water that can reach the end of whaleback forecastle is also (b) Medium-sloped whaleback forecastle deck directs green wa-
smaller. Therefore, even though the water flow impacts the ter flow to upper part of middle row and lower part of top row on
vertical wall. (c) Maximum-sloped whaleback forecastle directs
top row more fully in the case of maximum-angled whale-
green water flow to top row on vertical wall.
back, the resulting load on the top row is only of a similar
order as that of medium-angled whaleback forecastle (Fig-
ure 5c). Green water flow in the case of minimum-angled Figure 5d plots the total green water load on the vertical
whaleback forecastle does not cause noticeable load on the wall as a whole. Generally, the increase of deck slope results
top row because it impacts the vertical wall deeper down in a reduction of total green water load on the vertical wall.
and relatively perpendicular to the vertical wall. The water When a whaleback forecastle of 10◦ slope is introduced, the
run-up is, therefore, small leading to fractional load on the peak load is reduced by more than 50%. The maximum-
top row as in Figure 5c. angled whaleback forecastle helps to reduce the peak load
234 K.S. Varyani and X. Pham

by a substantial percentage of 85. It is interesting to see that 3.5

Min. angled whaleback
the medium-angled whaleback forecastle in this condition 3.0
does not reduce the total load but instead increases it when Med. angled whaleback
2.5

Force (N)
compared with the minimum-angled whaleback forecastle. Max. angled whaleback
2.0
This is not noticed in the case of heavy green water condi-
tion, which will be discussed later on. This is attributed to 1.5

a local non-linearity. 1.0

As the slope of whaleback forecastle is varied, the 0.5
longitudinal and vertical projected areas of the whaleback
0.0
forecastle facing the green water flow will change. This 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
sequentially leads to the variation of the component loads time (s)
imposed on whaleback forecastle as in Figures 7a and 7b. (a)
Figure 7c plots the total loading on whaleback forecastle,
7.0
which is taken as the square root value of total squares of Min. angled whaleback
longitudinal and vertical loads in Figures 7a and 7b. As 6.0
Med. angled whaleback
the slopes of whaleback forecastle increase, the projected 5.0 Max. angled whaleback

Force (N)
deck area in x-direction increases accordingly and this Without whaleback
4.0
results in increase in longitudinal load. On the other hand,
the projected deck area in the z-direction will decrease 3.0

and this leads to an inverse effect, which results in the 2.0

vertical load reducing correspondingly as in Figure 7b. 1.0
The increase and decrease of component deck loads are
0.0
relatively proportional to the incremental increase of deck
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
slope. Figure 7a shows that the incremental increase of 5◦ time (s)
of the deck slope results in an approximate increase of 30% (b)
of longitudinal load. Figure 7b shows similar characteristic
3.0
when the incremental increase of deck load leads to an Min. angled
incremental decrease of 10% of peak vertical deck load. 2.5 whaleback
Figure 7c shows that an increase in deck slope is in fact Med. angled
2.0 whaleback
leading to a decrease in the total load that the deck sustains.
Force (N)

Max. angled
Comparison of Figures 7b and 7c reveals the dominance 1.5 whaleback
of vertical deck load in the overall total deck load for the Without
whaleback
range of deck slope considered in this paper. The order of 1.0

total deck load is determined by the order of vertical deck

0.5
load and, therefore, the trend of total deck load follows the
trend of vertical deck load. 0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
time (s)

Case 2: Heavy green water condition (c)

The maximum green water elevation for this condition is
twice as large (10 cm) as that of the light green water
conditions. However, similar characteristics of loading on
vertical wall are noticed.
The whaleback forecastle helps to reduce greatly the
load on locations at deck level. Figure 8a shows that the
load on bottom row of vertical wall is reduced by more than
80% compared with normal deck (without whaleback). The
bottom row is not directly impacted by green water flow
sweeping up the whaleback forecastle in all cases (Fig-
ures 9a–9c). The first load peak on the bottom row is, as
discussed previously, caused by initial splashing of water
after it first interacts with a vertical wall. Later, as both the
strength and quantity of green water moving up on whale-
back forecastle reduce, the impact takes place at a lower
position on vertical wall, i.e. on the bottom row. Together
Figure 7. (a) Longitudinal (x-direction) loads on whaleback fore-
castle in light green water condition. (b) Vertical (z-direction)
loads on whaleback forecastle in light green water condition.
(c) Total loads on whaleback forecastle decks in light green water
condition.
with the run-down of water that is spread and scattered
on the vertical wall during the interaction with green water,
this causes the second peak in the load curves on the bottom
row as seen in Figure 8a.
Figures 9a–9c show that in the case of minimum-angled
whaleback forecastle, the initial (and also the most violent)
interaction between green water and vertical wall is near to
the bottom row; the splashing of water is, therefore, more
directly on the bottom row, and this results in the largest
 Ships and Offshore Structures 235

8.0
Min. angled whaleback
7.0
Med. angled whaleback
6.0 Max. angled whaleback
Force (N)

5.0 1/5. Without whaleback

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
time (s)

(a)
18.0
Min. angled whaleback
16.0
14.0 Med. angled whaleback

12.0 Max. angled whaleback

Force (N)

10.0 Without whaleback

8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
time (s)

(b)
8.0
Min. angled
7.0 whaleback
Med. angled
6.0 whaleback
Force (N)

5.0 Max. angled

whaleback
4.0 Without whaleback

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
time (s)

(a)
40
Min. angled. whaleback
35
Med. angled whaleback
30
Force (N)

25 Max. angled whaleback Figure 9. (a) Minimum-sloped whaleback forecastle directs

20 Without whaleback green water flow to middle row on vertical wall. (b) Medium-
sloped whaleback forecastle directs green water flow to upper
15
area of middle row and lower area of top row on vertical wall.
10 (c) Maximum-sloped whaleback forecastle directs green water
5 flow to top row on vertical wall.
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
time (s) first peak load on this row as seen in Figure 8a. For the
(d) other two whaleback forecastles, the water splashes more
on the middle row, and the loading on bottom row is more
Figure 8. (a) Loading on bottom row of panels in heavy green or less caused by the less dynamic water running down after
water condition. (b) Loading on middle row of panels in heavy the first impact. This loading is, therefore, smaller and, as
green water condition. (c) Loading on top row of panels in heavy
green water condition. (d) Total loading on vertical wall in heavy Figure 8a shows, is approximately one third of the load
green water condition. caused by minimum-angled whaleback forecastle.
236 K.S. Varyani and X. Pham

As also noticed in Figures 9a–9c, the green water flow 7.0

that leaves the back end of minimum-angled whaleback 6.0
Min. angled whaleback

forecastle impacts most directly on the middle row of ver- 5.0 Med. angled whaleback

Force (N)
tical wall. Moreover, the minimum-angled whaleback fore-
4.0
castle makes least resistance to the approaching green water Max. angled whaleback
3.0
in longitudinal direction and, therefore, the flow of green
water in this case is the strongest. As a result, the loading 2.0

on the middle row of vertical wall is largest in the case of 1.0

minimum-angled whaleback forecastle as reflected by Fig- 0.0

ure 8b. In the case of medium-angled whaleback forecastle, 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
time (s)
the impact takes place at the upper half of middle row and
the lower one third of top row of the vertical wall. The (a)
25.0
loading is, therefore, spread on these two rows reducing the Min. angled whaleback
load the middle row is to sustain. This is reflected in Figure 20.0
8b, which shows that the peak load on middle row in case Med. angled whaleback

Force (N)
15.0
of medium-angled whaleback is only half as large as that Max. angled whaleback
of minimum-angled whaleback. Figure 9c shows that for 10.0
maximum-angled whaleback forecastle, the impact takes
place fully on the top row of vertical wall. There is only a 5.0

slight splashing of water that hits the near bottom location 0.0
of the middle row, and the consequent load on this row is 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
time (s)
small (Figure 8b). For the case of no whaleback forecastle,
the major impact is on the bottom row, which sees substan- (b)
25.0
tial loading (Figure 8a). The water runs up the wall after Min. angled whaleback
the impact and imposes a load on the middle row as seen 20.0
Med. angled whaleback
in Figure 8b. However, this load is not caused by head-on
Force (N)

impact and is, therefore, of a smaller magnitude. 15.0 Max. angled whaleback
The impact in the case of maximum-angled whaleback
10.0
forecastle takes place fully on the top row (Figure 9c)
whereas the impact in the case of medium-angled whale- 5.0
back forecastle spreads only to the lower one third of the
top row. Therefore, the impact a load on this row is largest 0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
in the case of maximum-angled whaleback forecastle and is time (s)
nearly three times as large as that caused by medium-angled
whaleback forecastle (Figure 8c). In the case of minimum- (c)
angled whaleback (Figure 9a), only a fraction of splashing Figure 10. (a) Longitudinal (x-direction) loads on whaleback
water after the impact reaches the top row and the conse- forecastle decks in heavy green water condition. (b) Vertical (z-
quent load on this row is fractional as in Figure 8c. direction) loads on whaleback forecastle decks in heavy green
Figure 8d plots the curves of total green water load on water condition. (c) Total loads on whaleback forecastle decks in
the whole vertical wall. Again, the whaleback forecastle heavy green water condition.
helps to reduce the loading on vertical wall. At 10◦ lope,
the peak load on the vertical wall is reduced by nearly 50%
and when the slope is raised to 10◦ , the reduction is 65% loads in Figure 10b, the incremental increase of 5◦ of deck
and a further increase of whaleback forecastle will see this slope leads to an incremental decrease of approximately
figure go up to nearly 80%. Figures 10a–10c show the green 10% of peak vertical load. This trend is also seen in Figure
water load imposed on whaleback forecastle. As the water 10c for total loads on whaleback forecastle. Also similar to
elevation is twice as large as in light green water condition, the light green water condition, for the range of up to 20◦ ,
the load magnitudes are also approximately doubled. smaller slope of whaleback forecastle will result in greater
Figure 10a shows that as the deck slope increases by total green water load that the deck is subject to.
5◦ (from 10.4◦ for minimum-angled whaleback to 15.4◦
for medium-angled whaleback), the peak load is increased
accordingly by approximately 35%. An increase of nearly Conclusions
10◦ (from 10.4◦ for minimum-angled whaleback to 20.2◦ r Inclusion of whaleback forecastle greatly reduces green
for maximum-angled whaleback) results in a consequent water load on containers at deck level and the total load
70% increase in peak load. Similarly for peak vertical deck on stacks of containers as a whole.
 Ships and Offshore Structures
r Slope of whaleback forecastle directs green water flow
to higher locations at the back, subjecting containers
at higher level to green water load. However, the
forward sloping causes gravity effect and this reduces
the strength of green water flow and hence load
on containers. Increased whaleback forecastle slope
appears to decrease the total deck loading in proportion.
r Within the practical range of up to 20◦ of whaleback
forecastle slope, the vertical deck load influences the
total deck load. Increase in deck slope will result in
increase of the longitudinal deck load, but this load
plays a minor part in determining the magnitude and
trends of total deck load.
r Whaleback forecastle reduces deck load and prevents
substantial loading on rectangular breakwaters. Rein-
forcement of the foundation of rectangular breakwater
is, therefore, also discounted whereas the effectiveness
of reducing green water remains equally good. This
advantage may offset the extra cost of constructing the
whaleback forecastle, making it a practical option in
dealing with green water effects.
r Though the present set of data recorded are adequate
from the point of view of preliminary design, more data
has to be collected. The load cell wall also has to be
placed at different positions (stations) in the fore end of
the container vessel to collect more data about shipping
of water on deck. The relative motion also needs to
be measured at the fore station for comparison with
the freeboard. The dispersion factor also needs to be
researched further, on container vessels only. The past
research on dispersion factor may be used as a guide
for design purposes. It is recommended that the mass of
water shipped on deck needs to be researched further on
geometry, kinematics and dynamic properties to enhance
the new method developed for the prediction of the
load. To achieve this, more experimental work will have
to be carried out in conjunction with CFD modelling.
r The authors propose that with the development of
the next generation of ultra large container vessels,
the whaleback forecastle design combined with a
combination of a cruiser and transom stern at the aft
Figure 11. Ultra large container vessels profile, body plan and
waterlines from a naval architect’s point of view.
237
along with a stern bulb and new structural arrangements
from bow to stern to deal with torsion-related issues
will be the design of future generation of ultra large
container vessels. The authors have sketched the profile,
body plan and waterlines from a naval architect’s point
of view as in Figure 11.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the University of Glasgow for providing
the scholarship and the EU Project MARSTRUCT.
References
Buchner B. 1995a. On the impact of green water loading on ship
and offshore unit design. PRADS’95; 17–22 September 1995,
Seoul, South Korea.
Buchner B. 1995b. Impact of green water on FPSO design. Off-
shore Technology Conference; 1–4 May 1995, Houston, TX.
Buchner B. 1996. Advances in green water effect prediction for
FPSOs. The Atlantic Frontier Forum 1996; 15–16 January
1996, Aberdeen, UK.
Buchner B. 2002. Green water on ship-type offshore structures
[PhD thesis]. [Delft, The Netherlands]: Delft University of
Technology.
Goda K, Miyamoto T, Yamamoto Y. 1976. A study of shipping
water pressure on deck by two dimensional ship model test.
Journal of Japanese Society of Naval Architects, 17: 120–135.
Hamoudi B, Varyani KS. 1994. Load prediction due to green water
on deck mounted equipment for floating bodies. Proceedings
of the International Conference on Marine, Offshore and Ice
Technology; 13–16 September 1994 Southampton, UK.
Hamoudi B, Varyani KS. 1997. A new approach to wave loading
on deck mounted equipment on offshore structures/vessels.
Int Shipbuilding Prog. 44(440): 321–339.
Hamoudi B, Varyani KS. 1998. Significant load and green water
on deck of offshore units/vessels. Ocean Eng. 25(8): 715–
731.
Ogawa Y, Taguchi H, Ishida S, Wantanabe I, Sawada H, Tsujumoto
M, Minami M. 2000. Study of a rational method of assigning
freeboard. Pap Ship Res Inst. 37(6), 517–595.
Pham XP, Varyani KS. 2005. Evaluation of green water loads
on high-speed containership using CFD. Ocean Eng. 32:571–
585.
Pham X, Varyani KS. 2006. Generic design of V-shape and vane-
type breakwaters to reduce green water load effects on deck
structures and containers of ships: case study. J Waterway Port
Coastal Ocean Eng. 132(1): 57–65.
Pham XP, Varyani KS, Crossland P. 2003. Estimation of hori-
zontal loading due to green water using three-dimensional
CFD simulation. MARNET-CFD Annual Workshop; Haslar
Hydrodynamic Test Centre. Southampton, UK.
Varyani KS, Pham XP, Crossland P. 2004. Green water in-
vestigation for a containership. Ship Tech Res. 51(4):151–
161.
Varyani KS, Pham XP, Olsen EO. 2005. Application of double skin
breakwater with perforations for reducing green water load-
ing on high speed container vessels. Int Shipbuilding Prog.
52(3):273–292.
Varyani KS, Hodgson T, Pham XP. 2008. Effective and efficient
breakwater design for trading vessels and FPSOs, 130(2).