Neutral Axis

Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 4767
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng
Statistical properties of bulk carrier residual strength

A. Campanile a, V. Piscopo b, A. Scamardella b
a
b
The University of Naples Federico II, Department of Industrial Engineering, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy
The University of Naples Parthenope, Department of Science and Technology, Centro Direzionale Isola C4, 80143 Naples, Italy
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 24 December 2014
Accepted 29 June 2015
Available online 17 July 2015
Time-variant residual strength of bulk carriers under corrosion wastage is investigated by Monte Carlo
simulation. A new formulation of the incrementaliterative approach is presented to account for
instantaneous neutral axis rotation, in case of asymmetrical damage conditions. Relevant incidence on
hull girder residual strength is preliminarily studied. Hence, two main aspects are investigated: the
former regards the correlation among input variables, commonly assumed as uncorrelated in classical
procedures. In this respect, three correlation models are considered: no correlation, full correlation, and
full correlation among variables belonging to the same group of compartments. Subsequently, a z-test is
performed and the hull girder residual strength probability density functions are determined for both
sagging and hogging conditions, as when correlation exists, LindebergFeller Central Limit Theorem
cannot be applied. Three damage scenarios are analysed, according to the last requirements of
Harmonized Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers, assuming as reference case
the bulk carrier section scheme, proposed in the last ISSC Report. Finally, the residual strength factor
distribution vs. time is determined, together with relevant lower/upper bound values, with certain nonexceedance probability level, that in turn depends on correlation among corrosion wastages of all
structural members.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Residual strength
Damage scenarios
Bulk carrier
Corrosion
Monte Carlo simulation
1. Introduction
During the last decades, due to increasing environmental and
safety concerns, several attempts have been undertaken by International Organizations, Classication Societies and researchers, to
increase ship performances after collisions or groundings, once
accidents occur. Even if ship collisions and groundings have been
traditionally related to damage stability or cargo spills from
damaged hulls (Hussein and Guedes Soares, 2009), attention has
been focused on hull girder residual strength performances, too. In
this respect, within the research programme Tanker Safety, the
Germanischer Lloyd developed the rst guidelines to evaluate the
absorbed plastic deformation energy in a ship-ship collision, based
on minimum hull-girder ultimate load capacity and damage
penetration depth (Egge and Bckenhauer, 1991). Ships were
classied, with regard to resistance against collision, by means of
the additional class notation COLL, followed by an index ranging
from 1 to 6 and indicating that a critical situation, such as the
rupture of cargo tanks with subsequent spillage of cargo or water
E-mail addresses: antonio.campanile@unina.it (A. Campanile),

vincenzo.piscopo@uniparthenope.it (V. Piscopo),
antonio.scamardella@uniparthenope.it (A. Scamardella).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.06.060
0029-8018/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
ingress into dry cargo holds, is likely to occur only if deformation

energy due to collision exceeds the one of a non-strengthened
reference ship by more than a specied value. Subsequently, the
American Bureau of Shipping introduced the additional class
notation RES and developed some guidelines for assessing the
hull girder residual strength for oil tankers (ABS, 1995a) and bulk
carriers (ABS, 1995b). They provide assumptions about types of
accidents to be considered, damage location and extension, as well
as residual strength check criteria, in terms of minimum residual
hull-girder section modulus and maximum allowable shear stress
in side shell platings. In the same years, the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) developed some guidelines to evaluate the
amount of oil spills from oil tankers (IMO, 1995, 2003), based on
damage locations and extensions, due to collision or grounding
scenarios. Subsequently, the Det Norske Veritas introduced the
additional class notation CSA-2, to be assigned to ship designs
complying with enhanced fatigue and ultimate limit state criteria,
including residual strength due to collision or grounding occurrences (DNV, 2009). Even if the CSA-2 notation was applicable to
all ships, guidelines were furnished only for tankers, LNG/LPG
carriers and containerships. Besides, in 2010 the International
Maritime Organization adopted the International goal-based ship
construction standards for bulk carrier and oil tankers (IMO,
2010a), mainly based on a ve-tier system, as proposed by
48
A. Campanile et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 4767
Nomenclature
A
hull girder sectional area
Ai
area of ith structural element section
b
damage penetration breadth
C1
annual corrosion rate
COV[MH] coefcient of variation of hull girder hogging capacity
COV[MS] coefcient of variation of hull girder sagging capacity
COVC1
annual corrosion rate coefcient of variation
d
damage penetration depth
E
maximum percentage error of Monte Carlo simulation
E[MH]
expected value of hull girder sagging
E[MS]
expected value of hull girder sagging
h
damage penetration height
Iy0
hull girder vertical moment of inertia
Iy0z0
hull girder product of inertia
Iz0
hull girder horizontal moment of inertia
IQR
inter-quartile range
MH
hull girder hogging capacity
MS
hull girder sagging capacity
n
iteration number of Monte Carlo simulation
nreq
required iteration number of Monte Carlo simulation
p
condence level of Monte Carlo simulation
RSF
hull girder residual strength factor
Bahamas, Greece and the International Association of Classication Societies (IACS), namely: (I) Goals; (II) Functional requirements; (III) Verication of conformity; (IV) Rules and regulations
for ship design and construction; (V) Industry practices and
standards. According to IMO resolution, residual strength check
will be mandatorily required for oil tankers and bulk carriers of
150 m in length and above, (i) for which the building contract is
placed on or after 1st July 2016, (ii) the keels of which are laid on
or after 1st July 2017, (iii) the delivery of which is on or after 1st
July 2020 (IMO, 2010b). Furthermore, in the relevant guidelines for
verication of conformity with goal-based ship construction
standards (IMO, 2010c), the IMO conrmed that rules have to
provide hull-girder residual strength reasonable levels after
damage, taking into account: (i) applied methodologies; (ii) ooding scenarios due to collision or grounding events; (iii) environmental conditions and periods of exposure, representative of sea
states in case of damage occurrences; (iv) acceptance criteria;
(v) validation of residual strength assessment procedure, through
the analysis of a range of representative ship designs and loading
conditions.
Finally, in 2014 IACS published the Harmonized Common
Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers (CSR-H), in
accordance with IMO Tier (IV) requirements (IMO, 2010a), making
residual strength check mandatory for bulk carriers and oil
tankers, equal to or greater than 150 m in length (IACS, 2014a).
Hull girder residual strength criteria have been dened by structural reliability analysis, assuming that the annual probability of
failure, due to collision or grounding scenarios, shall be less than
the one of an intact ship in open sea, subjected to 25-year extreme
loads (IACS, 2014b). Strength check criteria have been determined
on the basis of the following key elements: (i) annual probability
of damage; (ii) probability of damage size; (iii) reduction in
capacity as a function of damage size; (iv) increase in still water
bending moment due to damage; (v) environmental conditions
when damage occurs; (vi) exposure time to environment, before
return to port. Residual strength check, prescribed by CSR-H, is
mainly based on the net scantling approach, which implies that
one-half corrosion additions have to be subtracted from the gross
T
Tc
tg
tr
yi
YG
zC
zCL
zG
zi
ZD
ZK
i
C1
x
i
x
time
coating protection life
as built thickness of ith structural element
corrosion wastage
horizontal coordinate of ith structural element centre
of mass
horizontal coordinate of hull girder section centre
of mass
condence coefcient for normal distribution
hull girder neutral axis vertical position at centreline
vertical coordinate of hull girder section centre
of mass
vertical coordinate of ith structural element centre
of mass
hull girder elastic section modulus at deck
hull girder elastic section modulus at bottom
neutral axis rotation about the horizontal
strain in the ith element
annual corrosion rate expected value
time-variant thickness expected value
correlation coefcient
stress in the ith element
time-variant thickness standard deviation
hull girder curvature
offered thickness of any structural element. Besides, residual

strength calculation is performed according to the incremental
iterative method, commonly applied for ultimate strength analysis,
deleting from the structural model all platings, stiffeners and
primary supporting members lying in the damage area, without
accounting for instantaneous neutral axis rotational shift, in case
of asymmetrical damage conditions. In this respect, two main
problems arise: the former is related to the incrementaliterative
method, not accounting for neutral axis rotation; the latter,
instead, concerns the corrosion wastage model and the hullgirder residual strength statistical properties, mainly related to
correlation among input variables.
As concerns the rst aspect, in the recent years several studies
on the assessment of hull girder residual strength in damaged
conditions have been carried out. Paik et al. (1998a) studied the
residual strength of hull structures, based on section modulus and
ultimate bending strength, developing a rapid procedure to
identify the possibility of hull girder failure after collision or
grounding damages, based on some closed-form formulas. Wang
et al. (2002) reviewed the state of art research on collision and
grounding, focusing on issues that relevant design standards need
to address: denition of accidents, scenarios, evaluation
approaches and acceptance criteria. Fang and Das (2005) applied
structural reliability analysis to damaged ship structures, presenting some limit state design functions and determining the hull
girder probability of failure. Hussein and Guedes Soares (2009)
studied the residual strength of three double hull oil tankers,
designed according to IACS Common Structural Rules (IACS, 2006a,
2006b). They analysed several damage scenarios at side and
bottom with different size, to derive the hull girder residual
strength lower bound values, which may be accounted for future
design. The progressive collapse method was applied together
with rule failure modes. Dec et al. (2012) proposed a framework
for the assessment of structural safety of ships under different
operational conditions, based on reliability and redundancy indicators applied to hull girder ultimate capacity, accounting for
ageing affects due to corrosion wastage, deriving several polar
plots of both reliability and redundancy indexes for different sea
states, ship speeds and heading angles. Alie (2012) and Alie et al.
(2012) investigated the incidence of neutral axis rotation on
residual hull girder strength for asymmetrical damaged ships
under longitudinal bending, applying the progressive collapse
method and nding an explicit expression of neutral axis rotation,
as a function of hull girder cross section biaxial curvature. After
performing a series of progressive collapse analyses on several
bulk carriers and oil tankers, it was found that residual hull girder
strength, considering the instantaneous neutral axis rotation, is
generally lower than the relevant one, obtained by constraining
the rotation, as it is commonly assumed in classical procedures.
Saydam and Frangopol (2013) provided a probabilistic framework
for performance assessment of hull girders, under sudden
damages, due to collision or grounding accidents. They combined
the effects of damage scenarios with progressive deterioration due
to corrosion by an optimization-based version of the incremental
iterative method applied to an oil tanker. Relevant reliability index
was presented in polar plots for different operational conditions.
Finally, Choung et al. (2014) investigated the ultimate strength of a
very large crude carrier, based on a probabilistic assessment of
damage extent, due to collision or grounding accidents. They
expressed the damage extent probability distribution as a function
of several non-dimensional parameters and furnished a polynomial expression for estimating the hull girder residual strength, at
different cumulative probability levels.
As concerns the latter aspect to be investigated and mainly
related to both applied corrosion wastage models and time-variant
hull girder ultimate strength statistical properties, some advances
can be cited in the last years. Akpan et al. (2002) developed an
approach for the risk assessment of ultimate strength of aging
ships, degraded by corrosion and fatigue, based on timedependent random function models for corrosion growth and
corrosion-enhanced fatigue cracks. Second-order reliability
method was applied to evaluate the hull girder reliability index.
Paik et al. (2003) developed some mathematical models for
predicting corrosion as a function of ship age, developing two
sets of time-dependent corrosion wastage models for 23 (34)
longitudinal member groups of bulk carriers (oil tankers), based
on statistical analysis of corrosion measurement data. Guo et al.
(2008) applied a semi-probabilistic approach to assess the timevariant ultimate strength of ageing tanker deck platings, by a nonlinear corrosion wastage model based on statistical analysis of the
American Bureau of Shipping corrosion wastage database. Ivanov
(2007) applied Taylor series expansion method to evaluate the hull
girder geometric properties in a probabilistic term. Wang et al.
(2008) presented a database of as-gauged thickness measurements and performed a statistical study of time-variant hull girder
strength for gradually degraded hull structures. Ivanov (2009,
2012) developed a procedure for calculating hull girder reliability,
based on a probabilistic format of cross-section geometric properties, presented as annual distributions for any given lifespan. Kim
et al. (2012) studied the ultimate strength of ve containerships to
investigate the impact of corrosion wastage throughout the entire
ship lifetime, based on double hull oil tanker corrosion requirements, applied as initial guidelines. Saad-Eldeen et al. (2013)
analysed the hull girder ultimate strength of corroded ship
structures, based on both experimental and numerical assessments, carrying out several tests on a box girder, under vertical
bending moment. Kim et al. (2015) applied various types of
industry corrosion additions to investigate the ultimate strength
performances of four bulk carriers, to understand relevant effects,
in terms of ultimate bending capacity. Finally, Campanile et al.
(2014) investigated the time-variant ultimate strength of bulk
carriers under corrosion wastage in intact conditions, applying
both Taylor series expansion method and Monte Carlo simulation,
mainly focusing on two main aspects, the former regarding the
49
correlation among input variables, the latter instead the applicability of LindebergFeller Central Limit Theorem, in case of partial
or full correlation among input variables.
In the present paper statistical properties of bulk carrier
residual strength are investigated by Monte Carlo simulation,
focusing on both incrementaliterative method and correlation
among input variables. A new formulation of the incremental
iterative method is preliminarily proposed, to account for instantaneous neutral axis rotation, in case of asymmetrical damage
conditions. Equilibrium of axial forces and horizontal bending
moment is imposed to derive both neutral axis vertical position
and rotation above the horizontal. The incidence of neutral axis
rotation on hull girder sagging and hogging capacities, as well as
the minimum iteration number required to perform Monte Carlo
simulation, are preliminarily studied. The incidence of correlation
among corrosion wastages of different structural members is fully
investigated, despite of commonly applied procedures, where
input variables are assumed uncorrelated (ISSC, 2012). In this
respect, three correlation models among input variables are
assumed: (i) no correlation; (ii) full correlation; (iii) full correlation
among corrosion wastages of structural members belonging to the
same group of compartments. Time-variant residual strength
statistical properties are subsequently determined by the corrosion wastage model proposed by Paik et al. (2003). According to
CSR-H requirements, three damage conditions are analysed:
(i) side damage; (ii) asymmetrical bottom damage; (iii) symmetrical bottom damage. Monte Carlo simulation is applied to the
well-known ISSC bulk carrier (ISSC, 2012); sagging and hogging
ultimate capacity mean values and coefcient of variations (COVs)
are determined up to 25-year ship lifetime, with 2.5-year step. A ztest is performed to verify that hull girder residual strength
follows the normal distribution, independently from correlation
among input variables, as far as LindebergFeller Central Limit
Theorem cannot be applied when correlation among input variables exists. Moment vs. curvature diagrams are reported, together
with residual strength frequency histograms, derived by FreedmanDiaconis rule. The residual strength factor (RSF) distribution
vs. time is also investigated, with reference to the analysed
damage scenarios. Correlation among corrosion wastages of different structural elements is further discussed, with reference to
RSF lower and upper bound values, derived under a certain nonexceedance probability level. Finally, time-variant RSF plots are
reported for the analysed damage scenarios for both sagging and
hogging conditions.
2. CSR-H requirements for residual strength check

Harmonized Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Oil
Tankers (CSR-H), in force from 1st January 2014, prescribe that
ship structural strength has to be checked against yielding and
buckling criteria (IACS, 2014a), including ultimate strength assessment of hull girder capacity. Furthermore, all ships having a length
greater than 150 m have to withstand still water and vertical wave
bending moments in damaged conditions, due to collision or
grounding scenarios. Residual strength calculations have to be
performed, to check the hull girder ultimate bending capacity,
accounting for structure plastic deformation and post-buckling
behaviour. For collision assessment, damage is assumed to be
located on ship side, from the freeboard deck downward, for a
distance of 0.75D and 0.60D for single and double side shell
arrangements and transversally inboard, for a distance equal to
B/16, having denoted by D and B the ship moulded depth and
breadth respectively, as shown in Fig. 1. For grounding assessment,
instead, damage is assumed to be located on the bottom, in the
most unfavourable transversal position, extending upward for a
50
Collision damage extent

Side shell arrangement
Double side
Height, h
0.75D
0.60D
Depth, d
B/16
B/16
Single side
Grounding damage extent

Damage penetration
Damage penetration
Ship type
Oil tankers
Height, h
min(B/20;2)
min(B/15;2)
Breadth, b
0.60B
0.60B
Bulk carriers
Fig. 1. Collision and grounding damage extents (IACS, 2014a).
distance equal to min (B/20; 2) and min (B/15; 2) for bulk carriers
and oil tankers and transversally for a distance of 0.60B. In any
case, damage penetration should not exceed the minimum rule
double side width and double bottom height, so that plates and
stiffeners of inner bottom and hull longitudinal bulkhead have to
be considered intact.
According to CSR-H requirements, residual strength check can
be performed by the incrementaliterative approach, mainly
based on the Smith method (Smith, 1977), under the following
assumptions (Hussein and Guedes Soares, 2009): (i) the ultimate
strength is calculated at a hull girder transverse section between
two adjacent webs; (ii) the hull girder transverse section remains
plane during each curvature increment; (iii) steel material behaviour is assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic; (iv) the hull girder
transverse section is divided into a set of elements, acting
independently each one from other, namely longitudinal stiffeners
with attached platings, transversely stiffened plate panels and
hard corners. Furthermore, for residual strength calculations, the
following additional assumptions are undertaken in modelling the
damage area (IACS, 2014b): (i) stiffeners have to be considered
intact, unless the connection with the attached plating is included
in the damage extent; (ii) primary supporting members are
deleted from the model; (iii) neutral axis rotation is not taken
into account, even in case of asymmetrical damage condition. The
last assumption is slightly non-conservative, as it doesnt account
for hull girder capacity reduction due to neutral axis rotation, even
if it is partially balanced by a damage size larger than the most
probable one at failure, as obtained by structural reliability
analysis, carried out on a comparative basis between intact and
damaged conditions (IACS, 2014b). In this respect, as collision
events are more likely to occur in coastal areas, having more dense
trafc but less severe environmental conditions than open sea
(Rusaas, 2003), the wave bending moment is likely to be signicantly lower than for unrestricted service in North Atlantic
conditions with 25-year return period, due to short exposure
time and lower waves, where most collisions and groundings

take place.
3. Theoretical background
3.1. Time-variant residual strength statistical properties
Damaged ship structures reliability analysis is generally carried
out by a time-independent rst order formulation, corresponding
to one-year operational conditions, accounting for uncertainties
due to hull girder ultimate capacity, as well as still-water and
vertical wave bending moments. In any case, mean value of hull
girder residual strength is determined by the incrementaliterative approach, on the basis of gross offered thickness, reduced by
one half corrosion addition, as a function of structural element
type and location. As concerns relevant statistical properties,
Mansour and Howen (1994) suggest that hull girder capacity
follows the normal distribution with COV 0.15; Fang and Das
(2005) suggest it is normally distributed too, with lower COV,
assumed equal to 0.10 (Teixeira, 1997); Hussein and Guedes Soares
(2009), instead, assume it follows the lognormal distribution, with
COV of 0.08 (Guedes Soares et al., 1996). Finally, a similar value,
ranging from 0.10 to 0.15, is suggested in the SSC-459 Report (SSC,
2011).
One of the rst attempts to evaluate the time-variant reliability
index has been performed only recently by Saydam and Frangopol
(2013), who applied a linear time-variant corrosion model, to
estimate the hull girder residual strength by the Latin-Hypercube
technique. Annual corrosion rates, in terms of mean value and
coefcient of variation, have been determined for several classes of
structural elements (Akpan et al., 2002): side shell platings and
stiffener webs; deck platings, deck and bottom stiffener webs;
bottom shell platings. Furthermore, as shown by Campanile et al.
(2014) for the time-variant ultimate strength statistical properties
considered for transversely stiffened plate elements. Finally, the

elasto-plastic failure mode is applied for both lengthened stiffened
plate elements and shortened/lengthened hard corners.
The previous procedure can be easily applied when hull-girder
cross-section is symmetric and a pure vertical bending moment is
applied, as neutral axis remains horizontal and moves only
vertically during the progressive collapse behaviour. On the contrary, when the cross-section is damaged at asymmetric positions,
or horizontal and vertical bending moments are applied simultaneously, both rotation and translation of neutral axis need to be
taken into account. In this respect, several efforts have been
undertaken in the past to underline a suitable procedure for
ultimate strength analysis of asymmetric cross-sections. Smith
and Pegg (2003) modied the incrementaliterative approach,
accounting for a given ratio of biaxial curvature or moment, in
terms of secant modulus corresponding to actual bending
moment-curvature slope. zg and Barltrop (2008) combined
vertical and horizontal bending moments in the incremental
iterative approach, deriving several interaction curves for different
loading combinations. Choung et al. (2012) provided two convergence criteria, to nd translational and rotational locations of
neutral axis plane, for both intact and damaged ship conditions,
accounting for asymmetries due to material properties, applied
loads and hull girder cross-section geometry, based on both force
and moment equilibrium criteria, to be simultaneously veried.
Alie et al. (2012) proposed an incremental formulation of biaxial
bending collapse behaviour, furnishing explicit expressions of
neutral axis position and rotation, as a function of cross-section
rigidities that, in turn, depend on elements tangential axial
stiffness, by means of relevant stressstrain curves. It is noticed
that in any case torsional (Campanile et al., 2010) and shear effects
(Campanile et al., 2009a, 2009b) are commonly neglected.
All the above mentioned procedures furnish quite similar results,
in terms of hull-girder capacity. Anyway, it is possible to develop an
incrementaliterative method, taking explicitly into account the
cross-section geometrical asymmetries, due to collision or grounding scenarios. In this respect, let us consider an asymmetric hullgirder cross-section, as shown in Fig. 2, referred to a global
coordinate system Oyz, with z-axis lying in the ship symmetry
plane, previous to damage event.
Denoting by G(yG;zG) the structural centre of mass after damage
occurrence (represented by a grey area in Fig. 2), let us dene a
local reference systems Gy0z0 with axes parallel to the global
reference ones. Denoting by Iy0 (Iz0) the vertical (horizontal)
of a bulk carrier in intact condition, coefcient of variations not

only depend on time, by means of the chosen corrosion model, but
also on the assumed correlation among corrosion wastages of all
structural elements. Particularly, they proposed three different
correlation models (all random variables independent; random
variables fully correlated; full correlation between groups of
variables belonging to the same category of compartments),
founding that ultimate hull girder capacity COV may vary up to
one order of magnitude.
At design stage, several scenarios in CSR-H Rules (IACS, 2014a)
are envisaged for both side and bottom damages, for which
strength calculations have to be performed. Anyway, during ships
operation, it is impossible to predict the time when damage will
occur. Therefore, in actual analysis the strength of damaged ship is
determined as function of that time; statistical properties of hull
girder residual capacity are determined accounting for timevariant corrosion wastage of structural elements. For the correct
evaluation of damaged ship strength, two main aspects have to be
further investigated: (i) neutral axis rotation has to be taken into
due consideration in the incrementaliterative approach; (ii)
corrosion wastages statistical properties of all structural elements
have to be properly accounted, to correctly estimate the timevariant residual strength COV, choosing the most appropriate
correlation model among input variables.
3.2. Modied incrementaliterative method
In the so-called incrementaliterative method (IACS, 2014a) the
moment-curvature curve is derived by determining the bending
moment M acting on the hull girder cross-section, due to the imposed
curvature , corresponding to the hull girder section rotation around
its instantaneous neutral axis, the vertical position of which is
determined by equilibrium of axial forces. Denoting by the strain
in any structural element, due to the imposed curvature , for a given
neutral axis position, relevant stress is derived from element stress
strain () curve, which takes into account the structural behaviour in
the non-linear elasticplastic domain. The neutral axis vertical position
has to be adjusted iteratively, till sums of forces above and below it are
equal, so that equilibrium is achieved. Sagging (hogging) ultimate
bending moment is the minimum (maximum) of the obtained
moment-curvature curve. Besides, according to CSR-H requirements
(IACS, 2014a), the load-end shortening curves for stiffened elements
refer to beam column buckling, torsional buckling and web local
buckling of anged proles/at bars, while plate buckling is
z0
51
n
y0
G
z CL
O
Fig. 2. Global and local reference systems.
52
transverse section Ai, can be determined according to the following formula:

3
i zi zCL yi tan cos
moment of inertia about y0 (z0) axis and by Iy0z0 the product of

inertia, the angle (counter-clockwise positive) between the
neutral axis and the horizontal can be easily determined as follows
(Hughes, 1988):
tan
I y0z0
I z0
Once the stress i() is derived by the element stressstrain

curve, neutral axis vertical position and rotation about the horizontal can be determined, satisfying both axial force and horizontal bending moment equations:
8
N
X
>
>
>
i Ai 0
>
>
<i1
4
N
X
>
>
>
>
i yi Ai 0
>
:
Anyway, when buckling or post-buckling occurs, instantaneous

neutral axis moves vertically and rotates, depending on the
applied curvature , according to the following equation:
zna zCL y tan
having denoted by zCL() and () the neutral axis vertical position

at centreline and rotation about the horizontal, respectively. Due
to the applied curvature , the neutrairder transverse section
rotates about its instantaneous neutral axis, so that the axial strain
i in the ith structural element, having centre of mass Gi(yi;zi) and
i1
having denoted by N the number of elements which the crosssection is subdivided into. Eq. (4) can be iteratively solved,
adjusting for any curvature , both neutral axis vertical position
at centreline zCL() and rotation about the horizontal (), recalculating element strains, stresses as well as total sectional force and
moment, until both equations are satised. It is noticed that
Eqs. (2)(4) are coincident with the classical incrementaliterative
method (IACS, 2014a), in case of symmetric hull girder crosssections (0). Besides, it has been veried that deformation
reversal doesnt occur in all performed calculations.
Table 1
ISSC Bulk carrier main dimensions.
Length between perpendiculars
Rule length
Moulded breadth
Moulded depth
Design draft
285.0
281.3
50.0
26.7
19.8
m
m
m
m
m
24.5***
Straight Camber
**
Sp
13
17
ac
e:
87
12
.5*
11
11
10
16
.5*
Sp
2
14
ac
.5*
80
13
.5*
.0
**
18.0**
Frame spacing: 870

Web frame spacing (double bottom and hopper side tank): 2610
Top-side tank web frame spacing: 5220
CVK transverse stiffener spacing: 1305
(in mm)
e:
2
2
2
2
3
18
.5
*
8
8
Space: 880
20.5*
2640
2 2
2 2 2
2 2 2 2
2640
18.5*
Space: 880
3520
4400
Fig. 3. ISSC Bulk carrier section scheme.
3
12.5*
2790
12.5*
12.5*
6 6 6 6
7
7
2640
2 2
6 6 6
7
7
80
2640
2 2
6 6
7
7
R1
2 2
6 6
7
7
12.5*
6 6
5
5
12.5*
6 6
4
4
3
3
4
4
5
5
2 2 2 2 2
4400
2120
1800
3
3
4400
Space: 880
3100
Sp
a
17 ce:
.5 88
** 0
17
Type
Yield Stress (MPa)
Flat-bar
392.0
Tee-bar
352.8
Tee-bar
352.8
Tee-bar
352.8
Tee-bar
352.8
Tee-bar
352.8
Bulb-bar
235.2
Tee-bar
352.8
Tee-bar
352.8
Tee-bar
352.8
Tee-bar
352.8
Tee-bar
352.8
Tee-bar
352.8
Flat-bar
392.0
13
Yield Stress
*: 313.6 MPa
**: 352.8 MPa
***: 392.0 MPa
18.5*
Dimensions
390x27
333x9+100x16
283x9+100x14
283x9+100x18
333x9+100x17
283x9+100x16
183x32.5x9.5
283x9+100x17
333x9+100x18
333x9+100x19
383x9+100x17
383x10+100x18
283x10+100x21
300x27
14.5*
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
50
R6 1
4400
Space: 880
.5*
2400
14
18
9700
4000
1100
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
700
991
12320
Space: 880
53
3.3. Rule and time-variant corrosion wastage models
3.4. Monte Carlo simulation
Hull-girder ultimate bending capacity decreases in time, as

thickness of platings and stiffeners reduces due to corrosion
wastage. According to CSR-H requirements (IACS, 2014a), only
one-half corrosion addition must be considered for hull girder
ultimate and residual strength check. One-side exposure wastage
allowances, determined on the basis of approximately 600,000
thickness measurement data, sampled from single hull tankers
and single side skin bulk carriers, with age ranging from 5 to 27
years, are generally considered appropriate for 25-year ship lifetime, if suitable hull structure maintenance programmes are
undertaken (IACS, 2014b).
Anyway, if a more reliable corrosion wastage estimate is
required, the easiest alternative to the deterministic net-scantling
approach is to base corrosion prediction on statistical analysis of
past data for comparable situations (Paik et al., 2003). In this
respect, corrosion models can be divided into two phases, the
former without corrosion occurrence due to coating protection,
the latter instead represented by an uncertain but constant
corrosion rate, which results in a linear decrease of plate thickness
with time (Yamamoto and Ikegami, 1998; Hu et al., 2004). Even if
non-linear corrosion models seem to be more appropriate than
linear ones, due to the nature of corrosion rate, decreasing with
time after coating degradation (Qin and Cui, 2003), few data are
available in literature, so that in the following the linear corrosion
model developed by Paik et al. (1998b) will be applied:
Several techniques can be applied to problems involving random variables, such as Taylor series expansion method, Latin
Hypercube sampling or Monte Carlo simulation, depending on
system complexity and computational effort. Monte Carlo method
has been extensive applied in the eld of operational research and
nuclear physics, where there are a variety of problems beyond the
available resources of theoretical mathematics (Hammersley and
Handscomb, 1975). Nowadays it is also widely applied in the eld
of structural mechanics, including ultimate strength of stiffened
panels (Garbatov et al., 2011), buckling of platings subjected to
non-uniform corrosion wastage (Silva et al., 2011) and hull girder
ultimate bending capacity (Vhanmane and Bhattacharya, 2011;
Campanile et al., 2014). The method is mainly based on the
generation of random values assumed as input variables, each
one with a given distribution. In case of one-dimensional
t r T C 1 T T c
Table 3
Comparative analysis between classical and modied incrementaliterative
approach.
T
Classical
(years) incremental
iterative approach
Up to
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
having denoted by Tc the coating protection life, equal to 7.5 years,

and C1 the annual corrosion rate, the expected value C1 and
coefcient of variation COVC1 of which have been determined by
Paik et al. (2003), for 23 different structural elements of single skin
bulk carriers, in the hypothesis of severe corrosion rate, corresponding to the 95th percentile of relevant probability function.
Hence, time-variant statistical properties at time T4 Tc can be
easily derived for any structural element (Campanile et al., 2014):
(
X t g C1 T T c
6
X C1 T T c COVC1
Modied
incremental
iterative
approach
Sagging
difference
Hogging
difference
E(MS)
(GN m)
E(MH)
(GN m)
E(MS)
(GN m)
E(MH)
GN m
(%)
(%)
12.427
15.927
11.911
15.140
4.150
4.940
11.902
11.379
10.861
10.341
9.827
9.319
8.812
15.402
14.874
14.339
13.802
13.264
12.725
12.186
11.405
10.910
10.417
9.911
9.422
8.940
8.457
14.599
14.069
13.529
12.975
12.425
11.870
11.312
4.176
4.121
4.089
4.163
4.120
4.064
4.022
5.217
5.414
5.644
5.989
6.330
6.722
7.167
Table 4
Minimum iteration number nmin as a function of sample size n.
having denoted by tg the as built thickness. Finally, the best-t

probability function of annual corrosion rate follows the two
parameter Weibull distribution. Scale and shape parameters have
been derived as a function of mean values and coefcient of
variations given by Paik et al. (2003) for different structural
elements. It is noticed that Eq. (6) is in general approximated,
because the as-rolled steel product thickness, assumed as a
deterministic variable in actual analysis, follows a normal or lognormal distribution, which implies that the resulting probabilistic
distribution will follow neither the normal nor the Weibull
distribution and will vary with the ship life.
100
200
300
400
500
750
1000
1500
Case (I)
Case (II)
Case (III)
Sagging
Hogging
Sagging
Hogging
Sagging
Hogging
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
230
225
238
236
234
236
249
226
183
180
188
187
185
187
197
180
189
245
187
199
224
211
204
205
67
72
62
66
73
70
66
68
Table 2
Comparison with the methods for ultimate strength analysis reported by ISSC (2012).
Symbol
Method
Working organization
MH (GN m)
MS (GN m)
ANSYS (PNU)
ANSYS (ISR)
ABAQUS (CR)
ALPS/HULL (PNU)
CSR (BV)
CSR (CR)
CSR (PNU)
RINA Rules (UoG)
ISSC 2000 (Rigo)
Modied P-M (PNU)
CSR-H
FE elasto-plastic analysisANSYS
FE elasto-plastic analysisANSYS
FE elasto-plastic analysisABAQUS
FE progressive collapse analysis
Incrementaliterative approach
Modied Paik Mansour formula
Pusan National University

Indian Register of Shipping
China Corporation Register of Shipping
Bureau Veritas
China Corporation Register of Shipping
University of Genova
Rigo P. c/o University of Liege
Actual calculation
17.500
18.326
18.396
16.602
14.822
18.338
18.360
17.482
18.714
16.576
18.364
15.800
17.726
16.855
15.380
11.521
14.921
14.500
13.952
14.340
14.798
14.708
54
problems, several techniques are available, such as the inversetransform one, among others (Kroese, 2011). In case of multivariate problems, instead, correlation among input variables has to
be investigated. In fact, while in case of uncorrelated variables,
each one can be easily generated by its own distribution, when
correlation exists, the random generation procedure has to be
properly varied, by means of several approximate techniques
(Kroese, 2011). Time-variant residual hull girder capacity is certainly a multivariate problem, as corrosion wastage of each
structural element can be regarded as a random variable. Hence,
correlation among input variables becomes a basic issue to be
investigated, as standard deviation of both sagging and hogging
capacities strictly depends on it (Devroye, 1986). In this respect,
Monte Carlo simulation will be applied, considering three different
correlation models among input variables:
Case (I): input variables are uncorrelated. Annual corrosion

rates are generated for each structural element based on

relevant Weibull distribution.
Case (II): input variables are fully correlated. A uniform random
number q is preliminarily generated in the interval [0,1];
annual corrosion rate of each structural element is subsequently determined by relevant inverse cumulative distribution
function, evaluated at probability level q.
Case (III): input variables are partially correlated. Structural
elements are preliminarily subdivided into several compartment categories, namely double-bottom, hopper tank, wing
tank and transversely stiffened side shell in the examined case.
Full correlation ( 1) is assumed among elements belonging to
the same category of compartments, while no correlation
(0) exists for elements belonging to different categories. A

uniform random number qi is generated for each category of
compartments in the interval [0,1]; hence annual corrosion rate
for each structural element belonging to the ith group is
determined by relevant inverse cumulative distribution function, evaluated at probability level qi.
It is noticed that LindebergFeller Central Limit Theorem (a

more general form of well-known LindebergLvy CLT) can be
applied in Case (I) only, as input variables are uncorrelated, but not
following the same distribution law (Hunter, 2011; Campanile
et al., 2014). On the contrary, when correlation exists, as for Cases
(II) or (III), a z-test (Sprinthall, 2011) needs to be performed, to
verify that hull girder residual strength follows the normal
distribution. In this respect, FreedmanDiaconis rule (Freedman
and Diaconis, 1981) is applied to estimate the optimum bin size
length of hull girder capacity frequency histograms:
B in size 2IQRxn 1=3
having denoted by n the Monte Carlo iteration number and IQR(x)

the data inter-quartile range (Graham and Cook, 1996). Finally, the
minimum iteration number nmin required to perform Monte Carlo
simulation can be determined according to Driels and Shin (2004):

nmin min n A : n Z nreq n
Limit value
Case (I) - Sagging
Case (I) - Hogging
Case (II) - Sagging
Case (II) - Hogging
Case (III) - Sagging
Case (III) - Hogging
1300
1200
1100
1000
nreq n
n min
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
n
Fig. 4. Minimum iteration number vs. sample sizecollision scenario.
having denoted by nreq(n) the required iteration number, as a

function of hull girder capacity mean value condence level p and
maximum percentage error E:
1500
1400

100zc pCOVn 2
E
In Eq. (9) COV(n) is the hull girder sagging/hogging coefcient

of variation, while zc(p) is a coefcient derived by the normal
distribution and depending on the assumed condence level p. If
Eq. (8) is satised and Monte Carlo simulation is run for nmin
iterations, the target function mean value will not differ more than
E from the true one, with probability level p. In the present study
Monte Carlo simulation has been performed by a dedicated code
developed in Matlab Mathworks (MathWorks, 2014), mainly consisting of two parts: the former is devoted to residual strength
analysis by the modied-incremental iterative method, accounting
for rule and time-variant corrosion wastage models; the latter,
instead, performs the statistical analysis of Monte Carlo results.
z, z 0
n
G
y0
5.693 m2
Sectional area
Centre of mass vertical position
zG
Centre of mass transversal position
yG
0.000 m
Vertical moment of inertia
I y0
699.540 m
Horizontal moment of inertia
I z0
Product of inertia
Iy0z0
Neutral axis rotation
11.224 m
4
1811.702 m
0.000 m4
0.000 deg
Neutral axis vertical position at CL
z CL
11.224 m
Elastic section modulus at deck
ZD
44.625 m3
Elastic section modulus at bottom
ZK
62.325 m3
Ultimate hogging capacity
MH
18.364 GNm
Ultimate sagging capacity
MS
14.711 GNm
Fig. 5. Section scheme and gross sectional propertiesintact condition.
55
tank, excepting the center vertical keel where the length is

1305 mm, because of brackets between oors.
4. The ISSC bulk carrier

4.1. Main data
The vessel selected as test case for time-variant residual
strength analysis by Monte Carlo simulation is a Capesize single
side bulk-carrier, the main dimensions of which are listed in
Table 1 and Fig. 3, where material properties, scantlings and frame
spacing are also detailed. The ship is longitudinally stiffened,
except for side shell platings comprised between the hopper and
wing tanks.
The hull has been extensively studied by Amlashi and Moan
(2008), who carried out a series of nonlinear FE analyses, under
various loading conditions. It has also been benchmarked in the
last ISSC Ultimate Strength Committee report (ISSC, 2012), where
ultimate hogging and sagging capacities have been determined by
several Working Organizations, by different techniques, namely FE
elasto-plastic analysis, incrementaliterative approach and modied Paik-Mansour formula. Actual values of gross scantling hull
girder capacity in intact condition are well in accordance with
nonlinear FE calculations. In fact, actual hogging and sagging
ultimate bending capacities are equal to 18.364 GN m and
14.708 GN m, respectively, while relevant FE values, derived by
full elasto-plastic analyses, range from 17.500 to 18.396 GN m for
hogging and from 15.800 to 17.726 GN m for sagging condition
respectively, as reported in Table 2.
It is noticed that, according to Fig. 3, the length of elements is
870 mm for side shell, 5220 mm for longitudinal stiffeners within
top side tank, 2610 mm within double bottom and hopper side
Table 5
Mean values and COVs of hull girder ultimate bending moment capacity - Intact
condition from Campanile et al. (2014).
T
Mean value
(years)
E[MS]
E[MH]
(GN m) (GN m)
Case (I)
COV
[MS]
(%)
COV
[MH]
(%)
COV
[MS]
(%)
COV
[MH]
(%)
COV
[MS]
(%)
COV
[MH]
(%)
Up to
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
Case (II)
Case (III)
14.708
18.364
14.100
13.490
12.890
12.290
11.700
11.110
10.510
17.680
16.960
16.260
15.550
14.810
14.100
13.360
0.073
0.153
0.262
0.338
0.440
0.562
0.679
0.044
0.094
0.157
0.202
0.295
0.345
0.461
0.805
1.738
2.589
3.769
4.940
6.228
7.330
0.803
1.567
2.687
3.743
4.959
6.326
7.879
0.777
1.595
2.559
3.760
4.939
6.000
7.280
0.517
1.099
1.625
2.396
3.159
4.086
5.619
z0
4.2. Incidence of neutral axis rotation

Before performing Monte Carlo simulation, the incidence of
neutral axis rotation is investigated. With reference to the collision
scenario detailed in the next paragraph, residual bending capacities are determined by classical (IACS, 2014a) and actual incrementaliterative approach. Table 3 reports time-variant residual
strength expected values, for sagging E(MS) and hogging E(MH)
conditions, up to 25-year ship lifetime, with 2.5-year step. Mean
values are determined replacing the gross thickness of any
structural element with the one at time T 4Tc, as obtained by
the rst of Eq. (6).
Sagging and hogging residual strength capacities decrease in
time, as predictable. Furthermore, if compared with classical
approach, the actual incrementaliterative method always leads
to slightly less hull girder capacities, with percentage differences
around 4% and ranging from 5% to 7% for sagging and hogging
conditions, respectively. In any case, obtained results are in
accordance with those ones derived by Alie et al. (2012), who
found that maximum residual strength reduction, due to neutral
axis rotation, is about 8% for a similarly sized single side bulk
carrier.
4.3. Minimum iteration number
The minimum iteration number required for Monte Carlo
simulation is preliminarily investigated with reference to the
collision scenario detailed in the next paragraph, assuming a
condence level p 95% and a percentage error E 1.0%. In all
cases, sagging and hogging capacities follow the normal distribution, according to the performed z-test, which implies that for the
assumed condence level zc is equal to 1.96. Table 4 reports the
minimum iteration number nmin required for Cases (I)(III), for
both sagging and hogging conditions, as a function of sample size
n, ranging from 100 to 1500.
The minimum iteration number required in Case (I), i.e. when
all variables are uncorrelated, is very low. On the contrary, when
full correlation exists, as in Case (II), the minimum iteration
number is about 300 for both sagging and hogging conditions.
Finally, Case (III) shows intermediate values, as partial correlation
among input variables is assumed. Similar results are also reported
in Fig. 4, where the minimum iteration number nmin is plotted. vs.
the sample size n. All points below the magenta curve satisfy
Eq. (9), while continuous and dashed lines refer to sagging and
5.036 m
zG
10.281 m
yG
-3.183 m
I y0
629.594 m4
I z0
1369.045 m4
Product of inertia
I y0z0
-129.892 m 4
n
G
Sectional area
-5.420 deg
y0
z CL
9.979 m
ZD
37.883 m3
ZK
61.241 m 3
MH
15.139 GNm
Ultimatesagging capacity
MS
11.911 GNm
Fig. 6. Section scheme and gross sectional propertiesside damage (collision).
z(m),
10
20
Neutral axis vertical shift
9
18
8
Bending moment
16
7
14
Neutral axis rotational shift
6
12
5
10
4
8
3
6
2
4
1
2
0
0
-1
-2
-2
-4
-3
-6
-4
-8
-5
-10
-6
-12
-7
-14
-8
-16
-9
-18
-10
-20
-2.5-2.25 -2 -1.75-1.5-1.25
-2.5
-1.5
-1 -0.75-0.5-0.25
-0.5
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
-4
Curvature (1/mm)
x 10
(deg)
Bending capacity (GNm)
56
Fig. 7. Moment-curvature diagram at time T 0 yearsside damage (collision).
Table 6
Mean values and COVs of hull girder ultimate bending moment capacityside
damage (collision).
T
Mean value
(years)
E[MS]
E[MH]
(GN m) (GN m)
Case (I)
COV
[MS]
(%)
COV
[MH]
(%)
COV
[MS]
(%)
COV
[MH]
(%)
COV
[MS]
(%)
COV
[MH]
(%)
Up to
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
Case (II)
Case (III)
11.911
15.139
11.405
10.910
10.417
9.911
9.422
8.940
8.457
14.599
14.069
13.529
12.975
12.425
11.870
11.312
0.074
0.191
0.279
0.377
0.541
0.634
0.790
0.065
0.110
0.171
0.235
0.320
0.387
0.490
0.833
1.757
2.834
3.682
4.983
6.032
8.046
0.741
1.519
2.474
3.215
4.402
5.385
7.159
0.801
1.672
2.631
3.589
4.800
5.859
7.283
0.497
0.999
1.539
2.194
2.809
3.440
4.154
hogging capacities, respectively. Hence, in the following analyses

Monte Carlo simulation will be carried out, performing in all cases
1000 iterations, with 95% condence level and 1% maximum
percentage error.
5. Time-variant residual strength analysis

Hull girder ultimate strength capacities in intact conditions are
reported from Campanile et al. (2014), while time-variant residual
strength analysis is performed for the following damage scenarios,
according to CSR-H requirements (IACS, 2014a):
1. Side damage (collision);
2. Bottom damage (1st grounding scenario);
3. Bottom damage (2nd grounding scenario).
For each damage scenario the reference section scheme, as well
as gross scantling sectional properties are reported. Time-variant
mean values and COVs of sagging and hogging hull girder
capacities are subsequently determined, up to 25-year ship lifetime, with 2.5-year step. Cases (I)(III) of Section 3.4 are considered to investigate the incidence of correlation among input
variables on hull girder statistical properties. Finally, after performing a z-test, frequency histograms obtained by Monte Carlo
simulation and best-t normal distributions are reported for both
sagging and hogging capacities after 25-year ship lifetime.
5.1. Intact condition

As previously said, ultimate strength analysis in intact conditions is necessary to carry out a comparative analysis with timevariant hull girder residual strength capacity, due to collision or
grounding scenarios. Statistical properties of ISSC bulk-carrier
longitudinal strength in intact conditions have been already
investigated by Campanile et al. (2014). Fig. 5 shows the analysed
section scheme, with relevant gross sectional properties, while
Table 5 reports detailed statistical analysis results.
5.2. Side damage (collision scenario)

The damage scenario for collision assessment is determined
according to CSR-H requirements for single side bulk carriers,
assuming a penetration height h20.175 m and a depth
d 3.125 m (see Fig. 1). Fig. 6 shows the analysed section scheme,
with relevant gross scantling properties. Damaged structures have
been deleted from the model (IACS, 2014a).
Sagging and hogging capacities are determined up to 25-year
ship lifetime, with 2.5-year step. Fig. 7 shows the hull girder crosssection behaviour as function of the curvature without corrosion
wastage (T rTc): black curve refers to the hull girder bending
capacity, while blue and red lines are relative to neutral axis
vertical z zCL() zCL(0) and rotational () (0) shifts, as
regards the elastic neutral axis values, when any structural
element composing the hull girder cross-section does not undergo
inelastic effects, such as yielding or buckling (Choung et al., 2012).
Mean values and COVs of hull girder sagging and hogging
capacities are reported in Table 6. Also in this case COVs increase
with time and substantially depend on the chosen correlation
model. While for Case (I) they reach a maximum value of 0.790%,
when full correlation among variables or groups of them exists, for
Cases (II) and (III), COVs reach a maximum value of 8.046% and
7.283%, respectively.
Finally, Fig. 8 shows sagging and hogging capacity histograms
at T 25 years, for Cases (I)(III). Frequency histogram bin size is
derived according to Eq. (9). In all cases data follow the normal
distribution (red curve), according to z-test null hypothesis that
they are a random sample from a normal distribution. In the same
graphs mean, standard deviation, skewness and excess kurtosis
are also reported. The last two parameters are equal to zero for the
normal distribution.
8
Mean=8.457 GNm
Std=0.067 GNm
Skewness=0.062
Kurtosis=0.205
1
0
6.5
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
10
10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5

13
13.5
14
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
6
6.5
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
9.5
10
10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5

13
13.5
14
Mean=8.457 GNm
Std=0.616 GNm
Skewness=0.357
Kurtosis=-0.219
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
pdf
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
6.5
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
Mean=11.312 GNm
Std=0.470 GNm
Skewness=0.305
Kurtosis=-0.151
0.9
0.7
9.5
Mean=11.312 GNm
Std=0.810 GNm
Skewness=0.383
Kurtosis=-0.069
0.9
pdf
pdf
0.8
1
Mean=8.457 GNm
Std=0.680 GNm
Skewness=0.438
Kurtosis=0.078
0.9
pdf
Mean=11.312 GNm
Std=0.055 GNm
Skewness=-0.013
Kurtosis=0.104
pdf
pdf
57
10
10.5
11
9.5
10
10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5

Fig. 8. Frequency histograms for Cases (I)(III) at time T 25 yearsside damage (collision).
13
13.5
14
58
z0 z
a
y0
4.693 m2
Sectional area
zG
yG
-1.980 m
I y0
558.273 m4
I z0
1633.214 m4
Product of inertia
Iy0z0
121.697 m4
zCL
13.667 m
ZD
41.722 m3
ZK
41.295 m3
MH
13.453 GNm
MS
13.267 GNm
13.519 m
4.261 deg
(deg)
10
20
9
18
8
Bending moment
16
7
14
6
12
5
10
4
8
3
6
2
4
1
2
0
0
-1
-2
-2
-4
-3
-6
-4
-8
-5
-10
-6
-12
-7
-14
-8
-16
-9
-18
-10
-20
-2.5-2.25 -2 -1.75-1.5-1.25
-2.5
-1.5
-1 -0.75-0.5-0.25
-0.5
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
-4
Curvature (1/mm)
x 10
z(m),
Fig. 9. Section scheme and gross sectional propertiesbottom damage (1st grounding scenario).
Fig. 10. Moment-curvature diagram at time T 0 yearsbottom damage (1st grounding scenario).
Table 7
Mean values and COVs of hull girder ultimate bending moment capacitybottom
damage (1st grounding scenario).
T
Mean value
(years)
E[MS]
E[MH]
(GN m) (GN m)
Case (I)
Case (II)
Case (III)
COV
[MS]
(%)
COV
[MH]
(%)
COV
[MS]
(%)
COV
[MH]
(%)
COV
[MS]
(%)
COV
[MH]
(%)
Up to
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
13.267
13.453
12.681
12.137
11.584
11.034
10.497
9.966
9.238
12.900
12.195
11.606
10.979
10.329
9.723
9.212
0.112
0.176
0.270
0.355
0.462
0.564
0.681
0.114
0.300
0.381
0.416
0.517
0.658
0.794
0.838
1.682
2.752
3.819
4.786
6.216
7.400
0.969
2.030
3.277
4.615
5.780
7.557
8.882
0.708
1.493
2.244
3.238
4.138
5.068
6.680
0.703
1.478
2.288
3.217
4.257
5.602
6.545
5.3. Bottom damage (1st grounding scenario)

Bottom damage scenario is assessed considering the damage
penetration height h and breadth b of 2.500 m and 30.000 m,
respectively (see Fig. 1). According to IACS (2014a) requirements,
damage area has to be located on the bottom, in the most
unfavourable transverse position. In the actual grounding scenario,
damage area involves the hopper tank and only partly the double
bottom, as shown in Fig. 9, where the analysed section scheme,
gross scantling sectional properties and damage section are
shown. Sagging and hogging capacities are determined up to 25year ship lifetime. In this respect, Fig. 10 shows relevant gross
section moment-curvature diagram. As well as in the previous
case, neutral axis rotational shift is appreciable when buckling
inception occurs.
Mean values and COVs of hull girder sagging and hogging
capacities are reported in Table 7. While for Case (I) COV reaches a
maximum value of 0.794%, maximum values for Cases (II) and (III)
are 8.882% and 6.680%, respectively. Finally, Fig. 11 shows sagging
and hogging capacity histograms at time T 25 years. Also in this
case data sampled from Monte Carlo simulation follow the normal
distribution (red curve), according to the performed z-test.
5.4. Bottom damage (2nd grounding scenario)
The second analysed grounding scenario is assessed considering the previous damage penetration height and breadth, locating
the damage area symmetrically respect to the ship symmetry
plane. Obviously, in this case there is no neutral axis rotation, as
shown in Fig. 12, where the analysed section scheme, as well as
the relevant gross scantling sectional properties are reported.
By a comparative analysis of gross scantling sectional properties listed in Figs. 9 and 12 for the asymmetrical and symmetrical
damage scenario, ultimate hogging and sagging capacities are
quite similar between them, which implies that the incidence of
damage area transverse location on hull girder residual strength is
almost negligible. Finally, Fig. 13 reports the gross-scantling
moment-curvature diagram for the analysed section scheme. It is
8
Mean=9.238 GNm
Std=0.063 GNm
Skewness=-0.019
Kurtosis=-0.188
pdf
pdf
7.5
8.5
9
9.5 10 10.5
11
11.5
12
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
pdf
pdf
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
7.5
8.5
9
9.5 10 10.5
11
11.5
12
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13

Mean=9.238 GNm
Std=0.617 GNm
Skewness=0.213
Kurtosis=-0.194
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
pdf
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
7.5
8.5
9
9.5 10 10.5
11
11.5
12
Mean=9.212 GNm
Std=0.603 GNm
Skewness=0.274
Kurtosis=-0.164
0.5
0.4
Mean=9.212 GNm
Std=0.818 GNm
Skewness=0.302
Kurtosis=-0.136
0.5
0.4
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13

Mean=9.238 GNm
Std=0.684 GNm
Skewness=0.249
Kurtosis=-0.057
0.9
pdf
Mean=9.212 GNm
Std=0.073 GNm
Skewness=0.072
Kurtosis=-0.003
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13

Fig. 11. Frequency histograms for Cases (I)(III) at time T 25 yearsBottom damage (1st grounding scenario).
59
60
z,z 0
a y
0
4.605 m2
Sectional area
zG
yG
Iy0
543.429 m4
I z0
1730.274 m4
Product of inertia
Iy0z0
13.764 m
0.000 m
0.000 m4
0.000 deg
z CL
13.764 m
ZD
41.371 m3
ZK
39.480 m3
MH
13.122 GNm
MS
13.812 GNm
(deg)
10
20
9
18
8
Bending moment
16
7
14
6
12
5
10
4
8
3
6
2
4
1
2
0
0
-1
-2
-2
-4
-3
-6
-4
-8
-5
-10
-6
-12
-7
-14
-8
-16
-9
-18
-10
-20
-2.5-2.25 -2 -1.75-1.5-1.25
-2.5
-1.5
-1 -0.75-0.5-0.25
-0.5
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
-4
Curvature (1/mm)
x 10
z(m),
Fig. 12. Section scheme and gross sectional propertiesbottom damage (2nd grounding scenario).
Fig. 13. Moment-curvature diagram at time T 0 yearsbottom damage (2nd grounding scenario).
Table 8
Mean values and COVs of hull girder ultimate bending moment capacitybottom
damage (2nd grounding scenario).
T
Mean value
(years)
E[MS]
E[MH]
(GN m) (GN m)
Case (I)
COV
[MS]
(%)
COV
[MH]
(%)
COV
[MS]
(%)
COV
[MH]
(%)
COV
[MS]
(%)
COV
[MH]
(%)
Up to
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
Case (II)
Case (III)
13.812
13.122
13.230
12.677
12.116
11.555
10.996
10.439
9.885
12.442
11.926
11.276
10.691
10.057
9.453
8.951
0.087
0.175
0.245
0.322
0.424
0.546
0.658
0.121
0.241
0.316
0.426
0.569
0.675
0.750
0.856
1.751
2.609
3.751
4.722
6.149
7.623
1.080
2.090
3.175
4.657
5.742
7.442
9.173
0.707
1.509
2.480
3.400
4.339
5.716
6.777
0.718
1.419
2.219
3.169
4.252
5.079
6.290
noticed that neutral axis rotational shift is always zero, independently from the considered curvature, as it could be predictable for
the analysed case.
Sagging and hogging mean values and COVs are reported in
Table 8 for Cases (I)(III): relevant maximum values are equal to
0.750%, 9.173% and 6.777%, respectively. It is noticed that maximum COV value is obtained for Case (II), the minimum value for
Case (I) and this relationship occurs for other intact and damage
conditions, as well. Finally, Fig. 14 shows sagging and hogging
capacity histograms at time T 25 years. Also in this case data
sampled from Monte Carlo simulation follow the normal distribution (red curve), according to the performed z-test.
6. Residual strength factor statistical properties

Ship residual strength, due to collision or grounding scenarios
can be assessed in terms of the residual strength factor RSF(T),
dened as the ratio of time-variant hull girder capacity in
damaged conditions to the intact gross scantling one (Akpan
et al., 2002):
RSFT
M dam T
M int
10
Relevant statistical properties, in terms of mean value and COV,

can be determined as follows:
ERSFT
EM dam T
M int
COVRSFT COVM dam T
11
12
having denoted by E[Mdam(T)] and COV[Mdam(T)] the expected

value and coefcient of variation of hull girder sagging/hogging
capacity in damaged conditions, as determined in previous paragraphs (see Tables 68). As it was veried that the residual hull
girder capacity is normally distributed, independently from correlation among input variables, residual strength factor will be in
Mean=9.885 GNm
Std=0.065 GNm
Skewness=-0.001
Kurtosis=-0.027
1
0
7.5
8.5
9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13

Mean=9.885 GNm
Std=0.754 GNm
Skewness=0.382
Kurtosis=-0.070
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
7.5
8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12

0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
7
7.5
8.5
9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13

6.5
7.5
8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12

1
Mean=9.885 GNm
Std=0.670 GNm
Skewness=0.284
Kurtosis=-0.257
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
pdf
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
7.5
8.5
9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13

Mean=8.951 GNm
Std=0.563 GNm
Skewness=0.274
Kurtosis=-0.257
0.9
0.7
6.5
Mean=8.951 GNm
Std=0.821 GNm
Skewness=0.401
Kurtosis=-0.103
0.9
pdf
pdf
0.8
pdf
Mean=8.951 GNm
Std=0.067 GNm
Skewness=-0.071
Kurtosis=-0.272
pdf
pdf
6.5
7.5
8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12

Fig. 14. Frequency histograms for Cases (I)(III) at time T 25 yearsbottom damage (2nd grounding scenario).
61
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
RSF
RSF
62
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
22.5
25
2.5
7.5
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
22.5
25
2.5
7.5
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
Time (years)
17.5
20
22.5
25
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
22.5
25
17.5
20
22.5
25
0.5
0.4
15
Time (years)
RSF
RSF
Time (years)
12.5
0.5
0.4
10
Time (years)
RSF
RSF
Time (years)
17.5
20
22.5
25
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
Time (years)
Fig. 15. Residual strength factor distribution vs. timeside damage (collision scenario).
63
Table 9
RSF mean, lower and upper bound values after 25-year ship lifetimesagging condition.
Damage scenario
Side damage (collision scenario)

Bottom damage (1st grounding scenario)
Bottom damage (2nd grounding scenario)
Mean value
Case (I)
Case (II)
Case (III)
RSF
RSF5%
RSF95%
RSF5%
RSF95%
RSF5%
RSF95%
0.575
0.641
0.672
0.568
0.633
0.665
0.582
0.648
0.679
0.499
0.563
0.588
0.651
0.719
0.756
0.506
0.570
0.597
0.644
0.711
0.747
Table 10
RSF mean, lower and upper bound values after 25-year ship lifetimehogging condition.
Damage scenario
Side damage (collision scenario)

Bottom damage (1st grounding scenario)
Bottom damage (2nd grounding scenario)
Mean value
Case (I)
RSF
RSF5%
RSF95%
RSF5%
RSF95%
RSF5%
RSF95%
0.616
0.502
0.484
0.611
0.495
0.478
0.621
0.508
0.490
0.543
0.428
0.411
0.689
0.575
0.557
0.574
0.448
0.434
0.658
0.556
0.534
turn normally distributed, too. Hence, relevant lower bound value,

corresponding to 5% non-exceedance probability level, can be
determined as follows:
RSFT 5% ERSFT 1 1:645COVRSFT
13
while the upper bound one, corresponding to 95% non-exceedance

probability, becomes:
RSFT 95% ERSFT 1 1:645COVRSFT
14
Fig. 15 shows the residual strength factor distribution vs. time

for the side damage scenario. Sagging and hogging residual
strength factors are plotted for Cases (I)and (III): continuous
lines refer to RSF mean value, as determined by Eq. (11), while grey
areas represent the range between RSF lower and upper bound
values, as determined by Eqs. (13) and (14). Sagging and hogging
RSF values for both collision and grounding scenarios after 25-year
ship lifetime, are reported in Tables 9 and 10, together with
relevant lower and upper bound values, as determined for Case
(I)(III), respectively.
If input variables are uncorrelated as for Case (I), the range
represented by the grey area is very small, with RSF lower bound
values equal to 0.568 and 0.611, after 25-year ship lifetime, for
sagging and hogging conditions, respectively. On the contrary,
when full correlation exists, as for Case (II), grey areas become
wider, with RSF lower bound values equal to 0.499 and 0.543 for
sagging and hogging conditions. Finally, when full correlation
exists among variables belonging to the same group of compartments, as for Case (III), 25-year RSF lower bound values are 0.506
and 0.574, respectively. Similar results are reported in Figs. 16 and
17 for the two analysed grounding scenarios, with asymmetrical
and symmetrical damage penetrations, respectively. For the asymmetrical one (1st grounding scenario) represented in Fig. 16, RSF
lower bound values for sagging and hogging conditions, after 25year ship lifetime, are: 0.633 and 0.495 for Case (I), 0.563 and
0.428 for Case (II) and 0.570 and 0.448 for Case (III). For the
symmetrical damage one (2nd grounding scenario) represented in
Fig. 17, RSF lower bound values are: 0.665 and 0.478 for Case (I),
0.588 and 0.411 for Case (II) and 0.597 and 0.434 for Case (III),
which implies that the incidence of damage transverse position is
low, at least for the analysed section scheme.
Obtained results show that correlation among input variables
strongly inuences lower and upper bound values of time-variant
residual strength factor. In this respect, if the hypothesis of
uncorrelated variables is on the safe side, the full correlation
model is too much conservative. Hence, the assumption of partial
Case (II)
Case (III)
correlation among variables belonging to the same group of

compartments, as assumed in Case (III), seems to be the most
suitable one. Besides, minimum sagging/hogging capacity residual
strength factors are recognized after 25-year ship lifetime for side
damage and symmetrical bottom grounding, respectively. In fact, if
partial correlation exists among input variables, RSF minimum
lower bound values reduce up to 0.499 and 0.434. The incidence of
damage transverse position, in the hypothesis of grounding
scenario, is very low.
7. Conclusions
Statistical properties of time-variant hull girder residual strength
have been investigated by Monte Carlo simulation, applying the
corrosion wastage model proposed by Paik et al. (2003) and a
modied-incremental iterative method, to account for instantaneous
neutral axis rotation, in case of asymmetrical damage conditions.
Relevant incidence on hull girder residual strength has been preliminarily investigated, while minimum iteration number, required to
perform Monte Carlo simulations, has been determined on the basis of
condence level of sagging/hogging capacity mean value and maximum allowable error. Three different damage scenarios have been
analysed up to 25-year ship lifetime, according to CSR-H (IACS, 2014a)
requirements: side damage, asymmetrical and symmetrical bottom
grounding conditions. Monte Carlo simulation has been applied to the
bulk carrier section analysed in the last ISSC benchmark study,
considering three correlation models among input variables: no
correlation, full correlation, and full correlation among variables
belonging to the same group of compartments. After an extensive
study on hull girder residual strength statistical properties, four main
results have been achieved:
(i) In case of asymmetrical damage conditions, the modied
incrementaliterative approach leads to hull girder capacity
percentage reductions between 4% and 7% for sagging and
hogging conditions, respect to classical Smith method (see
Table 3), in accordance with results obtained by Alie et al.
(2012) for a similarly sized bulk carrier.
(ii) Hull girder residual strength is normally distributed, independently from correlation among input variables and effectiveness of LindebergFeller Central Limit Theorem that
cannot be applied when correlation exists.
(iii) Sagging/hogging residual strength COVs not only increase
with time, as it was predictable by the applied corrosion
wastage model, but they mainly depend on damage scenarios.
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
RSF
RSF
64
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
22.5
25
2.5
7.5
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
22.5
25
2.5
7.5
Time (years)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
RSF
RSF
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
7.5
10
12.5
15
Time (years)
20
22.5
25
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
22.5
25
17.5
20
22.5
25
0.5
0.4
2.5
17.5
0.9
15
Time (years)
12.5
0.5
0.4
10
Time (years)
RSF
RSF
Time (years)
17.5
20
22.5
25
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
Time (years)
Fig. 16. Residual strength factor distribution vs. timebottom damage (1st grounding scenario).
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
RSF
RSF
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
22.5
25
2.5
7.5
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
RSF
RSF
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
22.5
25
2.5
7.5
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
RSF
RSF
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
Time (years)
17.5
20
22.5
25
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
22.5
25
17.5
20
22.5
25
0.5
0.4
15
Time (years)
Time (years)
12.5
0.5
0.4
10
Time (years)
Time (years)
65
17.5
20
22.5
25
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
Time (years)
Fig. 17. Residual strength factor distribution vs. timebottom damage (2nd grounding scenario).
66
In this respect, reference values, generally lying between 8%

and 10% and commonly applied in ship structural reliability
analysis in damaged conditions, may be avoided and full
statistical analyses need to be performed.
(iv) Residual strength factor is normally distributed too, with
lower and upper bound values, for given non-exceedance
probability levels, strictly depending on hull girder residual
strength COVs. Furthermore, in case of partial correlation
among input variables, minimum sagging and hogging lower
bound values have been recognized for side damage and
symmetrical grounding scenarios, after 25-year ship lifetime.
Actual results may be considered the rst step of a more
reliable evaluation of hull girder residual strength statistical
properties, as far as different hull girder sections and typologies
may be analysed under several damage scenarios and the incidence of residual strength COVs on ship structural reliability
analysis needs to be further investigated.
References
ABS, 1995a. Guide for Assessing Hull-Girder Residual Strength for Tankers. American Bureau of Shipping, New York, NY, United States.
ABS, 1995b. Guide for Assessing Hull-Girder Residual Strength for Bulk Carriers.
American Bureau of Shipping, New York, NY, United States.
Akpan, U.O., Koko, T.S., Ayyub, B., Dunbar, T.E., 2002. Risk assessment of aging ship
hull structures in the presence of corrosion and fatigue. Mar. Struct. 15 (3),
211231.
Alie, M.Z.M., 2012. Estimation of hull girder strength of asymmetrical damaged
ships in sagging. Prosiding Hasil Penelitian Fakultas Teknik 7 (1), 18.
Alie, M.Z.M., Fujikubo, M., Iijima, K., Oka, S., Takemura, K., 2012. Residual longitudinal strength analysis of ships hull girder with damages. In: Proceedings of
the 22nd International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference ISOPE 2012,
pp. 831838.
Amlashi, H.K.K., Moan, T., 2008. Ultimate strength analysis of a bulk carrier hull
girder under alternate hold loading conditiona case study Part 1: Nonlinear
nite element modelling and ultimate hull girder capacity. Mar. Struct. 21 (4),
327352.
Campanile, A., Mandarino, M., Piscopo, V., 2009a. On the exact solution of nonuniform torsion for beams with axialsymmetric cross section. World Acad. Sci.
Eng. Technol. 31, 3645.
Campanile, A., Mandarino, M., Piscopo, V., 2009b. On the exact solution of nonuniform torsion for beams with asymmetric cross section. World Acad. Sci. Eng.
Technol. 31, 4653.
Campanile, A., Mandarino, M., Piscopo, V., 2010. On the inuence of the warping
shear stress on the hull girder strength. J. Ship Res. 54 (4), 231243.
Campanile, A., Piscopo, V., Scamardella, A., 2014. Statistical properties of bulkcarrier longitudinal strength. Mar. Struct. 39, 438462.
Choung, J., Nam, J., Ha, T., 2012. Assessment of residual strength of an asymmetrically damaged tanker considering rotational and translational shifts of
neutral axis plane. Mar. Struct. 25, 7184.
Choung, J., Nam, J., Tayyar, G.T., 2014. Residual ultimate strength of a very large
crude carrier considering probabilistic damage extents. Int. J. Naval Archit.
Ocean Eng. 6 (1), 1426.
DNV, 2009. CSADirect Analysis of Ship Structures. Det Norske Veritas, Norway.
Dec, A., Frangopol, D.M., Zhu, B., 2012. Reliability and redundancy assessment of
ships under different operational conditions. Eng. Struct. 42, 457471.
Devroye, L., 1986. Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation. Springer-Verlag.
Driels, M.R., Shin, Y.S., 2004. Determining the number of iterations for Monte Carlo
simulations of Weapon effectiveness. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA,
United States.
Egge, E.D., Bckenhauer, M., 1991. Calculation of the collision resistance of ships
and its assessment for classication purposes. Mar. Struct. 4 (1), 3556.
Fang, C., Das, P.K., 2005. Survivability and reliability of damaged ships after collision
and grounding. Ocean Eng. 32, 293307.
Freedman, D., Diaconis, P., 1981. On the histogram as a density estimator: L2 theory.
Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie Verw. Gebiete 57 (4), 453476.
Garbatov, Y., Tekgoz, M., Guedes Soares, C., 2011. Uncertainty assessment of the
ultimate strength of a stiffened panel. In: Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Marine Structures 2011 (MARSTRUCT 2011), Hamburg, Germany.
Graham, U., Cook, I., 1996. Understanding Statistics. Oxford University Press.
Guedes Soares, C., Dogliani, M., Ostergaard, C., Parmentier, G., Pedersen, P.T., 1996.
Reliability based ship structural design. Trans. Soc. Naval Archit. Mar. Eng.
(SNAME) 104, 357389.
Guo, J., Wang, G., Ivanov, L., Perakis, A.N., 2008. Time-varying ultimate strength of
aging tanker deck plate considering corrosion effect. Mar. Struct. 21, 402419.
Hammersley, J.M., Handscomb, D.C., 1975. Monte Carlo Methods. Methuen & Co.,
Ltd., London.
Hu, Y., Cui, W., Pedersen, P.T., 2004. Maintained ship hull girder ultimate strength
reliability considering corrosion and fatigue. Mar. Struct. 17, 91123.
Hughes, O., 1988. Ship Structural Design: A Rationally-Based, Computer-Aided,
Optimization Approach. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
(SNAME), Jersey City, NJ, United States.
Hunter, D.R., 2011. Statistics 553: asymptotic tools. Penn State Univ., 2011.
Hussein, A.W., Guedes Soares, C., 2009. Reliability and residual strength of double
hull tankers designed according to the new IACS common structural rules.
Ocean Eng. 36, 14461459.
IACS, 2006a. Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers. International Association
of Classication Societies, London, UK.
IACS, 2006b. Common Structural Rules for Oil Tankers. International Association of
Classication Societies, London, UK.
IACS, 2014a. Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers. International Association of Classication Societies, London, UK.
IACS, 2014b. Technical Report for CSR-H External Release on 2014-06-01. International Association of Classication Societies, London, UK.
IMO, 1995. Interim Guidelines for Approval of Alternative Methods of Design and
Construction of Oil Tankers Under Regulation 13F(5) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/
78Resolution MEPC.66(37). The International Maritime Organization.
IMO, 2003. Revised Interim Guidelines for the Approval of Alternative Methods of
Design and Construction of Oil Tankers Under Regulation 13F(5) of Annex II of
MARPOL 73/78Resolution MEPC.110(49). The International Maritime
Organization.
IMO, 2010a. International Goal-based Ship Construction Standards for Bulk Carriers
and Oil Tankers. Resolution MSC.287(87). The International Maritime
Organization.
IMO, 2010b. Adoption of Amendments to the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended. Resolution MSC.290(87). The International Maritime Organization.
IMO, 2010c. Adoption of the Guidelines for Verication of Conformity with Goalbased Ship Construction Standards for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers. Resolution
MSC.296(87). The International Maritime Organization.
ISSC, 2012. In: 18th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, Fricke W.,
Bronsart R. (Eds.), ISSC Committee III.1: Ultimate Strength.
Ivanov, L.D., 2007. A probabilistic assessment of all hull girder geometric properties
at any ships age. Trans. R. Inst. Naval Archit. 149 (Part A3), 4592.
Ivanov, L.D., 2009. Challenges and possible solutions of the time-variant reliability
of ships hull girder. Ships Offshore Struct. 4 (3), 215228.
Ivanov, L.D., 2012. On the possibility of using the probabilistic presentation of the
hull girder elastic section modulus as representative of the probabilistic
presentation of all other hull girder geometric properties. Ship Technol. Res./
Schiffstechnik 59 (1), 2235.
Kim, D.K., Park, D.K., Kim, H.B., Seo, J.K., Kim, B.J., Paik, J.K., Kim, M.S., 2012. The
necessity of applying the common corrosion addition rule to container ships in
terms of ultimate longitudinal strength. Ocean Eng. 49, 4355.
Kim, D.K., Kim, S.J., Kim, H.B., Zhang, X.M., Li, C.G., Paik, J.K., 2015. Ultimate strength
performance of bulk carriers with various corrosion additionsShips Offshore
Struct. 10 (1), 5978, in press.
Kroese, D.P., 2011. Monte Carlo Methods. The University of Queensland, School of
Mathematics and Physics, Department of Mathematics.
MathWorks, 2014. Matlab User Guide R2014b. On Line Version at www.math
works.com.
Mansour, A.E., Howen, L., 1994. Probability-based ship structural safety analysis. J.
Ship Res. 38 (4), 329339.
zg, ., Barltrop, N.D., 2008. Analysis on the hull girder ultimate strength of a
bulk carrier using simplied method based on an incrementaliterative
approach. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 130, 2.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Yang, S.H., 1998a. Residual strength assessment of ships
after collision and grounding. Mar. Technol. 35, 3854.
Paik, J.K., Kim, S.K., Lee, S.K., 1998b. Probabilistic corrosion rate estimation model
for longitudinal strength members of bulk carriers. Ocean Eng. 25 (10),
837860.
Paik, J.K., Lee, J.M., Park II, Y., Hwang, J.S., Kim, C.W., 2003. Time-variant ultimate
longitudinal strength of corroded bulk carriers. Mar. Struct. 16, 567600.
Qin, S., Cui, W., 2003. Effect of corrosion models on the time dependent reliability of
steel plated elements. Mar. Struct. 16, 1534.
Rusaas, S., 2003. Final publishable Paper, HARDER Consortium Doc, No. 0-00-X2003-03-0, August 2003.
Saydam, D., Frangopol, D.M., 2013. Performance assessment of damaged ship hulls.
Ocean Eng. 68, 6576.
Saad-Eldeen, S., Garbatov, Y., Guedes Soares, C., 2013. Effect of corrosion severity on
the ultimate strength of a steel box girder. Mar. Struct. 49, 560571.
Silva, J.E., Garbatov, Y., Guedes Soares, C., 2011. Ultimate strength assessment of
aging steel plates subjected to random non-uniform corrosion wastage. In:
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Marine Structures 2011
(MARSTRUCT 2011), Hamburg, Germany.
Smith, C.S., 1977. Inuence of local compression failure on ultimate longitudinal
strength of a ships hull. In: Proc. Int. Sym on Practical Design of Shipbuilding,
PRADS, Tokyo, pp. 7379.
Smith, M.J., Pegg, N.G., 2003. Automated assessment of ultimate hull girder
strength. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 125, 3.
Sprinthall, R.C., 2011. Basic Statistical Analysisninth ed. Pearson Education Group.
SSC, 2011. SSC-459 reliability-based performance assessment of damaged ships.
Ship Struct. Committee, 2011.
Teixeira, A., 1997. Reliability of Marine Structures in the Context of Risk Based
Design. University of Glasgow M.Sc. Thesis.
Vhanmane, S., Bhattacharya, B., 2011. Ultimate strength analysis of ship hull girder
under random material and geometric properties. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng.
133, 3160231609.
Wang, G., Spencer, J., Chen, Y., 2002. Assessment of ships performance in accidents.
Mar. Struct. 15, 313333.
67
Wang, G., Lee, A., Ivanov, L., Lynch, T.J., Serratella, C., Basu, R., 2008. A statistical
investigation of time-variant hull girder strength of ageing ships and coating
life. Mar. Struct. 21, 240256.
Yamamoto, N., Ikegami, K., 1998. A study on the degradation of coating and
corrosion of ships hull based on the probabilistic approach. J. Offshore Mech.
Arct. Eng. 120, 121128.

Neutral Axis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neutral Axis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 4767

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Statistical properties of bulk carrier residual strength

E-mail addresses: antonio.campanile@unina.it (A. Campanile),

ingress into dry cargo holds, is likely to occur only if deformation

A. Campanile et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 4767

offered thickness of any structural element. Besides, residual

A. Campanile et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 4767

2. CSR-H requirements for residual strength check

A. Campanile et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 4767

Collision damage extent

Grounding damage extent

Fig. 1. Collision and grounding damage extents (IACS, 2014a).

time and lower waves, where most collisions and groundings

A. Campanile et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 4767

considered for transversely stiffened plate elements. Finally, the

of a bulk carrier in intact condition, coefcient of variations not

A. Campanile et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 4767

transverse section Ai, can be determined according to the following formula:

moment of inertia about y0 (z0) axis and by Iy0z0 the product of

Once the stress i() is derived by the element stressstrain

Anyway, when buckling or post-buckling occurs, instantaneous

having denoted by zCL() and () the neutral axis vertical position

Frame spacing: 870

Fig. 3. ISSC Bulk carrier section scheme.

A. Campanile et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 4767

3.3. Rule and time-variant corrosion wastage models

3.4. Monte Carlo simulation

Hull-girder ultimate bending capacity decreases in time, as

having denoted by Tc the coating protection life, equal to 7.5 years,

having denoted by tg the as built thickness. Finally, the best-t

Pusan National University

A. Campanile et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 4767

Case (I): input variables are uncorrelated. Annual corrosion

rates are generated for each structural element based on

(0) exists for elements belonging to different categories. A

It is noticed that LindebergFeller Central Limit Theorem (a

having denoted by n the Monte Carlo iteration number and IQR(x)

having denoted by nreq(n) the required iteration number, as a

In Eq. (9) COV(n) is the hull girder sagging/hogging coefcient

Centre of mass vertical position

Centre of mass transversal position

Vertical moment of inertia

Horizontal moment of inertia

Neutral axis rotation

Neutral axis vertical position at CL

Elastic section modulus at deck

Elastic section modulus at bottom

Ultimate hogging capacity

Ultimate sagging capacity

Fig. 5. Section scheme and gross sectional propertiesintact condition.

A. Campanile et al. / Ocean Engineering 106 (2015) 4767

tank, excepting the center vertical keel where the length is

4. The ISSC bulk carrier

4.2. Incidence of neutral axis rotation

Centre of mass vertical position

Centre of mass transversal position

Vertical moment of inertia

Horizontal moment of inertia

Neutral axis rotation

Neutral axis vertical position at CL

Elastic section modulus at deck

Elastic section modulus at bottom

Ultimate hogging capacity