A Ship Design and Construction Methodology for Enhanced

Conversion/Modification Flexibility: Part I - Concepts Development

and Analytical Framework
I.E. Douglas (M)

The conversion of ships to perform functions different from the primary functions could be a difficult and time
consuming task by conventional practice. This paper presents a ship design approach that is capable of providing
enhanced flexibility for conversion. The concept is based on re-structuring the traditional design process by
modifying the structural and hydrodynamic analysis to cover the various load cases for the primary design and all
the anticipated conversion options. For the structural analysis, the hull structure capable of supporting the
extreme load cases are determined and an analytical method based on an iterative- incremental scheme
presented and shown as appropriate for the hull progressive collapse analysis. Stability and sea keeping analyses
are integrated into the formulation of the design methodology.

KEYWORDS: Ship design methodology; ship conversion
flexibility; concepts development; analytical framework; life
cycle management
INTRODUCTION
In the shipping business, the demand and supply
characteristics of different ship types may sometimes change
suddenly without giving sufficient time to ship owners for
proper re-structuring of fleet composition to match demand
with supply in the various ship types. The consequences of
such situations could adversely affect ship owners/operators
where rates for some ship types soar and others slump
disproportionately. Although such changes may be temporary,
their effects could be far reaching, affecting not only
individual ship owners but can cause instability in the entire
shipping market on regional or even global scale. One of the
ways in which such instabilities can be reduced is to create
some level of flexibility in shipping fleet composition (i.e.
with respect to ship types in a fleet) whereby ships can be
rapidly converted from one type of trade to the other.
Presently, such ship conversion schemes exist but the systems
and mechanisms operating the schemes do not provide the
rapid response needed to curb the unhealthy effects of such
market upheavals. In current practice, ship conversions are
associated with long periods of planning, design and
construction. This is mainly due to the lack of a priori
consideration for possible conversion at the design stage.
This paper presents a design and construction methodology to
enhance the flexibility of a ship to be converted from one type
of trade/function to the other. The emphasis is on the
development of a hull form and structural arrangement that are
capable of safely and optimally support all internal and
external loads of a target ship as well as those of a specified
range of ship types to which it can be converted with minimal
changes to the structure. This also presupposes that other
critical requirements such as stability and powering are
satisfied for all the conversion options in the course of the
iterative process of the design. The conventional design
procedure will require some modifications to cope with this
somehow broadened scope. A prominent feature of this
approach is the extensive fusion of load and body structural
design procedures. For example once convergence has been
achieved for the target ship design, the associated
characteristic parameters such as load effects (i.e. stresses,
displacements etc) become the reference design values for the
other ships specified as conversion options. Hence, the body
characteristics such as member type, scantlings, connections
and support conditions would be determined for these ships.
Stability analysis is also conducted in the same way.
The paper is presented in three parts; the first part gives a
general description of the design procedures and the analytical
techniques used in the structural and stability/sea keeping
analyses. The differences between the conventional design
procedure and the new method are highlighted and discussed.
The second part of the paper describes the various design
aspects of two conversion projects that were recently
completed. The immense challenge posed by the design goal
of achieving the specified conversions without changes to the
hullforms and only minimal alterations to the internal
structural assemblage provided the motivation for the present
work. In the third part of the paper, the applicability of the
method is illustrated with the concept and preliminary design
of a self propelled LNG/LPG barge which can be rapidly
converted to container or general cargo vessel without
significant modification to the structural arrangement of the
vessel.
The potential benefits derivable from this design approach
include among others;
possibility of rapidly responding to changes in the
demand for specific ship types.
ready availability of design data and other technical
information related to the range of possible
conversion options for a ship to facilitate decision
making.
possibility of reducing conversion time and cost
improvement of conversion work quality.
Lessening of problems associated with classing and
other quality assurance procedures in ship conversion
projects.
And indeed, it is added incentive to provide prospective ship
owners with information on possible conversion options and
related design data for a proposed ship. They are vital tools
for planning and implementation of vessel conversions as
well as for making decisions on the efficient life-cycle
management of a vessel.
DESIGN METHODLOGY: CONCEPTS
DEVELOPMENT
In this enhanced methodology, the ship design process is
extended to incorporate procedures for handling the primary
design objectives corresponding to the specifications for the
target ship and for the secondary sets of requirements
representing the recommended conversion options. The
structure of the design process is consistent with that of the
conventional ship design practice but with two distinct
segments linked together by an interface formed by the output
of the first (or main) segment as an input to the second (or
auxiliary) segment. This is shown by Fig.1.

Specify Owners Requirements: Specify additional Owners Requirements

Ship type, size, speed, etc for the specified conversion option
Refine Owners Requirements

Determine general arrangements for the

Determine/Refine hull dimensions and
conversion option and required changes to hull
hullform/hull geometry form and dimensions and compute hydrostatics
parameters. Refine as necessary at iterations

Determine/Refine general arrangemts &

compute Hydrostatics parameters Conduct Stability and seakeeping analysis

Conduct Stability and Seakeeping

Modify powering requirements where
analysis
necessary for the given conversion option

Determine /Refine powering requirements

(i.e. Resistance & Propulsion)
Modify structural arrangement where
necessary and carry out structural analysis

Determine/Refine Structural
arrangements & scantlings
Determine additional propulsion requirements
and select auxiliaries as appropriate

Select Propulsion plants and auxiliary

machineries and systems
Prepare Drawings, Technical Specs. & manuals,
bill of materials and Costs

Prepare Drawings, Technical Specs. &

manuals, bill of materials and Costs
YES
Any other conversion option?
YES
Any Conversion Option?
NO
STOP
NO
STOP

Fig. 1 Information flow diagram for the design methodology

2
Output of the main segment, are the various design data
related to the target vessel while those of the second segment DETAIL
specify modification requirements for the conversion options. DEFINITION OF
HULL FORM
The main differences between the two segments are in the
structural design, and stability and seakeeping analysis GEOMETRY
procedures. As in the conventional process, the main segment SHIPLINES
PROFILES
starts with the specification of owners requirements and goes
through various elements including structural design and on
GEOMETRY
to stability analysis and iterates for refinement until final HYDROSTATICS
STABILITY
design is obtained. The second segment starts with design data
generated in the main segment and specifications of the
DRAWINGS
general arrangement for the required conversion options and ARRANGEMENTS,
proceeds through stability and seakeeping analysis, powering STRUCTURAL PLAN
PRELIMINARY
and others, and ends up at structural design/analysis. The
sequence is repeated until convergence to the appropriate
design is achieved. This is done for all the specified WEIGHTS
WAGEINGEN SER. CENTROIDS
conversion options using design data and structural CAPACITIES

arrangement from the main segment . It is important to note

that the analysis procedures of the two segments have some PROPULSION POWERING
significant differences. This will be seen in subsequent PROPELLER
DESIGN
RESISTANCE RESISTANCE
PROPULSION
sections where the analytical procedures of the various
elements are described. The input and output data for the MODELS
primary and conversion design processes are outlined in Table
1 in the appendix. However, in spite of these differences , it FIN DESIGN DYNAMIC
STABILITY ANALYSIS
SEAKEEPING
MOTIONS & LOANS WAVES
can be clearly seen that the fundamental ship design principle SEAWAYS
of spiraling iterative cycles has not changed.
STRUCTURES
NACA PROFILES
DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES
DRAWINGS
This section describes the various elements of the design STRUCTURAL
PLANS FINAL
process and the associated analytical procedures. Elements
interrelationships and the sequence of the various components
BUILDING COST
of the design process are described with appropriate OPERATING COST
illustrative diagrams/flow charts. Input and output data related
to the elements are clearly specified to show the logical flow Fig. 2: Information flow of a conventional ship design process
of the process from element to element as it is organized in a
form similar to the implementation sequence of that of the
conventional design process given by Fig. 2
INPUT DATA/INFORMATION
Owners requirements:
Sets of Requirements: for Primary ship and all conversion options
The owners requirements consist of sets of specifications
each representing candidate design options. Information Requirements Requirements Requirements for
for primary for conversion n-th conversion
related to the intended trade or service such as region of ship
operation, cargo type and capacity, propulsion and auxiliary option No. 1 option
machineries and systems, automation, safety, maintenance
strategy etc. for each of the candidate ships are compiled and
harmonized to extract a representative set that gives a good Harmonization of sets of
coverage of the requirements spectrum specified for the MODEL
Requirements
vessels. The main consideration however is the target vessel
specifications which constitute the reference set that is
adjusted (without losing the important characteristics) to
accommodate the requirements of the others. The final set of Representative set for Primary ship design
requirements should have sufficient information to carry out
parametric studies of existing vessels of the target ship type to
generate the initial hull dimensions and geometry. The OUTPUT DATA INFORMATION
requirements are refined at the end of every iterative cycle
until the final design point is reached. Owners requirements Fig. 3 Harmonization/Conversion of sets of owners
are generally supplied and harmonized into one representative requirements into a representative set
As illustrated by Fig. 3.

3
Determination of hullform and dimensions
In this phase, the principal dimensions and other hull form
characteristic parameters are determined initially by means of
parametric studies of existing ships with similar specifications.
Hull parameters determined include ; the length, beam, depth,
draft as well as form coefficients. Certain non-dimensional
ratios of the main dimensions and the form coefficients are
used to either guide the selection of initial dimensions or
check the appropriateness of the values obtained through
parametric studies. The main non-dimensional parameters
include the ratios ; Length-Beam (L/B) , Beam-Depth (B/D),
Beam-Draft (B/T) and Length-Depth (L/D), which are useful
in the determination of the main hull dimensions, transverse
stability, residuary resistance and longitudinal strength
respectively.
INPUT DATA/INFORMATION
Representative set of owners requirements
generated from harmonization of all candidate ships
MODEL
(i.e. parametric studies etc)
OUTPUT DATA/INFORMATION
Principal dimensions, Hull geometry and
non-dimensional parameters
Fig. 4 Block diagram model determination of main hull
parameters for the Primary ship design.
INPUT DATA/INFORMATION
Representative set of owners requirements
Additional owners requirement for the specified
conversion option that was not captured in the
representative set
Design data of hull dimensions, geometry and non-
dimensional parameters from the primary design
MODEL
Analysis of differences in between requirements
specific to the conversion option and those of the
representative set. Possibly also some form of
parametric studies.
OUTPUT DATA/INFORMATION
Principal dimensions, Hull geometry and
non-dimensional parameters updated for the
given conversion option.
Fig. 5 Block diagram model determination of main hull
parameters for the Primary ship design.
The parameters are refined at every cycle of iteration and the
final hullform verified in most cases by model testing. It is
important to note that a fundamental requirement of this
approach is to keep the hullform as much as possible
unaffected in any conversion process. The only recommended
hull modifications are increase of beam such as welding of
sponsons and increase of the depth by adding a new deck or
deck reinforcement to support increased load similar to using
Vierendeel girders on existing main deck. The differences in
the procedures for the primary and secondary ships design are
illustrated by Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. The differences in the other
stages of the design are given in Table 1 of the appendix.
Determination of general arrangement and
hydrostatic parameters.
This aspect of the design process is significantly expanded in
this approach. The general arrangements are prescribed to
cover all the candidate ships. Firstly, the arrangement for the
primary design is determined and the hydrostatics parameters
calculated. The important hydrostatics parameters which are
generated as functions of draft are; water plane area, centre of
floatation, moment of inertia about water plane (transverse and
longitudinal), tonnes per centimetre immersion, moment
causing one centimetre trim and wetted surface area. The form
coefficients include block, prismatic, midship section and
water plane coefficients. These coefficients are determined
only for the primary ship and the conversion options that
require increase of the beam and/or the depth. In spite of the
fact that the requirements of the arrangements of the
conversion options would be considered in the determination
of the hull dimensions and geometry, it will still be necessary
to consider them in this phase since the emphasis, and hence
the main weighting was on satisfying those of the target
vessel. Hence, once convergence is achieved for the primary
design, the other arrangements are determined one at a time
subject to the specific requirements and with the constraints of
the structural arrangement obtained for the target ship. This
means that the arrangements should be made to be
accommodated by the already determined hull structure
without making any significant changes.
Structural design
By the new methodology, the structural design is conducted in
two phases. The first proceeds in the conventional method
where loads are determined and the structural response and
limit states calculated and compared. On the basis of the
outcome of the differences between the values of structural
response (i.e. demand on the structure) and those of the limit
states (capacity of the structure), the appropriate scantlings of
the structural members are determined subject to the specified
optimization constraints. This is sometimes achieved after
several iterations. The structural design of the target ship
which is the primary design is concluded at this phase. The
second phase is only applicable to the conversion options and
it is based on a procedure that uses previously determined
scantlings of the target ship to determine acceptable general
arrangement for the conversion option. The main difference
between the two procedures is that at the second step of the
design process, the differences in value between the load
effects and limit states are used to modify/force the general
arrangement to conform to the already determined scantlings.
4
It will be noted from the above that both phases go through
similar steps but differ in the analysis procedures. The various
steps are shown in Fig. 6
The design objective is based on the determination of hull
structural arrangements capable of supporting pre-determined
internal and external loading configurations representative of
the primary vessel type and the range of conversion options
being considered. Once the appropriate hull girder and support
structures are determined, the structural arrangements
corresponding to each of the candidate conversion options is
ascertained and associated internal and external loads
imposed for structural response and limit states calculations,
and strength adequacy assessment. The design is further
subjected to optimization based on specified objectives.
Computed structural analysis parameters namely stresses and
displacements are used for assessing individual members
conditions and to also quantitatively evaluate the structures
condition relative to all its principal modes of failure. The
failure modes at the structural level of the individual stiffened
panel and its adjoining girder and frame beam elements are
specified. The structural response, limit states, specified
failure modes and prescribed safety factors are to comply with
the requirements of applicable safety authorities such as
classification societies and national establishments.
Powering (Resistance and Propulsion)
With given hull form parameters and operational profile, the
resistance and propulsion power requirements can be
determined. In cases where the specified conversion options
do not require changes to the hull, maximum displacement and
vessel speed, it will be sufficient to carry out this analysis for
only the target vessel. The set of Resistance-Speed-Power
characteristics so determined will be applicable to all the
candidate vessels. If a model experiment is required to verify
the results of the analysis, a single model will suffice so long
as the hull form is not changed and maximum displacement
are not significantly different from that of the primary. All
resistance-speed and stability and sea keeping tests required
for all the options can be conducted with the model.
Propulsion and auxiliary machineries and plants
Once the required propulsion power and speed are determined,
components of the propulsion system can be selected, these
include; propeller, main engine, propulsion shafting and
ancillary equipment and systems. The selection process
involves the use of main engine and propeller performance
characteristics. The main engine type determines to a great
extent, the power plant auxiliary systems. And most of the
other auxiliary machineries such as deck equipment etc
depend on the vessel type.
Stability and Seakeeping analysis
As with the structural design, stability analysis is an important
ship design element since it is critical to the safety of a ship.
As a result, its analysis is also strictly regulated by various
safety agencies. Seakeeping analysis is a necessary extension
of the stability analysis since it impacts not only on safety but
also on crew/personnel comfort and proper functioning of
various ship systems. Performance criteria addressed by sea
keeping analysis include, absolute amplitudes, velocities and
accelerations as well as relative motions. Limiting values of
parameters/events associated with these motions form the set
of performance criteria and they are specified on the basis of
vessel type and operation. In general, intact and damage
stability analysis are conducted for every ship design using the
relevant IMO SOLAS regulations. Thus, the target ship and all
the specified conversion options are subjected to this analysis.
This applies even to conversion cases that do not require hull
form modifications since altering the general arrangement will
usually result in change to the ships load distributions and
consequently the stability characteristics. A typical example of
such scenario is given by Walsh (1990) where a conversion
that did not involve a change in the hull form required the use
of additional weights (in form of concrete blocks) to achieve
the required roll frequency for the new vessel. The main
element of the conversion was the construction of a new deck
above the original weather deck. In another example reported
(Lewandowski, 2008), the hull form was changed by putting
blisters (or steel swellings) to the hull to increase the
buoyancy to enable the vessel support the significantly
increased weight of the vessel at an acceptable draft for
operation. This caused a reduction of roll period that was
considered too snappy for safe operation of the vessel within
the scope of its regular mission.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR
ENHANCED STRUCTURAL FLEXIBILITY
The conventional procedure for ship structural design is
illustrated by Fig. 4. This section will discuss in details the
various elements of the structural procedure as adapted to the
new design methodology. Essentially, the analysis scheme
combines both load and body design procedures whereby in
the initial iterative cycle , the body characteristics (such as
structural member types, their geometrical properties and
connections) are prescribed while the load affects (i.e. stresses,
deformations and displacements) are determined. In
subsequent cycles of the analysis however, some of the
external actions/loads are prescribed and the body
characteristics and the load effects determined. Information
flow for the procedure is depicted in the figure.
The structural design/analysis is implemented in 6 main steps
namely
- Determination of hull structural arrangement
- Determination and computation of loads
- Analysis/computation of structural response
- Analysis/computation of limit states
- Evaluation /assessment of structural adequacy
- Optimization of design
Determination of hull structural arrangements
This comprises arrangement of the structural elements/units
within the hull girder such as stiffened panels, bulkhead, web
frames and other support elements. The arrangements which
differ for different ship types had been developed over the
years on the basis of safety, suitability, compatibility and
economy for specified functions. Thus the arrangement has
strong influence on the range of possible conversion options a
primary design may have. For example, the conversion of a
vessel with typical bulk carrier structural arrangement unto a
5
crude carrier or chemical carrier will usually require
substantial internal structural re-arrangement/modification to
make it safe and suitable for the new operation. Determination
of a suitable structural arrangement that can be converted to
the specified vessel types without requiring extensive
structural modification therefore constitutes a primary
objective of this methodology. In this context, the double
bottom, double shell construction appears to have greater
advantages over the others. For apart from the inherent safety
and greater environmentally friendly benefits, this structure
can be designed to carry any type of cargo, including heavy
bulk cargoes.
DETERMINATION OF STRUCTURAL
ARRANGEMENTS
Determine hull structural
arrangement. Specify structural
assemblage i.e. .members,
connections, initial scantlings
CALCULATION OF LOADS
Calculate loads (internal and external):
Calculate lightship weight, and tanks
and cargo masses distribution;
hydrostatic & hydrodynamic loads
due to stillwater, waves and other
dynamic effects
STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ANALYSIS
Calculate hull girder load effects (i.e.
stresses, displacements, deformations) at
hull module, principal member and local
levels (i.e. girder, stiffened panels, frames
and local structures)
LIMIT STATE ANALYSIS
Calculate limit values of load effects at
module and member levels (i.e. ultimate
and serviceability limit values)
EVALUATION OF DESIGN
Specify/determine partial safety factors;
calculate strength ratio, adequacy
parameter(s); Evaluate adequacy of
structural members
Specify design requirements and
formulate objective functions
NO
Objectives OPTIMIZATION
Achieved? Compute new
scantlings
YES STOP
Fig. 6 Ship structural analysis scheme
In this phase, the structural elements and arrangements are
selected and the initial scantlings determined taking into
consideration primarily the target vessel and then the range of
conversion options. The iterative design process starts with
this and goes through the various elements in every cycle as
shown in the information flow diagram given by Fig. 1 The
scantlings are refined in every iterative cycle until the
objectives are satisfied. Once an acceptable arrangement and
scantlings are reached, they become the reference design
parameters for the conversion options and will not be expected
to undergo major changes. The only expected changes would
be addition of some support structures or reinforcements, and
maybe bulkheads as would be necessary to support the
operation of the converted vessel.
Determination and computation of loads
The internal and external loads a ship is subjected to in
seaways can be classified based on the structural analysis
scheme adopted into primary, secondary, tertiary and other
loads. Primary loads refer to those defined for the analysis of
the hull girder as whole unit: Hence, the loads that are
considered to affect the hull girder strength. These include
bending moments due to hydrostatic loads (i.e. stillwater and
waves), torsional loads and fatigue loads. The secondary and
tertiary loads are specified for hull module strength analysis
and are considered to affect the global and local structural
components. They include internal loads due to liquid in tanks,
in the form of static internal pressure and dynamic pressure
resulting from liquid sloshing within the tank; inertial loads,
dynamic loads due to external effects such as bottom and bow
flare slamming, main engine and propeller excitation. Other
loads refer to the loads that are defined for some specific
operating conditions and include thermal, mooring, launching
and accidental loads.
Computation of the loads use hydrostatics/hydrodynamics
softwares using various numerical methods such as the finite
difference , finite elements, finite volume, boundary elements
and recently attempts are made at the application of Reynolds
Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) as well as the Smoothed
Particles Hydrodynamics (SPH) techniques for the more
complicated analysis. For a proper modeling of the loads, the
categorization given in (MAESTRO) is useful. Specifying the
loads on the basis of their sources facilitates their computation.
This computation scheme groups the loads into; lightship mass
distribution, hydrostatics loads (divided into still water and
waves), tank loads, cargo masses (in terms of forces and
moments), accelerations (in all 6 degrees of freedom), pressure
loads, external bending moments and shear force as well as
loads due to boundary conditions.Loads determination and
computation procedures and methods will generally change
for the conversion options since in most cases, the values and
types of loads and operating conditions such as vessel speed,
displacement and some stability and sea keeping
characteristics may change. This is the case even if there are
no modifications of the hull form. Consequently, every
conversion option will have to go through the same procedure
to generate the appropriate load values for the vessels
structural response analysis.
6

Structural Response Analysis
Response analysis is generally conducted at four levels in the
sequence namely; hull girder, hull module, principal structural
member and local structural analysis. The main input data to
this component of the analysis are the various loads which
are supplied at the appropriate stages of the analysis. For
example, at the hull girder level, stresses due to still water and
wave loads such as bending moments, slamming, springing,
fatigue are calculated. At the hull module, the following loads
which are applicable to the given hull module are supplied
together with the associated load effects generated in the hull
girder analysis;
Hydrostatic pressure, external and liquid and bulk
cargo loads.
Various point loads and distributed loads due to
weight of cargo, structure and outfit (which also
includes inertia and sloshing).
The output of the hull module response which are the nodal
displacements are used at the principal structural member
analysis level to generate the forces, stresses and
displacements in the principal members. For beam members,
these load effects are the axial and shearing forces, twisting
and bending moments and the corresponding member
stresses. And for stiffened panels, they include; in-plane
normal and shear stresses, stiffener bending, and plate
bending stresses. The modules can be joined to form the
complete ship. The boundary conditions are defined to be
consistent with continuity and other requirements at end points
of adjacent modules.
The loads acting directly on the local structure such as
concentrated/point loads are imposed together with the
calculated load effects as obtained from the principal member
analysis to generate the detailed stress distribution in the local
structure. The structural response analysis provides stress and
deflection information about the entire vessel. Computation
tools such as Computational Fluids Dynamics (CFD). And
Finite Element (FE) structural analysis software are required
at various segments of the analysis. At the hull girder level,
depending on whether a rule-based or first principles method
is required, a CFD-based software may be used to compute the
bending moment. This is the case with non-conventional
vessels of hull forms that do not have characteristic data of
wave induced bending moment. On the other hand, where
sufficient data pertaining to the hull form hydrostatics are
available, it will not be necessary to go through the difficult
process of motion analysis. The mathematical expressions
derived from data obtained from the classification societies
rules can be used directly. At the hull module, principal
member and local analysis stages, finite elements based
structural analysis softwares are generally used. The major
international classification societies have developed on
individual basis, proprietary softwares based on their rules for
this purpose. For the response analysis of the conversion
options, it is evidently clear that the hull girder stresses will be
essentially deterministic if there is no change in the hull form.
The bending moment can be calculated using expressions
provided by the classification societies or those derived by
calibrating results obtained for the target ship case. In the
same way, the whipping stresses caused by slamming (if
relevant) can be adopted for the hull girder and the other three
levels of analysis. The major differences in the response
analysis input and output data for the primary vessel and the
conversion options are given in Table 1 in the appendix.
Limit state analysis
The ultimate goal of the structural design is to ensure that the
structure is able to perform specified functions properly and
safely. Upon computation of the load effects, therefore, it is
necessary to determine if the values are within acceptable
limits. The limiting values characterize the condition at which
the hull structure or a particular member becomes unfit to
perform the intended functions. This condition is the limit
state of the structure and can be categorized broadly into two
namely; serviceability limit state (SLS) and ultimate limit state
(ULS). The SLS refers to critical values of the load effects
beyond which the structure deteriorates and fails to perform
some of the other vital functions. On the other hand, ULS
(also referred to as ultimate strength), corresponds to the state
in which the structure or member has failed in its primary,
load carrying role. While SLS may be relevant in some cases,
such as when a structure is designed to prevent deformations
and deflections that may reduce its aesthetic quality or
efficient use of structural members; the ULS is the primary
limit state of importance in ship structural design. Thus the
structural collapse analysis constitutes the main approach in
the determination of the limit state of the ship structure. On the
other hand, SLS may also be important with regards to
vibration reduction etc.
In general, the ship hull structure and members may undergo
different types of failures, sometimes in isolated modes or in
combined forms which also depend on the member type.
Values of ultimate strength are different for different members
and failure modes or in combined forms which also depends
on the member type. Complete failure of the hull module may
be initiated with failure in one or a few members which may
result in loss of stiffness with subsequent transfer of load to
other members. Such a re-distribution occurring in successive
members could result in progressive loss of stiffness that will
lead to eventual collapse. A computational scheme to track the
type and sequence of failures and the determination of the
individual member strength (i.e ultimate limit value) is known
as progressive collapse analysis. In such an analysis, the
important and relevant failure modes which are dependent on
the member type are specified and the limit value for each
determined and plotted; from where the ultimate strength of
the structure is obtained. The longitudinal bending moment is
invariably the most critical load on the hull structure, hence
the maximum bending capacity of the hull girder constitutes
its ultimate strength. On this basis, the progressive collapse
analysis is generally conducted on critical hull sections
subjected to the severest hogging and sagging moments. In
addition, it may also be necessary to evaluate other load cases
that are considered critical to the structure. The load cases
result mainly from the simultaneous action of longitudinal
bending compression, transverse compression due to in-plane
pressure loading and local bending caused by lateral pressure.
The relevant failure modes for individual structural elements
of a ship structure in sagging/hogging include; plate buckling,
beam-column buckling, torsional stiffener buckling, local
buckling of stiffener and their interactions. These failure
7
modes are to be analyzed to identify the weakest inter-frame
section failure mode. n
(  )

  (4)
The nature and sequence of failures that occur in the member i=1
of a typical hull structure under characteristic loads induce a 
re-distribution of the loads as members fail successively. This where  = is the tangent modulus of the i-th member


 - Sectional area of the i-th element and
creates complex and non-linear interactions leading to a rapid
and progressive collapse of the structure. Analysis of this form
of collapse mechanism requires formulations with embedded - Specified small value representing acceptable tolerance
combination of incremental and non linear procedures. The for convergence.
Incremental process provides the scheme for the stepwise Using the Newton-Raphson method, value of the distance of
tracking of the strain-load characteristics of the individual the neutral axis yNA is updated at the end of an iterative cycle,
elements unto the collapse state. While the effects of non- using the expression;
linearities which are principally due to changes in the overall
  
()
= () +
stiffness of the structure and of the material properties of
individual elements as failures progress can also be handled in (5)
( )
an iterative process where values such as the elastic moduli are
updated at every iterative cycle. This method which is also
This is done until condition expressed by eq. 4 is satisfied.
known as the iterative-incremental procedure is described
below.
iv. Once the neutral axis location is determined , the
increase in the bending moment is calculated using
The process consists in the determination of the ultimate
the formula ;
strength by means of the Bending moment Curvature
(M-
) curve. The curve is generated by imposing a sequence
(  )

 (6)
of increments of curvature (which has an approximate linear
relationship with the strain) for which corresponding values of
bending moment are calculated. The procedure of calculating
the bending moment in this way is described in the following
steps;
i. For an initial curvature, the strain normal to the
section is calculated using the relationship expressed
by eq. 1 which is consistent with the assumptions of
the Euler-Navier beam bending theory
 = 
(1)
Where y,- is the distance of the structural element (usually
the flexural/neutral axis of the element) from the instantaneous
neutral axis of the section and;


- Normal Strain; and - Curvature
For each element , the corresponding strain is calculated as
! = 
The above four steps are executed for each increment of
.
At the end, values of the bending moment, M, the curvature

and all the other computed parameters such as stress, strain,
internal force and displacement are updated. The ultimate
value of the moment is reached when the slope of the curve is
"
zero (i.e
#
= 0 ), corresponding to ! = 0.
This value of the ultimate strength can be verified by a simple
alternate computational scheme proposed by Paik and
Mansour (1995). The method is based on evaluating the
characteristic strength parameters based on an approximate
longitudinal stress distribution over a ships transverse section
at the overall collapse state. This is shown in Fig. 7
% 
y
(+) Tension
(-) Comp.

 = 
(2)
&
ii. With the values of  i , the corresponding change in
the average stress values  i are computed from
the stress-strain characteristics of individual
+ YNA
+ _
members by means of suitable interpolation.. &
(+) Tension
iii. The next step is to verify the correctness of the (-) Comp.
position of the neutral axis. This is done by
application of the condition of zero net axial force
(i.e. f=0) using the expression;

 
 = f  %
(3)

The above equilibrium will only be satisfied at the actual (a) Sagging (b) Hogging
instantaneous elastic neutral axis. It is therefore necessary to
use an iterative scheme to converge to the location of the Fig. 7 Longitudinal stress distribution over a ships transverse
neutral axis. A suitable expression for the iteration scheme is; section at the collapse state (Paik et al, 2002)

8
 and For hogging;
The stress distribution for the hogging and sagging cases
depict a collapsed state of the compression flange and the 2134. = 6 1
 (  ) 6 (
 (  )
yielding of the tension flange on reaching the ultimate strength 
value. The longitudinal stress distribution can be grouped into + 6 0(
0 ( 0 ) + 6 
 (  )
four regions namely; yielded, elastic tension elastic (11b)
compression and collapsed compression regions. The Evaluation of Structural Adequacy
calculation of the ultimate hull girder moments ( hogging and
sagging) can be done in the following four stages (Sun and In the adequacy evaluation of the strength of a structure,
Wang, 2005). against the loads it is subjected to, it is necessary to provide
sufficient safety margin to accommodate the effects of
i. The longitudinal deck and bottom axial strain of the uncertainties related to the design and construction of the
elements contributing to the Longitudinal strength of the structure. These in broad categories include uncertainties in
section can be calculated using any of the following two the determination of loads and material properties, and those
equations; related to construction quality and the operation of the
'
(  )
structure. Wherever there are uncertainties there is risk of
 = ( ()*  )
(7) failure which can be adequately quantified by the probability
of failure parameter. The amount of safety margin provided
+ 
 = (
(1 
) (8) depends on the type of structure and the level of uncertainties.
A proper assessment of the likely sources of the uncertainties
through probabilistic analysis is therefore necessary for the
Where ) , . longitudinal stress at the deck and quantification of the margin. While most of the uncertainties
bottom respectively. can be adequately defined and appropriate estimates be
 Elastic (or Youngs) modulus of i-th element obtained for them through statistical analysis, there are some
/ Depth of the transverse (i.e ships) section that can only be approximated due to lack of sufficient
* Distance of Neutral axis from the base line information and/or basis for such analysis. These include
mainly non technical uncertainties such as those associated
 * Distance of the neutral/central axis of the i-th with legal, social, political and some form of economic
element from the baseline. matters. Incorporating the effects of these uncertainties can be
done in a number of ways; one method is to build in a factor
ii. The next stage is the calculation of the (i. e. numerical value) that increases the mean values of the
Longitudinal axial stress of the i-th element demand and capacity distributions. This factor is usually
using the expression; chosen arbitrarily and depends on the judgments of the
designer. On the other hand, an approach based on the use of
 =   (9) partial safety factors appears to be more widely used. By this
method, a number of safety factors are defined in relationship
iii. Once the stress values are obtained, the neutral axis,
to the various uncertainties and applied in the adequacy
is calculated by application of equilibrium equation of evaluation expression. A commonly used form expressed by
moments of axial forces about the neutral axis in both eq. 12 in given in Hughes (1988)
sagging and hogging conditions;

For sagging, 7 78 79 / = :<7; (12)

where ;

  + (
  + 0(
0 0 + 1
  7 78 - partial safety factors which account for the
 =

 + (
 + 0(
0 + 1
 seriousness, in regard to safety and serviceability of
relevant failure type.
(10a)
79 - partial safety factor which accounts for uncertainties
For Hogging,
that can not be adequately quantified by analytical methods
1
  + (
  + 0(
0 0 + 
 
like those related to the non technical influences . these also
 = include errors generated in calculation of the structural
1
 + (
 + 0(
0 + 
 response.
7; partial safety factor which accounts for uncertainties in the
(10b)
estimated limit value
iv. Finally, the ultimate hull girder sagging moment,
in sagging and hogging is calculated as; D - demanded load effects on structure
C - Capacity of load effects (i.e Failure value of load effect)
For sagging;
STABILITY ANALYSIS IN SHIP DESIGN
2134. = 6 
 (  ) 6 (
 (  )
In conventional ship design practice, stability analysis is
+ 6 0(
0 ( 0 ) + 6 1
 (  ) carried out (as with the other elements of the design process)
in repetitive iterative cycles starting from concept design and
(11a) converging into the detailed design, which marks the end of

9
the design process. In each cycle, the analysis goes through all
the elements comprising the design process roughly in the
same direction of flow shown in Fig. 1. The ultimate goal of
the several research efforts in ship stability studies is to
determine for given ship type a stability domain defined by
limiting values of parameters characteristic of hull form,
loading/operating conditions and sea state. This will enable
ships to be designed and operated without capsizing or being
excited into extreme motions likely to cause crew discomfort
or severe damage to ship. There are obvious difficulties in
achieving this considering the lack of sufficient theoretical
knowledge to describe and analyze the complex dynamical
processes associated with ships in random seas.
Stability analysis starts with calculation of hydrostatics
parameters through determination of floodable lengths unto
intact and damaged stability characteristics. In general, the
information flow ensures that data required by a given analysis
are generated by those preceding it. In ship design, the
stability analysis is based primarily on satisfying of the
IMO/SOLAS requirements which are separated into two
distinct but related segments namely; intact and damage
stability criteria. The requirements are outlined and explained
in the following two documents.
The code of Intact Stability (IMO regulation A.749 and
The SOLAS (1974) on Damage stability.
Intact stability criteria
The requirements of the intact stability code can be
categorized into two groups namely statistical approach and
physical approach.
In the statistical approach, the stability requirements are based
on setting minimum limits for some parameters characteristic
of ship statical equilibrium such as metacentric height (GM),
righting arm (GZ) and area under the righting arm curve up to
certain heeling angles. The approach is based on statistical
analysis of capsize incidents with the limiting values of the
characteristic parameters obtained from histograms of the
analysis. The requirements are illustrated by Fig. 8. The main
advantages of this approach are its simplicity and the
suitability for generalization in application. The parameters
can be easily calculated and readily combined with the usual
hydrostatics analysis.
GM
GZ
GZ max
E30
300
Fig. 8: Parameters for Intact Stability Code
The main design criteria of the code are:
1. E30 0.055m.rad; E30 is the area under the static stability
curve up to 300
E40 0.09m.rad; corresponding to area up to 400
E40 E30 0.03m.rad; corresponding to area between 300
and 400
If the angle of flooding f is less than 400 f instead of 400 is
to be used in the above rules.
2. h30o 0.20m; h30o is the righting lever at 30o heel.
3. The maximum righting lever must be at an angle 250
4. The initial metacentric height GM0 = 0.15m or greater.
The physical approach reflects the ability of a vessel to
withstand the combined effects of wind and rolling. The
requirements are based on a comparison of the area enclosed
between the heeling and the restoring moment curves. It is
also termed Weather Criterion. Characteristic parameters in
the weather criterion are the initial angle of heel , extreme
roll angles 1 and 2 and the areas a and b which are illustrated
by Fig. 9 and defined below.
Restoring lever
D
GZ
AR
LW2 AH LW1
0 2 c
0
Flooding Angle
B
3 0
1 = 3 - 0
Fig. 9: Weather criterion
0 initial heel angle under the action of steady wind with
lever LW1 constant heeling lever which is independent of the
heel angle.
1 maximum angle of roll on the weather side due to side
wave action.
2 limiting roll angle on the lee-side enclosed to the left and
right sides respectively.
AR, AH areas enclosed to the left and right sides respectively
between the restoring lever curve and a constant heeling lever
lw2 due to wind gust.
The value of lw2 is given as 1.5 lw1.
The stability requirements are formulated as follows:
Work done by the wind excitation as the ship rolls
from the wind side to the lee side should not exceed
the potential energy at the limiting angle 2. This can
be expressed as Area AH < Area AR .
The maximum angle of roll to the lee-side should be
the maximum of the angles f, 500 and c.
where f is the heel angle at which openings in the hull,
superstructures or deck houses which cannot be closed
weathertight are immensed c is the angle of second intercept
between the heeling lever LW2 and the restoring lever curve (or
vanishing angle).
10

Damage stability
The core requirements of damage stability are given in the
SOLAS convention (IMO 2002, 2006). This is a probabilistic
approach that specifies a limiting required minimum value
R for a sub division index A defined as the total probability of
a ship surviving all damages. Hence compliance condition is
stated as: A R . The index A is determined by the
expression
A = Pi S i
where Pi is the probability that only the zone i under
consideration will be flooded, disregarding any horizontal
subdivision, but taking transverse subdivisions into account.
Si is the probability of survival after flooding the zone i
under consideration.
The value of Pi is dependent on the geometry of the watertight
arrangement of the ship and the procedure for its
determination clearly explained in IMO (2006). The resolution
A265 procedure for computing the S-factor which is
elaborately outlined in IMO SELF 45/3/3 (2002) and Bird and
Browne (1973) is summarized as follows:
results of damage model tests are presented in generalized
format showing relationship between survival significant
wave height (h1/3), the flooded GM and the damaged free
board FE. This is combined with the probability
distribution of wave height at the time of casualty to
construct the cumulative probability of survival for a
single damaged GM.
the procedure is repeated for all damaged GMs to yield
the family of survival curves shown in Figure 10d which
represents the resulting survival probability (S) as a
function of damaged GM and damaged Freeboard (FE).
In general, a stability booklet/manual is required for every
vessel. This is to be provided for the primary ship as well as
for every conversion option. The booklet should contain the
following information among others. The items marked
asterisk are particularly important for this design approach
since it also enables incorporation of information on limits to
which changes in operations or modification of vessel design
can be made. In the same way, information such as designed
deck load/M2 and maximum support loads will be useful to
the structural design.
Some of the key items for inclusion in a stability report are;
A general description of the ship;
General arrangement plans showing watertight
compartments, closures, vents, downflooding angles,
permanent ballast, allowable deck loadings and
freeboard diagrams;
Hydrostatic curves or tables and cross-curves of
stability calculated on a free-trimming basis, for the
ranges of displacement and trim anticipated in normal
operating conditions;
Capacity plan or tables showing capacities and
centers of gravity for each cargo stowage space.
Tank sounding tables showing capacities, centre of
gravity, and free surface data for each space.
*Information on loading restrictions, such as
maximum KG or minimum GM curve or table that
can be used to determine compliance with the
applicable stability criteria;
*Standard operating conditions and examples for
developing other acceptable loading conditions using
the information contained in the stability booklet;
*A brief description of the stability calculations done,
including assumptions;
General precaution for preventing unintentional
flooding
Information concerning the use of any special cross-
flooding fittings with description of damage
conditions which may require cross-flooding;
Any other necessary guidance for the safety
operation of the ship under normal and emergency
conditions;
Inclining test report for the ship, or;
*Where the stability data are based on a sister ship,
the inclining test report of that sister ship along with
the light-ship measurement report for the ship in
question; or
*Where light-ship particulars are determined by other
methods than from inclining of the ship or its sister,
a summary of the method used to determine those
particulars;
Recommendation for determination of ships stability
by means of an in-service inclining test.
SEA KEEPING ANALYSIS IN SHIP DESIGN
The overall objective of a sea keeping analysis in ship design
is to evaluate the response of ships in sea ways in order to
determine appropriate design parameters that will ensure
acceptable performance of the vessels under prescribed sea
conditions. Sea keeping performance parameters are defined
not only on the basis of personnel safety but also on
considerations of crew comfort, cargo and systems safety as
well as the proper operation of machineries and equipment
especially with respect to ship motion related damages. The
characteristic parameters used in establishing sea keeping
performance include; roll and pitch angles, vertical and lateral
velocities and accelerations, slam frequency and acceleration,
motion sickness incidence; (MSI). Others are frequencies of
sonar dome, propeller emergence and deck wetness and also
vertical velocity of aircraft relative to flight deck. In order for
proper application of the criteria, the parameters must be
translated into quantifiable limitations on motions of the ship.
For example STANAG 4194 (1993) gives specifications of
the limiting values of these parameters within the general
subject Sea Keeping Criteria For General Application.
Typical values are Roll-4o, pitch-1.5o, Motion Sickness
Incidence (MSI) 20% of crew @ 4hrs etc. In the design
process, sea keeping performance can be improved
significantly by the proper choice of ship parameters. Some
non-dimensional parameters associated with ship geometry
significantly influence the sea keeping characteristics. The
effects of given non-dimensional parameter on certain sea
keeping characteristics may differ from its effects on others.
This is illustrated by Table 2 in the appendix obtained from
11
STANAG 4184 (1993). This table is particularly useful in this
ship design methodology as requirements for modifications of
sea keeping parameters outside the recommended limits can be
readily accomplished using the table as guide. As with
stability, sea keeping analysis must be accompanied by a sea
keeping report. Information provided in a sea keeping report
covers motion parameter such as velocities, acceleration,
slamming , deck wetness, motion sickness incidence, motion
induced interruptions. The reports should also include
information on results of model tests which must be
conducted to support the analysis. The model tests are to be
conducted and reported in accordance with the
recommendations of the guidelines of the International
Towing Tank Conference. (ITTC).
Some new research areas related to this design
methodology
A particularly beneficial aspect of this design approach is the
openness it creates within the design scope. It is possible to
develop a broader concept of the specific design problem by
evaluating an expanded set of owners requirements
necessitated by the need to achieve a design that can readily be
converted to the specified vessels. Breaking the problem down
to individual components of the design , the analysis
procedures and techniques that will be suitable for both the
primary and the secondary ships must be developed
especially for the principal components namely; structural and
hydrodynamic analysis.

OPTIMIZATION SCHEME FOR THE DESIGN INPUT DESIGN DATA

OPERATIONAL DATA
PROCESS BASE DESIGN

Optimization schemes at various levels of analytical rigour are CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

SYNTHESIS PROGRAM
CONSTRAINTS CRITERIA
presently incorporated into modern ship design
methodologies. While this is accepted as rule for new hullform LIMITS OF
design, it is also being widely adopted in the design of CARGO PARAMETRIC ECONOMIC REF.
NPV
CAPACITY EVALUATION
conventional ships with large amount of design information SPEED &
and established procedures. In general, optimization analysis RANGE

are implemented at individual components level but with MAIN PROPORTIONS

OF VESSEL
greater openness it can be formulated in an integrated form as
multiple objective constraints with inter-component
interactions adequately handled in a generalized form. The GLOBAL
scope of optimization may vary but in most cases include; HYDRODYNAMIC
OPTIMIZATION OF
economic evaluation, hydrodynamics and structural analysis. MAIN DIMENSIONS
Economic evaluation generally encompasses all the design
elements with the characteristic parameters defining the LIMITS ON
MAIN
MAIN
HORSE
POWER
DIMENSIONS OF
economic merits of the overall design. Hydrodynamic analysis DIMENSION HULL & STRUT
in the context of optimization pertains to the determination of
efficient hull forms such as characterized by reduced LIMITS ON LOCAL
TOTAL
resistance and good stability and seakeeping performance. In GEOMETRY HYDRODYNAMIC
OPTIMIZATION RESISTANCE
OF HULL &
structural optimization the emphasis is on determination of STRUT
structural arrangements and scantlings that will give best DETAIL DEFINITION
safety and economic values within certain prescribed OF HULL FORM FOR
GIVEN MAIN
limitations defined by efficient life-cycle management, DIMENSIONS

topology of structural arrangement and geometrical properties

of structural members. In an optimization scheme where
greater effectiveness is required, it would be necessary to
combine certain aspects of the hydrodynamic and structural
analysis (Douglas, 2007). One area of such integrated analysis
is in the determination of hull loads in which both analyses
interact. In this design procedure, optimization can also be
handled at both individual components level as well as for the
overall design process. Furthermore, the analysis can also be
extended to the specified conversion candidate vessel types.
Although it is clear that the focus of the optimization will be
on the primary design, some level of optimization can still be
implemented in the conversion design within the flexibility
provided by the primary design. The information flow diagram
given by Fig. 10 illustrates typical elements of hydrodynamic
optimization scheme for hull form synthesis. The structural
design procedure given by Fig. 6 shows how optimization can
be integrated into the design.
PRELIMINARY
DESIGN SYNTHESIS
PROGRAM
Fig. 10: A typical Optimization Procedure for
a Cargo Ship
Some of the main areas of studies/research, that have been
identified include;
In hydrodynamic analysis;
Hullform Synthesis for optimal powering and
stability/seakeeping performance analysis of multi-
functional ships.
Development of simulation softwares to evaluate
effects of general arrangement changes on
stability/seakeeping performance.
Determination of characteristic parameters and
methods for hullform conversion
Development of computer softwares for evaluation of
effects of hullform on stability and seakeeping
characteristics

12
In Structural design; The input data required for the analysis include those
Optimization and synthesis of structural pertaining to hull geometry and internal compartment
arrangements for multifunction ships arrangements. These include table of offsets, operating
Development of computer softwares for evaluating conditions and sea states. The structural organization of a
the effects of structural members on the ultimate computer program for the enhanced stability analysis is given
strength of ships by Fig. 11
Optimization of structural profiles in ship design for
enhanced conversion flexibility and life-cycle Specific benefits of this design methodology
management.
Some of the benefits that can be derived by this design
COMPUTER APPLICATIONS approach are outlined as follows;

A key incentive in the consideration of this design approach is Design data/information generated are not for the
the prospect of the application of specialized ship design primary ship only but also those related to the
softwares. Computer softwares for specific aspects of ship specified conversion option to facilitate such
design are presently available. Although some of these conversion if the need arises in the future.
softwares have been used successfully for conversion design
projects, difficulties are often encountered regarding some A specific ship design project can be extended to a
incompatibility in the input and output data types and formats. ship design study with the prospect of determining
The reason being that these softwares have been developed for the given ship, the effects of variation of
based on the primary ship design procedures and the input data parameters on the design process. For example, the
required and output data generated have been determined effects of changing magnitude and location of
accordingly. The conversion design procedures are in some internal and external loads on the structural response
cases slightly different from those of the primary design; and stability and seakeeping performance can be
notably in the set of input data. estimated in course of the process. Similarly, the
influence of increasing scantling of a longitudinal
INPUT DATA strength member or adding a new member to the
Hull Geometry and Internal Operating Conditions transverse section on the structural response and
Arrangement strength of the hull can be determined and a matrix of
Transverse sectional co- Loading and ballasting influence factors generated to guide in modification
ordinates/offsets table. conditions. design tasks or even assess reserve strength due to
Internal Tank Speed/course degradation or damage of the structure.
arrangements and Damage/flooding
Dimension configuration Thinking of ship design in such a broadened scope as
Model Tests Sea State (optional) required by this approach has the potential of
Model Tests data for Spectra: resulting in better design with a flexibility to
Analysis and Results User defined effectively cope with effects of changes in operating
Verification JONSWAP conditions even if the vessels primary function
ITTC remains unchanged.
Bretschneider
DNV The choice of the main auxiliary machineries and
deck equipment can be improved by the expanded
Wind speed
systems thinking that is characteristic of this design
approach. For instance when equipment selection
process takes into consideration the present, primary
ANALYSIS
Calculate: DATA BASE function-related services as well as future anticipated
DATA BASE
GM, Righting Lever, Physical/mathemat and /or incidental/accidental functions, it results in a
Area under curves
hydrostatics parameters
ical constants more thorough and extensive analysis involving
Sea states conversion factor
Motion evaluation of different combinations, types and
responses/accelerations arrangements.
Specific stability criteria
Survival index,
probability of survival An improved general arrangement of the vessel can
all damages
be achieved in adopting the approach described
above. Evaluation of different arrangement options
OUTPUT
demanded by the different conversion options could
lead to a compromise arrangement that may be more
MSI, RAO, Righting Lever efficient than the traditional arrangements which the
curves/data, hydrostatics
parameters, survival I, designer may be tempted to adopt in most cases.
motion sickness incidence.

Fig. 11: Main modules of an integrated stability/seakeeping

computer program

13
CONCLUSIONS
Ship conversions/ modifications in present day practice are
often associated with planning and construction delays, and
serious technical errors that can sometimes result in
unjustifiable escalation of project costs. This is mostly due to
lack of a prior consideration of such conversions at the design
stage. The work presents a design approach that generates
design data not only for the specified target (or primary) ship
but also for some selected conversion options for the ship. The
main objective is to improve ship conversion/modification
tasks in terms of reduction in cost and duration as well as
minimizing related technical problems.
The various elements of this design methodology have been
described in relationship to the conventional approach with
the modalities and areas of expanding the scope outlined. A
paramount consideration of this approach is to achieve a
design of the primary ship that will not necessitate substantial
changes of the hull form and the structural arrangement when
conversion to any of the specified ship types is required. In
conversion options that would involve substantial changes to
the hull forms and/or the structural arrangement , this design
approach offers even greater chances of ensuring more
efficient design, construction and quality assurance processes.
This new approach to ship design also increases productivity
because it requires far less effort to achieve the various
additional sets of design data than it would be with the
conventional method. Thus even if a ship is not converted or
modified during the operational life, the additional design
effort would likely be too insignificant to make any
appreciable difference to the operational economy of the
vessel. Moreover, it provides the necessary tool for strategic
planning of operations in the long term and sometimes even in
the short term. This is applicable to both merchant and
military ships as well as for special purpose ships.
It is clear that in addition to the primary benefits of reducing
ship conversion costs and time, it also offers the possibility of
rapidly responding to changes in the demand for specific ship
types. Information on possible conversion option for a target
ship and related design are vital tools that will facilitate not
only planning and execution of a ship conversion project but
also enhance decision making on the efficient life-cycle
management of the ship. To a prospective ship owner, this
represents an added incentive.
REFERENCES
1.BIRD, H. BROWNE, R., Damage Stability Model
Experiments; RINA transactions, 1973.
2. Bronsart, R. et al , (2005), Enabling Distributed Ship
Design and Production process by an information Integration
Platform, The 12th International Conference on computer
Applications in shipbuilding, ICCAS, Busan
3. Cheng, F. et al, (2006), The development of Trimaran
Rules, Lloyds Register Technical Papers, London.
4. Douglas, I. E. 2007 Towards Harmonization of Stability,
Criteria for Cargo Ships Design, Proceedings of International
Symposium on Cargo Ships Design, Shanghai, China, The
Royal Institution of Naval Architects, London.
5. Dow, R. S et al , Unified first-principles ship structural
design based on the MAESTRO methodology
6. DRS Technologies, MAESTRO Ship Structural Design
Software DRS C3 Advanced Technology
Center, Stevensville, MD 21666
7. Formation Design Systems, (2006), Seakeeper User Manual
8. GILLMER, THOMAS C. Modern Ship Design, Second
edition, Naval Institute Pres, 1959.
9. Hughes , O. F. , (1988) Ship Structural Design A
Rationally-Based, Computer-Aided Optimization Approach,
The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, NJ,
USA
10. IMO, Interim Explanatory Notes to the SOLAS Chapter
II-I subdivision and Damage Stability Regulations, Amex 2,
p2 18, Subcommittee on Stability and Loadlines and on
Fishing Vessels Safety, 2006.
11. IMO SELF 45/3/3 Investigation and Proposed
Formulations for the factor S: the probability of survival
after flooding Report from the research group HARDER,
Sub-committee on Stability and Loadlies and on Fishing
Vessels, Safety, 2002.
12. IMO SOLAS Consolidated Edition, International Maritime
Organization, London, 1997. SLF 49/17-
13. International Maritime Organization, (2002), code on
Intact Stability for all types of ships covered by IMO
Insturments, Resolutions A.749 (18) as amended by resolution
MSC. 75(6)
14. International Maritime Organization, 2007, Interim
Explanatory Notes to the SOLAS chapter II-1 subdivision and
Damage Stability Regulations, MSC 1/Circ. 1226, The
Maritime Safety Committee, The International Maritime
Organization, London.
15. Ivanov, L. D., Probabilistic presentation of the geometric
properties of shipbuilding structural profiles, ABS Technical
paper, American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, Texas.
16. Ivanov, L.D., Lynch, T.J., (2007), Assessment of the level
of uncertainty of the hull girder bending stresses, Proceedings
of the seventeenth (2007) International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Libson, Portugal. PP 141-150
17. Lewandowski, E. M, (2008), Practical Seakeeping, The
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Jersey City
NJ, USA.
18. Lewis, E.V., (1988), Principles Of Naval Architecture
(Second Revision) vol. I, The Society Of Naval Architects
And Marine Engineers, NJ, USA
14
19 MARNET-CFD Best Practice guidelines for marine
applications of computational fluid dynamics WS Atkins
Consultants and members of NSC.
20. Meyerhoff, W.K., Schlancher, G. (1980). An approach for
the determination of hull girder loads in a sea way including
hydrodynamic impacts, Ocean Engineering, vol. 7, PP 305-
326
21. Mistree, F. et al (1991), Designing decisions: Axioms,
Models and Maritime Applications, Proceedings of the
International Marine Systems Design Conference, Kobe,
Japan. The Society of Naval Architects of Japan. PP. 1-23
22. Newport, A., et al (2004) Structural Modifications of the
FPSO Kuito cargo Tanks, Proceedings of OMAE-FPSO 2004.
OMAE Specialty Symposium on FPSO Integrity, Houston,
Texas.
23. Paik, J. K, Mansour, A.E, (1995), A simple formulation for
predicting the ultimate strength of ships, Journal of Marine
Science and Technology, The Society of Naval Architects of
Japan 1(1) 52-62.
24. Paik, J.K. et al, (2002), Ultimate Limit State Design Of
Ship Hulls, 2002 SNAME annual meeting, Boston. The
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, NJ, USA.
25. STANAG 4194 (1993) : Standardized wave and wind
environments and shipboard reporting of sea conditions,
NATO Military Agency of Standardization, STANAG 4194,
Edition 3
26. Sun, H., Wang, X., (2005), Buckling and Ultimate
Strength Assessment of FPSO structures, 2005 SNAME
Marine Technology Conference and EXPO, The Society Of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, NJ, USA.
27. Vassalos, D, Papanikolaou, (2001), A, Stockholm
Agreement-Past, Present & Future (Part I)
28. Walsh, K. M, Wells, N. A. J, (1990), RFA Argus the
conversion of a roro container vessel to an aviation training
ship, Transactions of the Institute of Marine Engineers, Vol.
102, Part 5, 1990, pp 273-284
15
APPENDIX

Table 1 Key input and output data for the primary and secondary ships design processes
S/No Design Primary Ship Secondary Ship
Element
1 Owners INPUT INPUT
Requirements Specifications missions and General Representative set of owners requirements
requirements for primary ship generated for the primary ship design
-specifications/ mission and general Owners requirement specific to the proposed
requirements for conversion options conversion
(secondary ships) OUTPUT
OUTPUT Important differences harmonized requirements
Representation set of owners between for the primary ship and those specific
requirements obtained by to the proposed conversion option.
harmonization of owners
requirements for all specified
candidate ship; the primary ship
is given full weight
2 Principal INPUT INPUT
dimensions and Representative set of owners Principal dimensions and other of primary ship
Hull form requirements particulars
geometry OUTPUT Hull form geometry and non-dimensional
Principal dimensions and other ship coefficients of the hull form
particulars Important differences between the representative
Hull form geometry including ship set of requirements generated for the primary ship
lines and those of the conversion options.
Non-dimensional coefficients of hull OUTPUT
form Modifications to principal dimensions and
particulars ( if necessary)
Modifications of hull form ( if necessary)
Non-dimensional coefficients of hull form.
3 Determination of INPUT INPUT
general Principal dimensions and particulars Data Information On Conversion Ship Proposal
arrangement and Hull form geometry Principal dimensions
computation of Non-dimensional coefficients of form Hull geometry
hydrostatic OUTPUT Non-dimensional coefficients of hull form.
parameters General ship arrangement including
hall compartmentation and decks and Data/ Information On Primary Ships
equipment arrangement General ship arrangement
Structural plan Structural plan
Hydrostatic parameters Hydrostatic parameters
Weight distribution, capacities and Weight distribution, capacities and centroids
centroids Free boards.
Free board OUTPUT
General arrangement including hull
compartmentation and decks and equipment
arrangement.
Structural plan
Hydrostatic parameters
Weights distribution, capacities and centroids,
freeboards

16
Table 1. continued

S/No Design Primary Ship Secondary Ship

Element
4. Stability INPUT INPUT
Analysis Principal dimensions and Data/Information On Conversion Ship Proposal
(Intact and particulars Principal dimensions and Particulars
Damage) Hull form geometry Hull form geometry
General arrangement and weight General arrangement and weights distribution,
distribution, capacities and capacities and centroids
centroids Sea states
Sea states Data/Information On Primary Ship
OUTPUT Meta centric heights
Characteristic stability parameters Righting lever characteristics
ie meta centric heights, righting Area under righting curve, damage stability survival
lever characteristics, damaged index etc
stability survival index etc OUTPUT
Characteristics stability parameters, i.e. meta centric
heights.
5. Determination INPUT INPUT
of Power Principal dimensions and Data/Information On Conversion Ship Proposal
Requirements particulars. principal dimensions and particulars
(Resistance Hull form geometry, from Hull form geometry
and Propulsion coefficient Propeller characteristics - series dataMain Engine(s)
analysis) Propeller characteristics- series performance characteristics
data Data/Information On Primary Ship Design.
Main Engine(s) performance Propeller geometry and other design parameters
characteristics (i.e. power-speed, torque and thrust coefficients-
OUTPUT speed characteristics)
Propeller geometry and other Main Engine(s) characteristics
design parameters
Main engine characteristics and
design parameters.
6. Sea Keeping INPUT INPUT
analysis Sea State (i.e. spectra) Data/Information On Conversion Ship
Hull geometry (offset) Proposal
Subdivision and tanks - Sea state
arrangement. - Hull geometry i.e. offset
Loading and ballasting - Sub divisions and tank arrangements
Speed/course - Loading and ballasting
Model test - Speed/course
OUTPUT - Model test
Response Amplitude Operators Data/Information On Primary Ship
(RAO) - Response Amplitude
Vertical, horizontal and angular Operators
motions - vertical, horizontal and
Motions sickness incidence angular motion
OUTPUT
Response Amplitude Operator (RAO)
Vertical, Horizontal and angular motions
Motions Sickness Incidence (MSI)

17
Table 1. continued

S/No Design Primary Ship Secondary Ship

Element
7. Structural Analysis INPUT INPUT
Structural plan Data/Information On Conversion
Sea state Ship Proposal
Weight distribution - Structural plan
General arrangements - General arrangement
Hull form geometry - Hull form geometry
OUTPUT - Sea state
Element scantlings - Weights distribution
Load effects Data/Information On Primary Ships
- Elements scantlings
- Load effects
OUTPUT
- Element scantlings
- Load effects
8. Selecting INPUT INPUT
Propulsion Plants Owners requirements Data/Information On Conversion Ship
and Auxiliary Main Engine(s) performance Proposal
Machineries characteristics - Owners requirements
Power, torque, speed - Main Engine(s) performance
Ship type and arrangement characteristics
Operational characteristics - Power, torque, speed
OUTPUT - Ship type and arrangement
Main engine types and
output
Propulsion systems
Power plants
Deck and other equip.

Table 2. Effect of design parameter on catamaran seakeeping

Parameter Roll Pitch Slamming

LPP/BMDH 0 0 0
B
MDH/T + + +
LPP/DH T/3 0 N.V.
CP 0 0 0
CM 0 0 0
CB=CP.CM 0 0 0
LCB/LPP 0 0 0
LCF-LCB 0 S S
TTR/T N.V. N.V. N.V.
BTR/BMDH
A
TR/AM
BS/LPP.S/LPP ++ N.V. 0
B
T/LPP
BT/BS
H wet-deck 0 0 ++

+ means that increasing the parameter improves the performance

++ improves deeply the performance
- deteriorates the performance
-- deteriorates deeply the performance
o the parameter does not exert influence over the considered phenomenon
N.V. the parameter exerts an effect non valuable on the bases of the reference papers
S the parameter has a significant influence, which is however, not exactly predictable

18