Referat Whipping DSPN

Some aspects of whipping response of container ships
Introduction
Whipping is usually defined as a transient hydroelastic ship structural
response due to impulsive loading such as slamming, green water, underwater
explosion, etc. Here we concentrate on the slamming induced whipping. Slamming
induced whipping is observed both in experiments and in full scale measurements
for any kind of ships as far as they encounter heavy seas in which the slamming
type of loading is likely to occur. One example of the typical whipping event is
shown in figure 1 (taken from [1]). This figure represents the time evolution of the
vertical bending moment, following severe slamming event, at the midship of the
relatively small (Lpp = 124m) general cargo/container vessel. As we can see, the
whipping contribution to the overall vertical bending moment is not only very
important but it also last for a relatively long time due to the low structural
damping. One slam event increases multiple extremes in the bending moment
which makes the whipping phenomena to be relevant both for extreme and fatigue
loading of the ship structure.
However, up to the authors knowledge, the hydroelastic whipping effects are

not properly accounted for in the ship design. This is mainly due to the difficulties
in the correct modelling of whipping and the needed calculation time. Indeed, in
order to calculate the whipping response, one should combine several aspects
(seakeeping in large waves at forward speed, slamming, hydroelasticity, etc.)
which are difficult to model even independently. In spite of all these difficulties,
there is a lot of research on whipping going on nowadays, especially in the context
of the ultra large container ships. There are several reasons why the whipping is
likely to be more important for the large container ships: high ship speed (close to
30 knots) and large bow flare induce higher slamming loads, large ship size reduce
the natural frequencies. In this paper we present the recent numerical developments
related to whipping and we apply them to two container ships different in size (Lpp
_ 260m and Lpp _ 360m). Both extreme loading and fatigue is discussed.
Numerical model
Numerical model that we use is based on the coupling in between the 3D
diffraction radiation seakeeping code for hydrodynamic part and the Timoshenko
beam model for structural part. The so called modal approach is adopted which
means that the ship motions and deformations are represented in a series of 6 rigid
body modes and several (5 to 10) dry structural modes. The basics of the theory are
presented in [5] and [8] and here below we present just the final dynamic modal
equation:
where _ is the vector of modal amplitudes, [ m ] is the modal mass matrix, [ A1 ] is

the infinite frequency added mass matrix, [ b ] is the damping matrix, [ k ] is the
structural stiffness matrix, [ C ] is the hydrostatic restoring matrix, [ K(t) ] is the
matrix of the hydrodynamic memory functions, F is the vector of the non-
impulsive wave loading (linear and nonlinear) and Q is the vector of impulsive
loads. The dimension of all the above matrices is (6 + Nf ) × (6 + Nf ) where Nf
represents the number of dry structural modes. This equation is integrated in time
using the 4th order Runge Kutta method.
It is important to note that the linear hydrodynamic coefficients in the above

equation are derived from the frequency domain calculations, using the well
known method proposed in [3, 7]. The nonlinear part of the loading includes non-
impulsive and impulsive parts. The non impulsive part represents the so called
Froude Krylov loads which basically corrects the hydrostatics and pressure
distribution around the waterline while the I part represents the slamming loads.
The slamming part is probably the most difficult part to evaluate numerically. A
very robust method is needed and the calculation of the slamming force should not
take to much CPU time to be able to preform long time whipping simulations. The
only fast and reliable methods for evaluation of the slamming forces which are
available today are based on the so called 2D strip approach. The bow is modeled
by multiple 2D sections and the slamming force is evaluated at these sections. In
this paper we use two different methods for evaluation of the slamming loads at
each 2D section: the Generalized Wagner Model (GWM) [9] and the Modified
Logvinovich Model (MLM) [4]. The advantage of the second method is much
lower CPU time, but the disadvantages is the lower domain of validity. We do not
discuss these methods in details here and we refer to [6].
The above described procedure was integrated into a single numerical tool
able to perform the long time whipping simulations for any prescribed irregular sea
state. These simulations allows for determination of the probability of exceedence
of the maxima and for determination of fatigue damage.
Numerical results
As already mentioned, two container ships of different size were chosen for
illustration of the overall procedure and for demonstration of the importance of
whipping in container ship design. The first ship (S1) has the length between
perpendiculars of 360m and the second one (S2) 260m. Only the case of head
waves and zero forward speed is investigated which means that the vertical modes
only will participate. The first few structural natural frequencies in vertical plane,
corresponding natural mode shapes for S1 and transfer of the first mode onto
hydrodynamic mesh, are shown in Figure 2. Only five natural modes are used in
the calculations because the tests showed that the higher modes do not participate
significantly, and because the mode with the highest frequency determines the
stable time step.
The midship bending moment is calculated using different approaches to
investigate the effect of whipping. The same wave trains are used for the different
calculations for the same sea condition to make comparison more valid. The fist
approach is using linear theory only with a rigid ship. The contribution of the non-
linear Froude Krylov forces is investigated using a rigid model with the nonlinear
seakeeping code without slamming. The last approach is a flexible ship using non-
linear seakeeping code and applying the slamming loads. For every sea condition
six halve hour runs using 250 wave components are glued to obtain enough
statistical information.
Example of typical output is presented in Figure 3 where the zoom on the

typical whipping event is also shown. As we can see from this figure, the
slamming usually occurs in sagging conditions but it last long enough to influence
the maximum hogging moment too. These signals are rich of informations and can
be used for determination of the maximum expected values as well as for the
determination of the fatigue damage by using the rain-flow counting method.
The probability of exceedence of the midship bending moment is shown in
figure 4 for the different approaches. Even if the relatively mild sea states were
chosen, (Hs = 9m, Tz = 11s for S1, and Hs = 10m, Tz = 13.95s for S2), the
influence of whipping is clearly visible. The non linear Froude Krylov forces
increase the sagging moment significantly and the whipping response does
increase it even more. Figure 5 shows the cycle count of the bending moment using
the rainflow method and the calculated fatigue damage of the deck. The whipping
increase the fatigue damage significantly by increasing the amplitude of the large
cycles.
To obtain design values many sea states have to be evaluated. The sagging
moment with a probability of 10−5 calculated using a Weibull extrapolation and
the fatigue damage per hour are shown in figure 6 for a limited number of sea
states. In this case the slamming and whipping occurs only in the very severe sea
states. When a non zero velocity would be used, the number of cells where
whipping occurs will increase.
Conclusions
We presented here the numerical method which can be used in ship
design for determination of the influence of whipping on wave loadings and ship
structural responses. The method was demonstrated on two container ships of
different size and in both cases the influence of whipping was found to be
important not only for the maximum values but also for fatigue. It should be
mentioned that the examples which were chosen are just demonstrative ones, and
the general methodology should include more complex set of calculations namely
the model should include the effects of forward speed, heading, different loading
conditions (full, ballast, etc.) and different sea states. At the same time the
sensitivity to some other parameters such as damping, direction of 2D slamming
strips, aft slamming, l ength of runs, number of wave components, etc. should be
properly investigated. Maybe the most critical point in the analysis is the
determination of slamming loads which are extremely difficult to evaluate. In this
work we used two different methods GWM and MLM and even if there are some
differences in the evaluation of the local forces the final results in terms of
maximum values and fatigue seem to be in good agreement. This is important
because the MLM method requires much less CPU time. It should also be kept in
mind that both methods are limited to the 2D calculations and some 3D correction
coefficients need to be employed. How this should be done is not clear yet.
References
[1] Aalberts P.J. & Nieuwenhuijs M. 2006. : ”Full scale wave and whipping
induced hull girder loads.”, 4th. Int. Conf. on Hydroelasticity, Wuxi, China.
[2] Bishop, R.E.D. & Price, W.G., 1979. : ”Hydroelasticity of ships”, Cambridge
University Press.
[3] Cummins W.E., 1962. : ”The impulse response function and ship motions.”,
Schiffstecknik
[4] Korobkin A.A., 2005.: ”Analytical models of water impact.”, Euro. J. Applied
Mathematics, 16, pp. 1-18.
[5] Malenica ˇ S., Molin B., Remy F. & Senjanovi´c I., 2003. : ”Hydroelastic
response of a barge to impulsive and non impulsive wave loads.”, 3rd. Int. Conf.
on Hydroelasticity, Oxford, UK.
[6] Malenica ˇ S. & Korobkin A.A., 2007. : ”Some aspects of slamming

calculations in seakeeping.”, 9th. Int. Conf. on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics,
Ann Arbor, USA.
[7] Ogilvie T.F., 1964. : ”Recent progress toward the understanding and prediction
of ship motions.”, 5th. Symp. on Naval Hydrodynamics.
[8] Tuitman J. Aanhold H 2007: Using generalized modes for time domain
seakeeping calculations, 22th IWWWFB, Croatia
[9] Zhao R., Faltinsen O.M. & Aarsnes J.V., 1996. : ”Water entry of arbitrary two
dimensional sections with and without flow separation.”, 21st Symp. on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Trondheim, Norway.

Referat Whipping DSPN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Referat Whipping DSPN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Referat Whipping DSPN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Some aspects of whipping response of container ships

However, up to the authors knowledge, the hydroelastic whipping effects are

where _ is the vector of modal amplitudes, [ m ] is the modal mass matrix, [ A1 ] is

It is important to note that the linear hydrodynamic coefficients in the above

Example of typical output is presented in Figure 3 where the zoom on the

[6] Malenica ˇ S. & Korobkin A.A., 2007. : ”Some aspects of slamming

You might also like