AALTO UNIVERSITY
School of Engineering
Department of Applied Mechanics
Oliver Parmasto
Mechanics of the passenger ship structure with non-longitudinal-load-carrying accommodation decks
Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Technology
Espoo, 04.11.2012
Supervisor: Professor Jani Romanoff (Aalto University)
Instructors: D.Sc. (Tech.) Heikki Remes. (Aalto University)
D.Sc. Hendrik Naar, (Tallinn University of Technology)
Aalto University, P.O. BOX 11000, 00076 AALTOwww.aalto.fi
Abstract of master's thesis
ii
Author Oliver Parmasto Title of thesis Mechanics of the passenger ship structure with non-longitudinal-load-carrying accommodation decks Department Department of Applied Mechanics Professorship Naval Architecture Code of professorship Kul-24 Thesis supervisor Professor Jani Romanoff (Aalto University) Thesis instructors D.Sc. (Tech.) Heikki Remes (Aalto University) D.Sc. Hendrik Naar (Tallinn University of Technology) Date 04.11.2012 Number of pages 53+6 Language English
Abstract
The current thesis investigates a cruise ship structural concept which enables to use large
interchangeable modules for interior outfitting. The structure has non-longitudinal-load-
carrying accommodation decks and a narrow deckhouse. The hull-deckhouse interaction
and performance of the proposed structure under vertical bending is determined and
compared to a conventional cruise ship structure which has internal longitudinal bulkheads
for carrying the shear forces in the superstructure. The investigation is conducted by
implementing Finite Element Method.
The results indicate that the removal of the decks from the conventional cruise ship
structure does not change the nature of the hull-deckhouse interaction. The responses of the
compared structures were strongly affected by shear lag hull-deckhouse interaction induced
secondary effects. It is also shown that the proposed structure can achieve the same stiffness
under vertical bending as the conventional cruise ship structure while achieving smaller
weight and the height of the vertical centre of gravity of the steel structure.
The investigation assures that even at the early design phase, the Finite Element Method is
the only reliable way to evaluate the response of the modern cruise ship structures.
Keywords hull-superstructure interaction; hull-deckhouse interaction; passenger ship; cruise ship
Aalto University, P.O. BOX 11000, 00076 AALTO www.aalto.fi
Magistrtöö resümee
iii
Autor Oliver Parmasto Töö pealkiri Mechanics of the passenger ship structure with non-longitudinal-load-carrying accommodation decks Teaduskond Department of Applied Mechanics Professuur Naval Architecture Kood Kul-24 Järelevaataja Professor Jani Romanoff (Aalto University) Instruktorid D.Sc. (Tech.) Heikki Remes (Aalto University) D.Sc. Hendrik Naar (Tallinn University of Technology) Kuupäev 04.11.2012 Lehekülgede arv 53+6 Keel English
Käesolev magistritöö uurib kruiisilaeva struktuuri konseptsiooni, mis võimaldab kasutada
suuri vahetatavaid mooduleid pealeehituse sisustamiseks. Pakutud struktuuril puuduvad
pealisehituses pikisuunalisi jõude kandvad dekid ning küljeplaadistus. Antud töös uuritakse
laevakere ja pealisehituse koostoimet pakutud kruiisilaeva struktuuris ning võrreldakse seda
traditsionaalse kruiisilaevaga millel on pealisehituses sisemised pikisuunalised vaheseinad
vertikaalse põikjõu kandmiseks ja suured avavused küljeplaadistuses. Antud töös kasutatakse
võrreldavate struktuuride uurimiseks Lõplike Elementide Meetodit ning võrreldavaid
struktuure vaadeldakse vertikaalse paindemomendi mõju all.
Tulemused näitavad, et võrreldud struktuurides oli pealisehituse ja laevakere vaheline
koostoime sarnane. Samuti ilmnes et shear lag nähtus mõjutas tugevalt uuritud struktuuride
käitumist. Tulemused näitavad veel et pealisehituse ja laevakere vaheline koostoime
põhjustab tugevaid sekundaarseid nähtuseid.
Keywords laevakere ja pealisehituse koostoime, reisilaev
iv
Acknowledgements
The current thesis was written in the Marine Structures research group as a part of the Aalto University
Program Cruise and Ferry in the Department of Applied Mechanics of Aalto University School of
Engineering. The financial support from FIMECC Innovation and Networks – research project is
gratefully appreciated.
I would like to thank D.Sc. (Tec.) Heikki Remes and Professor Jani Romanoff for their comments and
patience. The value of their support in the thesis writing process is impossible to overestimate. I would
also express my gratitude towards the other co-workers in the research group for bringing laugh and
joy into the daily routine.
I would also like to thank all my friends in Finland and in Estonia and also my family and especially
Susanna for the moral support during the thesis writing process.
Espoo 2012
Oliver Parmasto
v
Table of Contents
Abstract of the Master’s Thesis…………………………………………………………………………………ii Magistritöö resümee…………………………………………..…………………………………………………iii Acknowledgments ………………………………………………………………………………………………iv Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………………….. v 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 State of the art .......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Aim of the thesis ....................................................................................................................... 7
2. Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Calculation methods ................................................................................................................. 9
2.1.1 Finite Element Method ......................................................................................................11 2.1.2 Finite Element Method in ship structural design.................................................................12 2.1.3 Finite Element model of the investigated structure ............................................................14
2.2 Post-processing.......................................................................................................................16 2.2.1 Displacements ..................................................................................................................16 2.2.2 Stresses ...........................................................................................................................18 2.2.3 Forces and moments ........................................................................................................19
2.3 Description of research procedure ...........................................................................................19 2.3.1 Comparison of the proposed structure and conventional cruise ship structure ...................19 2.3.2 Sensitivity analysis............................................................................................................21
3. Results ..........................................................................................................................................23 3.1 Comparison of responses of the traditional and the proposed structure ....................................23
3.1.1 Hull-deckhouse interaction ................................................................................................23 3.1.2 Stresses and stiffness .......................................................................................................27 3.1.2 Forces and moments ........................................................................................................29 3.1.3 Secondary effects .............................................................................................................32
3.2 Sensitivity analysis ..................................................................................................................38 3.2.1 Thin and thick deckhouse side on a thin boat deck ............................................................38 3.2.2 Thin and thick deckhouse side on a thick boat deck ..........................................................41
4. Discussion and Conclusions ..........................................................................................................45 References .......................................................................................................................................50 List of Appendices .............................................................................................................................53 Appendix 1. The main frame of the traditional cruise ship structure (traditional) Appendix 2. The main frame of the proposed cruise ship structure (m2cell) Appendix 3. The main frame of design m2cell_1 Appendix 4. The main frame of design m2cell_2 Appendix 5. The main frame of design m2cell_3 Appendix 6. The main frame of design m2cell_4
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The interior outfitting and the general arrangement of the passenger vessels cannot be changed in
reasonable time and cost because outfitting is integrated into the steel structure of the vessel. For
example, cabin areas are constructed of modules which are welded to the decks. The water, HVAC,
electricity and other systems have then to be connected and finally floors are constructed using
various types of screeds which are then covered by carpets or other materials. After the completion,
the cabin modules cannot be removed easily, making conversions and refitting of the cabin areas
labour intensive and time consuming endeavour. Conversion of public areas is even more challenging
since in addition to removing the old interior, outfitting is completely installed in situ using prefabricated
elements. As a result, the interior of a passenger ship is static and cannot be adapted effectively for
different needs of various markets. Moreover, the long operational life of a cruise ship means that
several re-fittings are needed for keeping the vessel competitive in the cruise market. Consequently, it
has become appealing to seek new methods for facilitating outfitting and converting the cruise ship's
interior.
A new concept called m2cell has been proposed for rapid outfitting and conversion of the passenger
ship’s superstructure (Kauppi, 2012). This new concept intends to exploit large interchangeable
modules, size of which extend throughout two decks and accommodate a number of cabins or public
spaces. An example of the m2cell module is given in Figure 1 together with the illustration of their
positioning in the ship structure.
Figure 1. A m2cell module (Ylirisku, 2012) and their positioning in the ship structure (Kauppi, 2012)
However, the proposed modular outfitting system poses a number of challenges on the structural
design of the vessel. Firstly, due to the size of the modules, decks need to be removed from the
superstructure at the location of the modules. Secondly, since the modules are designed to be
interchangeable within a small timeframe, superstructure side shell will be offset from the side of the
Steel structure
m2cell modules
2
main hull to a location near to the centre line. The concept of this kind of structure is new to cruise ship
design and needs to be investigated.
1.2 State of the art
From the beginning of building steel ships, the behaviour of passenger vessels has changed due to
increased size and structural complexity of newer generations of vessels. The understandings of the
behaviour and design principles of large passenger ships have also changed over time. A brief insight
into selected concepts of passenger ship structures is given in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Illustration of typical cross sections in equal scale and shear force flow in passenger ships
3
The location of lifeboats and larger openings are also shown with their influence on the shear flow. All
these factors are crucial in the cruise ship structures since they determine the structural behaviour of
the overall response of the hull girder (deOliveira, 1983).
The relative size of the deckhouse in older generations of passenger ships (i.e. RMS Titanic in Figure
2), was small and it was often not considered when evaluating the response of the hull girder. The
outer shell of the hull was continuous with small porthole openings. Thus, the global response of the
structure was considered to follow Euler-Bernoulli beam theory. However, as the relative size of the
deckhouse increased, evaluation of its contribution to the global strength became important.
Numerous experiments conducted on the passenger vessels at the end of 1940’s indicated that the
longitudinal strains do not generally follow linear distribution in the mid-ship section like it is assumed
for Euler-Bernoulli beam (Vasta, 1949). One of the first theories describing this phenomenon stated
that the non-linarites in the longitudinal strain distribution are caused by the distortion of the combined
cross section of the hull and deckhouse, making Navier’s hypothesis inapplicable (Crawford, 1950).
However, it was assumed that Navier’s hypothesis is valid for the hull and the deckhouse separately.
In essence, the deckhouse was observed as an elastically supported beam because the longitudinal
and vertical forces resisting the relative displacement of the deckhouse and the hull at their
connections (Bleich, 1952). As illustrated in Figure 3, the longitudinal shear force in connection of the
deckhouse side will cause a moment resisting the moment in the deckhouse, meaning that the
curvatures of the deckhouse and the hull tend to differ.
Figure 3. Forces at the connection of deckhouse side and the hull
Consequently, in hogging condition the deckhouse tends to deflect into the main hull at the mid-ship.
This phenomenon is resisted by vertical stiffness of the main deck as illustrated in Figure 4.
4
Figure 4. Deformed shape of the combined hull and deckhouse
As the understanding of the hull-deckhouse interaction improved, elaborate theories implementing
theory of elasticity appeared (Caldwell, 1957). Eventually, it became clear that the deckhouse has an
important influence on the global response of the passenger vessel and its effect has to be considered
regardless of its relative size. Even if the deckhouse is small, and the contribution to the overall load
carrying capacity is minute, throughout understanding of the hull-deckhouse interaction must be
obtained to avoid local failures, especially at the openings and the deckhouse ends (deOliveria, 1983).
After the revolution in air transportation in 1960-s, the intercontinental travelling by large ocean liners
declined and the share of cruising industry started to increase. Consequently, the design of large
passenger ships also changed. A demand for large open spaces and larger cabins with the sea view
contributed to increasing of the size of passenger ships. Eventually, deckhouse was replaced by
superstructure, sides of which were not offset from the hull side shell (i.e. MS Fantasy in Figure 2). A
deckhouse differs from a superstructure by definition. According to classification societies, a
deckhouse is a decked structure above the strength deck with the side plating being inboard of the hull
shell plating more than 4% of the breadth (DNV, 2009). A superstructure however is a decked
structure on the freeboard deck, sides of which are not offset from the hull side shell more than 4% of
the breath of the vessel (DNV, 2009).
As the size of the passenger ships grew, the lifeboats could not be stored on top of the superstructure
since they cannot be positioned higher than 15 meters from the design water line (IMO, 1999). As a
response, a recess was created in the superstructure for accommodating the life boats and muster
stations (i.e. MS Aida in Figure 2). Simultaneously, relative size of the openings for windows and
balconies at the sides of the superstructure increased, reducing the shear stiffness of the side shell
and started to have significant influence on the hull-superstructure interaction (Jaeger and Woortman.,
5
1961; Muckle, 1962). The response of the cruise ship structures elaborated since in addition of the
offsetting of the sides of the superstructure, the effect of large side openings also had to be
considered. Shear deformation in the superstructure sides relieves normal stresses in the decks and
also causes difference in curvature of deckhouse and the main hull (Fransman, 1988).
For maximizing the number of outside cabins, the deckhouses became higher and were not widened
above the boat deck (i.e. MS Grand Princess in Figure 2). However, the top of the deckhouse still had
to be wide to provide valuable space for the sun deck. The growing demand for balcony cabins also
meant that the side shell of the superstructure could not be implemented for carrying the global shear
loads. Thus, internal longitudinal bulkheads which are offset from the sides of the hull were added for
carrying shear forces (i.e. GTS Millennium in Figure 2). In some modern designs, the side shell of the
deckhouse is not participating in the shear flow of the vertical shear force (Kujala, 2003).
The cruise ship structures have also elaborated due to fierce competition for a share in the cruise
market. A recent trend in the cruise business is to provide unique holistic experience for the customer
(Ahola, 2010). This has contributed to the appearance of novel design concepts such as the
superstructure with an internal promenade (i.e. MS Voyager of the Seas in Figure 2). As a result, the
structure of modern cruise ship is complex, with elaborate distribution of normal strains in the decks
(Naar et al., 2004). The increased size of the superstructure also means that in modern designs, over
50% of the vertical bending moment is carried by the deckhouse. However, most of the shear force is
carried by hull side shell (Kujala, 2003).
In 2009, a revolutionary design of a passenger ship appeared where the superstructure has been split
into two, creating a wide promenade (Oasis of the Seas in Figure 2). The cabins with balconies are
located both at the sides of the vessel and the promenade. However, in order to provide a wide
promenade, the size of the vessel had to be increased considerably. Although the design has greatly
improved the cruising experience for the passengers, it also has some drawbacks. The size of the
vessel makes its cost very high. There is also a restriction on the number of destination, thus making
the cruising experience less unique. Consequently, ship owners have become interested in smaller
vessels exclusively with balcony cabins for passengers (Ahola, 2010). As a response, a new cruise
ship concept known as XpTray was proposed (Bergström, 2010). The main frame of this concept is
illustrated in Figure 5. The main dimensions of the XpTray vessel are comparable to Voyager class
and it has exclusively balcony cabins for the passengers. As a result, the XpTray vessel has a very
narrow deckhouse when compared with the conventional passenger ship structures.
6
Figure 5. Cross section of XpTray structure
When comparing XpTray structural concept with the conventional designs presented in Figure 2, it can
be seen that the mechanism of transmitting the shear forces is similar to the conventional cruise ship
design where the internal longitudinal bulkheads carry the shear load inside the superstructure (GTS
Millennium). The similarity stems from the fact that the boat deck plays an important role in carrying
the shear forces to the deckhouse. In the case of the XpTray, the structure is somewhat simpler than
in conventional design. The wide accommodation decks have been removed from the superstructure
which created a narrow deckhouse. The life boat recess is also absent, meaning that only the boat
deck participates in the flow of shear force in the case of the XpTray structure. The knowledge about
the influence of these changes on the hull-deckhouse interaction and load carrying influence is limited;
however, Bergström (2010) conducted extensive sensitivity analysis on the XpTray structure on the
feasibility point of view. Bergström (2010) concluded that the large openings in the side shell of the
deckhouse relieved the normal stresses in the deckhouse decks. However, high shear stress levels
were present on the deckhouse sides, especially at the connection of the deckhouse side shell and
the boat deck which required the use of very thick steel plating.
In essence, the m2cell structural concept requires similar changes to the conventional cruise ship
structure as the XpTray structure; although large openings are not needed in the deckhouse side of
the m2cell structure. In addition, the m2cell structure will have a wide sundeck. Thus, the challenges
regarding high shear stresses at the deckhouse sides might be avoided. However, considering the
complexity of the hull-deckhouse interaction and the overall design procedure of the cruise ship
structure, throughout understanding of the load carrying mechanism of the proposed structure has to
be obtained prior to further development of m2cell structural concept. Understanding of the load
7
carrying mechanism of the cruise ship structure is especially important in the optimisation phase of the
structural design process where the response of the same structure can vary considerably among
different designs (Remes et al., 2011). Thus, the impact of removing the decks from the superstructure
of the cruise ship and creating a narrow deckhouse has to be studied.
1.3 Aim of the thesis
The current work addresses two main concerns related to the structure which could meet the
demands posed by the m2cell modular outfitting concept. Firstly, the positioning of the deckhouse
sides close to the centreline and removal of wide accommodation decks imply that the nature of the
hull-deckhouse interaction and the load carrying mechanism might deviate considerably when
compared with traditional cruise ship structures. Secondly, the changes made to the structure,
especially the removal of wide accommodation decks, might have devastating effect on the
performance of the structure. Namely, the decks are considered vital in carrying the global vertical
bending moment. Even if the structure could carry the global bending moment, the vertical stiffness of
the structure should also be examined since the cruise ships are sensitive to the vibration issues.
When considering the first issue focusing on the hull-deckhouse interaction and the load carrying
mechanism, the challenge is to compare the response of the proposed structure with a common cruise
ship structure. However, the hull-deckhouse interaction and load carrying mechanism of the modern
cruise ship structures has not been described profoundly in literature.. Previous works addressing the
hull-deckhouse interaction are mainly focused on presenting the results from experiments on older
generations of passenger ships and simplified models or introducing various calculation methods for
evaluating the response of the passenger ship structures (i.e. Vasta, 1949; Bleich, 1952; Mukle, 1962;
Pauling and Payer, 1968; Fransman, 1988). However, these works are not investigating modern
cruise ship designs. Thereby, a modern structural concept of a conventional cruise ship will also be
examined in the scope of this work in order to establish the moment of comparison. Naturally, the
traditional structure has to be selected to be as similar as possible to the proposed structure. When
examining the structural concepts presented in Figure 2, it appears that the structural concept where
the shear forces are carried by the internal longitudinal bulkheads (GTS Millennium) may be used for
the comparison with the proposed structure. This claim is explained with the help of Figure 6, where
the cross sections of the proposed and the conventional cruise ship structures are compared.
8
Figure 6. The conventional and the proposed structure
When observing the conventional structure in Figure 6, it is seen that above the life boat recess, the
shear forces are carried by the longitudinal bulkheads which are positioned close to the centre line of
the vessel. This means that in the case of the conventional structure, decks participate in the flow of
shear forces like it is needed for the proposed structure. When the superstructure side at the lifeboat
recess is relocated under the longitudinal bulkhead and the accommodation decks removed at the
outer side of the longitudinal bulkheads, the proposed structure is obtained. The proposed structure
will be created with the same scantlings as the conventional structure. In this stage, the emphasis is
on investigating three aspects. Firstly, focus will be on examining the differences in the hull-deckhouse
interaction of the proposed and the traditional structures under vertical bending. Secondly, the impact
of the changes to the stress levels and stiffness of the proposed structure will be evaluated due their
practical importance. Finally, the differences in the load carrying mechanism of the compared
structures will be investigated. The first stage of the current investigation will provide detailed
description and comparison of the hull-deckhouse interaction for traditional and the proposed
structure. The findings of the first stage would also indicate in what extent the absence of wide
accommodation decks would compromise the performance of the proposed structure.
At the second stage, the sensitivity analysis is conducted on the proposed structure. The aim is to
deepen the knowledge about factors influencing the load carrying mechanism and hull-deckhouse
interaction of the proposed structure with the goal to enhance its performance. The second phase
should reveal whether the proposed structure could achieve the same vertical stiffness as the
traditional structure using reasonable measures.
The work is limited to the static analysis of the proposed and the traditional structure under vertical
bending moment. The current thesis will not focus on the structural behaviour under torsion and
horizontal bending nor does it address the issues related to the dynamic response. These tasks will be
left for the future work.
9
2. Methods
The current chapter describes the methods used in the current thesis. In principle, the current chapter
can be divided into three parts. The first part describes the calculation methods and modelling
techniques used for evaluating the response of the investigated structures. The second part focuses
on the means to analyse the obtained results for describing the load carrying mechanism and hull-
deckhouse interaction of the investigated structures. The third part will describe the research
procedure which is followed for comparing the responses of the investigated structures and the
sensitivity analysis of the proposed structure.
2.1 Calculation methods
When investigating the hull girder bending, it is traditionally assumed that the behaviour of a ship
structure follows Euler-Bernoulli beam theory (Hughes et al., 2010). This means that a number of a
priori assumptions have been made on the deformation kinematics of the cross-section of a ship
structure:
1) the cross-section is rigid on its plane
2) the cross-section rotates around the neutral surface
3) the cross-section remains perpendicular to the neutral surface
These assumptions hold fairly well in long, slender and relatively continuous ship hull girders under
moderate transversal loading (deOliveira, 1983). In cases of the ship structures where shear induced
deflections become important; Timoshenko beam theory has been applied where the third assumption
of Euler-Bernoulli beam theory is dismissed. The previous two theories are often referred to as
classical beam theories (Carrera, 2011). However, it has been shown that the distortions occur in the
cross section of large passenger vessels, making classical beam theories inapplicable in these kinds
of vessels (Bleich, 1952). Thus, a number of methods have been proposed for investigating the
behaviour of passenger ships (deOliveira, 1983).
Earliest calculation methods for evaluating the response of the passenger ships were developed at the
time when computers were not effectively used in the ship design. Thus, the earliest methods were
based on the theory of strength of materials among which classical beam theories played a focal role.
One of the first methods which found wider implementation in the design process was provided by
Bleich (1952) and was based on the two beam approach described in the previous chapter
(deOliveira, 1983). A number of theories have appeared thereafter which fall into the same category
(i.e. Chapman, 1957; Muckle, 1962; Schade, 1966; Naar et al.2004).
There are also methods based on the theory of elasticity implementing plane stress theory (Caldwell,
1957). Caldwell’s theory has been enhanced by many authors to take into account the openings in the
10
side of the deckhouse and geometrical discontinuities (i.e. Jaeger and Woortman, 1961). However,
implementing these methods in design office routine is demanding.
Currently, advances in the computing technology and software have facilitated the evaluation of the
structural response of passenger vessels. For example, Finite Element Method (FEM) is sufficiently
reliable for investigating the modern cruise ship structures (ISSC, 1997). However, the demands on
the functionality of the passenger ship structures have increased considerably during last decades.
Consequently, the structural design issues should already be addressed in the conceptual design
phase of the innovative cruise ships (Remes et al., 2009). However, in case of the ship structures,
implementing FEM in the iterative design process is time-consuming and thereby not suitable for the
use in the early design phase. Thus analytical and semi-analytical methods still play an important role
in the passenger ship design due to their speed and flexibility when compared with FEM. For example,
methods proposed by Caldwell (1957) and Jaeger and Woortman (1961) have been adapted for
implementation with a computer, thus making them useful at early design phases (Fransman, 1988). A
relatively simple, yet fairly useful approach was provided by Heder and Ulfvarson (1991) where 3D
FEM analysis of a passenger ship structure was reduced to 2D. The sides of the structure were
described with orthotropic plate elements which took into account the presence of openings whereas
the decks were represented with bar elements which was defined by taking into account the reduced
efficiency of the deck due to the shear lag.
A similar approach to Bleich’s (1952) work was offered by Naar et al. (2004) where the cruise ship
structure was divided into a number of beams with vertical and horizontal coupling. This, Coupled
Beams method has been integrated into a powerful conceptual design platform which also
encompasses local response and strength models together with elaborate optimisation capability
(Remes et al. 2009).
There are also more robust approaches to optimizing the ship structures in the early design phase. In
case of the ship hull girder which follows fairly well beam theory, the optimization in the concept
design phase is usually carried out implementing 2D section models (Klanac and Jelovica, 2009; Rigo
2001). In these cases, a common approach is to minimize the weight and production costs. The
stiffness of the structure is then maximised by demanding a larger moment of inertia (Rigo, 2001). A
similar approach has been implemented also for the cruise ships (Andric & Zanic, 2010; Richir, 2010;
Caprace et al., 2010). The method comprises initial evaluation of the cruise ship structure with 3D
FEM for obtaining the normal strain distribution. Then the optimisation is conducted on the 2D section
assuming that the normal strains will be distributed similarly in the different designs. This approach
has been questioned by some authors (Remes et al., 2011).
However, in the current work, a novel cruise ship structure is investigated without the aim to reach the
best design solution. Thereby, FEM is suitable for the current work since FEA based methods are
currently considered as most reliable means for investigating the structural response of passenger
ships (ISSC, 1997).
11
2.1.1 Finite Element Method The central idea of the Finite Element Methods (FEM) is to divide the continuum with infinite degrees
of freedom (DOF) into discrete sub-regions with a finite number of DOF (Zienkiewicz,1971). This kind
of idealisation means that various physical phenomena can be treated numerically inside the
continuum under investigation. Since a steel ship structure is under investigation in the current thesis,
it is appropriate to describe FEM for an elastic continuum with the displacement approach
(Zienkiewicz, 1971).
The elastic continuum of the structure can be divided into structural elements interconnected by a
finite number of points at which the resultant force from the actual stress on the element boundaries is
introduced (Turner et al. 1956). The displacements at the points of connection of the elements, also
known as nodal displacements, are the unknowns for which the system will be solved. A typical
element is defined by a finite number of nodes and its boundaries. Let there be an element with n
nodes occupying the volume . The displacements at any point inside the element can be defined by
displacement at nodes as functions
( , , )( , , )( , , )
= [ ]{ } = [ ( , , ), … , ( , , ) ] (2.1)
where [ ] is a shape function used for approximating the displacements inside the element from the
nodal displacements { } where
= , [1, ] (2.2)
When the displacements are known at any point inside the element, the strains can also be
determined for any point inside the element. These can always be presented in the following notation
(Zienkiewicz 1971)
{ } = [ ]{ } (2.3)
where { } is a strain vector and [ ] is known as deformation matrix. It should be noted that the shape
functions [ ] are already incorporated in the deformation matrix. Assuming elastic behaviour, the
relation between strains and stresses will be in linear form
{ } = [ ]{ } (2.4)
where [ ] is known as elasticity matrix and is determined by the physical properties of the material.
Knowing the stresses inside the material, the elemental nodal forces can be obtained which are
determined statically by boundary stresses as
{ } = [ ] [ ][ ] { } (2.5)
12
where the integral is known as elemental stiffness matrix (Zienkiewicz 1971).
[ ] = [ ] [ ][ ] (2.6)
Knowing all the external forces at the nodes of the element, the displacements can be found by
demanding equilibrium of forces at the nodes
{ } = { } = [ ]{ } (2.7)
The displacements can also be found by using virtues of variation calculus and demanding that the
virtual work performed by external forces is equal to the one of internal forces. The other possibility
could be to minimize the potential energy of the whole system. However, these lead to solving the
same system of linear equations and are in principle different mathematical approaches for
interpreting the same physical phenomenon.
The principles implemented for a single element can be extended to the whole structure so that the
overall system of equations needed to be solved are in the same form as (2.7) (Zienkiewicz, 1971).
However, successful application FEM assumes the use of proper element types, meaning that the
stiffness matrix of the element needs to be defined correctly for describing the physical phenomenon.
Moreover, the degree of simplifications made for modelling the problem needs to be appropriate. All
this means that proven practices need to be followed when dividing the structure into elements and
choosing the types of elements used for modelling.
2.1.2 Finite Element Method in ship structural design The analysis of the ship structures is generally performed in two stages. The global response is
investigating by a coarse mesh model and then local response is evaluated by separating areas of
interest, re-meshing them with finer mesh and applying boundary conditions from the global analysis
(ISSC, 1997). Consequently, a vast number of FE models are used for evaluating the response of the
passenger ship structures. Since the current work is limited only to global analysis of the proposed
ship structure, the principles used for coarse mesh modelling is described in this paragraph.
The level of discretisation of the global ship model depends on the complexity and size of the model.
Ship structure is generally modelled by assembling structural elements such as stiffened panels and
stiffeners. A stiffened plate is composed of a plate and its stiffeners, considered as secondary
stiffeners. The web frames and girders are considered as primary stiffeners. The classification of
stiffeners is illustrated in Figure 7.
13
Figure 7. Classification of stiffeners (Amini, 2009)
The primary stiffeners are explicitly modelled due to their significant influence on the response of the
structure (Amini et al, 2009). The stiffened panels can be modelled with elements with equivalent
stiffness where the behaviour of the plate and secondary stiffeners has been homogenised into one
element (Hughes et al., 1983; Avi 2012). In global analysis, structural details such as window and door
openings with their stiffeners are also modelled using homogenised coarse mesh elements (Amini,
2009).
Another approach is to use a combination of beam and shell elements to represent the stiffened panel.
An example of this is lumping where the stiffness and mass properties of all the secondary stiffeners
on the panel are represented by beam elements located at the edge of the shell elements (Hughes,
1983). This method is also accepted by classification society when passenger ship structure is
investigated at the global level (DNV, 2007).
Naturally, if the size of the problem allows, the secondary stiffeners can be modelled explicitly. A
common practice for modelling the secondary stiffeners is the offset beam concept (Ehlers, 2011). As
illustrated in Figure 8, quadrangular shell elements are used for modelling the web and two node
beam elements are used for modelling the flange of the stiffener.
Figure 8. Discretisation of stiffeners with offset beam technique (Ehlers, 2011)
14
The minimum length of the beam element is the same as for the shell elements meaning that no
reduction of minimum element length is caused with the discretisation. In case of using the previously
described method, it must be kept in mind that the moment of inertia and the area of the combined
shell and beam elements has to be equal to the one of the modelled stiffener’s (Ehlers, 2011).
The curved surfaces of the hull structure are usually discretised with plate finite elements due to the
complications managing the shell elements (Amini, 2009). This means that approximation also
includes faceting of the surface which results in overestimation of the stiffness. However, this is a
common engineering practice and when the element size is appropriately selected; the error is not
significant (Sörensen, 1969). In case of passenger ships, classification societies demand the use of at
least two plate elements at the turn of the bilge. (DNV, 2007)
Generally, the boundary conditions are not used in global FE-models where the whole structure is
modelled. The model is loaded so that the system is in equilibrium and a small number of nodes are
fixed to avoid rigid body motions. The symmetry conditions with force boundary conditions are more
frequently used in local FE-models (DNV, 2007). The loads are generally defined as nodal forces or
distributed loads on the shell elements. The wave and still water bending moments and shear forces
are modelled by distributed loads on the outer side of the bottom plating (DNV, 2007).
The dynamic analysis differs considerably from the static analysis, mainly by definition of loads.
Usually different global FE-model is also required with more precise definition of mass distribution.
However, since the current thesis is limited only to static analysis of the structure, these techniques
are not described here.
2.1.3 Finite Element model of the investigated structure Since the aim is to investigate the load carrying mechanism of the structure, static analysis with a
global 3D FE-model is conducted. The model is simplified by excluding bow and aft of the ship
structure and having the cross-section with constant dimensions. The simplified structure cannot be
considered as a prismatic beam since transversal bulkheads and pillars also modelled. As there are a
number of models created, detailed topological description of specific models will be given later.
However, the main dimensions will remain the same for all the models.
The 3D FE-model was created using FEMAP 10.1.1 and processed using Abaqus/CAE 6.11-2. An
example of use of elements for modelling structural details is given in Figure 9 where the beam
elements are shown as red and S4 shell elements in grey colours.
15
Figure 9. Structural members and the use of elements
Quadrangular 4-noded and triangular 3-noded S4 shell elements were used for modelling plating. The
length of the elements was half of the frame spacing (1.365 m) and width was equal to stiffener
spacing (0.68 m in general) which is sufficient according to classification society guidelines when
observing the global response (DNV, 2007). The secondary stiffeners were modelled using offset
beam technique, where the web of the stiffener was modelled using 4-noded rectangular S4 shell
elements and the flange as 2-noded B31 beam element. It should be noted that the aspect ratio for the
web of the secondary stiffeners can be considered as poor (0.0176 – 0.0733), thus making them
prone to shear locking when exposed to in-plane bending. However, the structure is investigated in the
global scale and under vertical bending where the load is applied as a pressure only on the bottom
plating. Thus, the tertiary effects are not investigated and the structure is considered as beam
structure where the external vertical shear force is carried by resisting bending. Internal moment of the
structure is developed mainly by the decks which will undergo tension or compression, meaning that
the stiffener web will not be exposed to considerable in-plane bending. The web and the flange of
primary stiffeners were also modelled as 4-noded quadrangular S4 shell elements. However, unlike in
the case of secondary stiffeners, the aspect ratio of the web of the longitudinal girders is within the
reasonable limits staying just under 1/3. The pillars were modelled as 2-noded B31 beam elements.
Due to the symmetry about the centre line and mid-ship, only quarter of the ship was modelled using
appropriate boundary conditions. The bending moment and shear forces were modelled as
sinusoidally distributed pressure load on the wetted surface of the bottom plating so that the model is
in equilibrium. Since the material properties were considered linear, results can be scaled to
correspond to desired bending moment. The current thesis will be limited to investigating the structure
only in hogging condition.
16
2.2 Post-processing
One of the known disadvantages of numerical methods such as FEM is that they do not readily
provide usable design information. Thus, interpreting the results is an important part of FEA.
Information about the elemental stresses and nodal displacements is extracted from FEA results using
FEMAP 10.1.1. The use of this information for investing the structural behaviour of investigated
structures is described in the following paragraphs.
2.2.1 Displacements Shear deformation between the individual decks is one of the main peculiarities in the response of
large passenger vessels (i.e. Naar et al., 2004; ISSC, 1997). In essence, this phenomenon arises from
the warping of the cross section of the passenger ship structure which departs its behaviour from
classical beam theories (Bleich, 1952). Thus, vertical deflections of decks become a subject of interest
since they provide information about the deformation kinematics of the cross-section of the
investigated structure. As was described in the previous chapter, in hogging condition the deckhouse
tends to sink into the boat deck at the mid-ship and rise from the boat deck at the end. Consequently,
from the point of view of hull-deckhouse interaction, it is sufficient to present vertical deflections at the
connection of the deckhouse side and the boat deck and at the top of the deckhouse in the structural
co-ordinate system located at the bottom of the structure. The relevant locations are presented in
Figure 10.
Figure 10. Locations in cross-section where deflections are investigated for the traditional and the proposed structrue
17
Location A refers to the centreline at the bottom of the vessel where the origin of the co-ordinate
system is located. In case of the proposed structure, point B coincides to the side of the superstructure
at the boat deck. In the traditional structure the location of point B is not changed because of the
presence of the longitudinal bulkhead on the upper decks which rests on the pillar line extending
throughout the hull. Location C is at the centre line on top of the whole structure.
In order to avoid confusion in terminology, displacements are also used for comparing the stiffnesses
of the investigated structures. By definition, stiffness is a ratio of the measures of load and
deformation. Thus, when defining the structural stiffness, unambiguous determination of loading and
measured deformations is required (Baumgart, 2000). In the current case, a potential source of
confusion lays in the fact that ship hull girders are traditionally considered as beams following classical
beam theories. For example, in case of Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, bending stiffness or flexural
rigidity k is defined as
= (2.8)
where Young’s modulus of the material, is second moment of area about principal y-axis, is
the applied bending moment about the y-axis and is the curvature of the beam (Timoshenko, 1948).
However, due to warping of the cross section of the passenger ship hull girders, relation (2.8) may not
be applicable. Nevertheless, relation (2.8) uniquely defines the measures of the load and the
deformation for evaluating bending stiffness of Euler-Bernoulli beam. It also indicates that when the
loading is kept constant and applied in exactly the same manner, the stiffness depends only on the
curvature. According to Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, the curvature is related to the vertical deflections
as
(2.9)
where w is deflection in z-direction and x is longitudinal co-ordinate of the beam. Thus, when the goal
is not to evaluate the exact value of bending stiffness of the investigated structure but to compare the
bending stiffness of different structures under identical external loading, vertical deflections can be
compared instead. Due to symmetry of the ship structure, the total vertical deflection will be defined in
the current work as shown in Figure 11. The total vertical displacement is measured at the location A
given in Figure 10.
18
Figure 11. Definition of the total vertical displacement
2.2.2 Stresses As was described in paragraph 2.1, one of the main paradigms of ship structural design is to consider
ship structures as beams in the global scale. At the beginning of the design of steel ships, the
behaviour of the ship structures has also been considered to follow the classical beam theories.
Consequently, it has always been common practice to use the terminology and methods from the
classical beam theories to describe the global response of the ship structures. Thus, the distribution
on normal strains in decks over the height of the ship structure has been one of the main methods of
describing the response of the ship structures under longitudinal bending. Even when the
inapplicability of classical beam theories on passenger ship structures was shown, attempts were
made to implement the classical theories in a certain manner to obtain enhanced normal strain
distribution over the height of the ship girder (i.e. Bleich, 1952). Moreover, after the implementation of
methods based on the theory of elasticity it became clear that the normal strain distribution cannot be
assumed uniform over the width of the decks of the passenger vessel (deOliveira, 1983). Thereby,
when observing normal strain distribution at a fixed longitudinal co-ordinate of the passenger ship
structure, the distribution of normal strains in decks does not only vary across the height but also
across the width of the structure. Thereby, since the FEM is used in the current global analysis,
average normal strain of all strains of all the plate elements across the width of individual decks will be
used in investigating the normal strain distribution. However, since the material is defined as steel with
the same Young’s modulus for the whole structure, the average normal stress distributions are
compared instead of average strains because it will also provide information about the usability of
selected plate thicknesses. This kind of approach has also been used before when studying hull-
deckhouse interaction with FEM (Paulling and Payer, 1968).
It should also be noted that the S4 shell element used for modelling the plating is three dimensional.
The output of normal stresses is presented at the plate top and plate bottom in FEMAP 10.1.1.
However, the current study is investigating the global behaviour of the structure. This means that the
membrane stresses are to be investigated. Thus, the average of plate top and bottom normal stresses
are used for calculating average normal stress in decks. Another approach would be to use membrane
forces for the plates which FEMAP 10.1.1 together with the plate thickness for obtaining the
Deformed state
Initial state
19
membrane stresses. However, the later approach is more labour intensive when compared with the
first option. The shear stresses are also investigated in critical locations in longitudinal bulkheads and
side shell of the hull.
2.2.3 Forces and moments Knowing the normal stresses in the deck elements, the membrane forces can be calculated. This is
used for obtaining the deck force distribution. The deck forces are used together with membrane force
of other longitudinal shell elements and axial forces from beam elements used in stiffener
discretisation for calculating the moment carried by the hull and superstructure.
When it comes to the separating the moments carried by the hull and superstructure, the moments are
traditionally calculated about the neutral axis which is the location of zero normal stresses which
develop in the vertical bending in longitudinal structural members of the ship girder (i.e. Remes et al.,
2011). In beams behaving according to classical beam theories, the neutral axis has a clear physical
meaning. A neutral axis is a line that forms when cross-section of the beam intersects the neutral
surface of the beam where the fibres do not undergo normal strain (Timoshenko, 1948). Thereby,
neutral axis denotes a part of the cross-section which is not longitudinally strained. However, as it was
previously discussed, uniform normal strain distribution cannot be assumed across the width of the
decks of the passenger vessels. Thus, the location of zero average normal stresses in decks could be
appropriate for define the location of the neutral axis. However, if the thickness of the deck plating is
not constant in breadth direction, the average normal stresses are not suitable for the definition neutral
axis. For this reason, in the current work, the neutral axis will be defined as a location of zero deck
force. The location of this neutral axis will be obtained in the local co-ordinate system, origin of which
lays in point A presented in Figure 10 by linear interpolation of the vertical co-ordinates of the decks
where membrane force changes signs.
The shear load carrying mechanism will be investigated by comparing shear flow in side shell of the
hull and longitudinal bulkheads. The reason lays in the fact that presenting elemental shear forces
does not give a good overview of the load carrying mechanism since the size of the elements varies
and thus, the forces carried by individual elements also vary considerably.
2.3 Description of research procedure
In this paragraph, the research procedure will be described. The investigation is divided into two
stages. Firstly, the responses of the proposed and the traditional structures are compared. Then the
sensitivity analysis will be performed on the proposed structure to enhance the understanding of the
load carrying mechanism and the performance of the proposed structure.
2.3.1 Comparison of the proposed structure and conventional cruise ship structure When compared with the traditional cruise ship structure, there are two distinctive requirements posed
on the structure which would enable to benefit from the m2cell modular outfitting concept. Firstly, the
accommodation decks have to be removed where to modules are to be positioned. Secondly, for
20
enabling rapid changing of modules, there should not be side plating for the superstructure. The
influence of these changes on hull-deckhouse interaction, stress levels, stiffness and load-carrying
mechanism has to be studied. For these purposes, two FE-models are created: one for representing
the conventional cruise ship structure and other for representing the proposed structure. The main
frame drawings of the traditional and proposed structure are given in Appendix 1 and 2 respectively.
The model of the traditional structure is shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Global FEA model of the traditional cruise ship structure
As can be seen from, transversal bulkheads in the main hull representing the watertight bulkheads
and the main fire zone bulkheads extending through the height of the entire structure are also
modelled. A closer look is also given to the side shell of the superstructure. The conventional structure
represents a modern design where the side shell of the structure does not participate in shear flow
and the shear forces are carried by the internal longitudinal bulkhead. A section of the model of the
proposed structure is illustrated in Figure 13.
21
Figure 13. Global FEA model of the proposed cruise ship structure
The proposed model was created based on the simplified structural model of the conventional cruise
ship. The side of the superstructure at the life boat recess has been moved closer to the centre line
and is located under the longitudinal bulkhead at y=4000. The decks and pillar lines were then
removed at the area where the outfitting modules are supposed to be positioned. The transversal
bulkheads have been kept at their original positions. However, the main fire bulkheads have been
widened to extend throughout the whole width of the hull.
2.3.2 Sensitivity analysis “Sensitivity analysis is an exploration of results from mathematical models to evaluate how they
depend on the values chosen for the parameters” (Rardin, 1998). Sensitivity analysis is usually
applied at the optimisation of structures for determining the influence of the design parameters on the
direction and rate of change of the performance function (Choi, 2005). For example, in the context of
ship structures, the performance can be measured by stiffness and weight whereas plate thicknesses
or stiffener spacing can be considered as design parameters. The aim of the sensitivity analysis in the
current context is to deepen the knowledge about the load carrying mechanism of the proposed
structure with the goal to enhance its performance. Thus, the sensitivity analysis will be conducted in a
simple form by changing important parameters which are selected based on the theories describing
hull-superstructure interaction and exploring and comparing the behaviour of the different designs.
The focus is on investigating the influence of changing the thickness of the plating at the boat deck
and at the side of the deckhouse on the performance and load carrying mechanism of the proposed
22
structure. Thinner plates on the main deck will reduce the amount of shear forces transmitted to the
side of the superstructure relieving the normal stresses in decks (Chapman,1951). The reduction of
thickness of the side plating of the deckhouse will have similar effect (Caldwell, 1957). However, these
alterations will also decrease the stiffness of the whole structure (deOliveira, 1983). On the other
hand, by increasing the plate thicknesses in these critical areas, the stiffness of the structure would
improve; however, normal stresses on the top of the deckhouse should increase. Nevertheless, these
parameters might hold the key to improve the performance of the proposed structure.
23
3. Results
This chapter is divided into two parts. Firstly, the comparison of responses of the proposed and the
traditional passenger ship structures is presented. This part will encompass detailed explanation of the
hull-deckhouse interaction and its influence on the load carrying mechanism of the structure.
Secondly, the results of the sensitivity analysis of the proposed structure are shown. All the results
have been scaled to correspond to the rule bending moment for the current vessel size.
3.1 Comparison of responses of the traditional and the proposed structure
In this paragraph, the responses of the traditional and the proposed structure are compared. Firstly,
the observed peculiarities in the hull-deckhouse interaction in the both structures will be presented
which due to their complicated nature have to be explained. Secondly, the stress levels and stiffness
of the investigated structures in order to determine in what extent the changes made to the traditional
structure would affect the performance of the proposed structure. The load carrying mechanism will be
explained by investigating force and moment distributions. Finally, the secondary effects are described
due to their strong influence on the primary scale.
3.1.1 Hull-deckhouse interaction In order to explain the differences in the response of the compared structures, observed peculiarities
in hull-deckhouse interaction have to be presented and explained. For achieving this, a closer look has
to be taken to the normal stress distribution in the individual decks and longitudinal bulkheads. The
normal stress distribution in decks and longitudinal bulkheads at mid-ship is illustrated for the
proposed and the traditional structures in Figure 14.
Figure 14 Normal stress distribution obtained with FEM in decks and longitudinal bulkheads at the mid-ship in proposed (on the left) and traditional (on the left) structures
139 MPa
123 MPa
75 MPa
-16 MPa
115 MPa
102 MPa
68 MPa 21 MPa
39 MPa
26 MPa
106 MPa 103 MPa
24
The normal stress distribution in individual longitudinal bulkheads can be considered more or less
linear. However, the normal stress distribution across the width of the decks is not uniform. This
phenomenon is also known as shear lag (Skaloud et al., 1991). At the connection of the
superstructure side and the deck, normal strains must be equal. The shear flow develops between the
superstructure side and deck plating which will cause shear deformation of the deck plating.
Consequently, the longitudinal displacements will lag behind those nearer to the superstructure side
leading to a non-uniform distribution of normal strains across the width of deck plating. Naturally, the
effects of shear lag become more pronounced when the offset distance of the deckhouse side from
the side of the hull increases
The non-uniformity of normal stress distribution is most visible on the boat deck of the proposed
structure. The normal stresses at the side of the boat deck plating are positive, whereas near the
centreline where the side of the superstructure is located, the normal stresses are negative. This
phenomenon can be explained with the help of a simple example showing the role of shear forces in
beam bending (Timoshenko, 1948). Let us consider two identical beams with solid cross-section
stacked on top of each other so that there is no friction between them and are both given the same
curvature as shown in Figure 15. It is also assumed that the responses of the beams follow Euler-
Bernoulli beam theory.
Figure 15. Two beams without shear force at the interface.
The bottom fibres of both beams in the current configurations are compressed, whereas top fibres are
stretched. Now, let us consider a beam that is composed by the two beams described in the previous
example by introducing shear force in their interface and is given the same curvature. The normal
stress distribution of the combined beams is given in Figure 16.
25
Figure 16. Two beams with shear force at the interface.
The fibres at the bottom of the lower beam are still compressed and fibres on top of the upper beam
are stretched. The top fibres of the lower beam and the bottom fibres of the upper beam will have the
same length as they would have in non-deformed state. The reasons is that there cannot be any
sliding due to shear force acting at the connection of these two beams, meaning that the normal forces
acting in the top fibres of the lower beam and bottom fibres of the upper beam will cancel each other.
In essence, shear force makes these two beams act as one with a new neutral axis at the connection
of the beams. As a result, the two beams acting as one will be stiffer than the system of two beams
which are not forced to act together by the shear forces since the internal moment inside the
combined beam is greater.
The previous example can be adapted to the proposed structure in the hogging condition. At first, let
there be no horizontal forces between the main deck and the superstructure side but only the vertical
forces which will make the superstructure follow the curvature of the main deck. Consequently, the
lower side of the superstructure side will be compressed and the main deck of the hull will be under
tension. However, when introducing shear forces between the deckhouse side and the boat deck, it
must be considered that the nature of the shear coupling will be far more complicated than in case of
two identical beams with solid cross-section and of the same width. In the previous example, the
assumption of validity of Euler-Bernoulli beam theory means that the normal and shear stress
distribution is uniform over the width of the beams. As was shown before, this is not the case in the
decks of the investigated structures due to shear lag. Thereby, in case of the proposed structure it
becomes possible that the deck is under compression near the side of the superstructure and under
tension near the side of the hull.
When studying the normal stress distributions in the decks under the longitudinal bulkheads in the
traditional structure, it appears that the normal stresses are reduced in the same manner. However,
the distribution of normal stresses is more complicated than in case of the traditional structure due to
fact that there are two longitudinal bulkheads located at different decks with different offset distances
from the lower side shells.
26
Another peculiarity is that the deckhouse tends to sink into the boat deck at the mid ship and vice
versa at the end of the compared structures as illustrated in Figure 17 and Figure 18 for the traditional
and the proposed structure respectively.
Figure 17. Vertical deflection of decks in traditional structure
Figure 18. Vertical deflection of decks in the proposed structure
In the traditional and the proposed structure, the superstructure sinks into the boat deck about 4 and 5
mm respectively. At the ends, the superstructure rises from the boat deck about 9 and 6 mm in the
proposed and traditional structures respectively. This means that the shear force develops in the
connection of longitudinal bulkheads and the decks in both structures and develops moment in the
-175
-125
-75
-25
25
75
125
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
Vert
ical
def
lect
ion,
mm
x co-ordinate, mmA (at the bottom) B (at the boat deck) C (at the sun deck)
-185
-135
-85
-35
15
65
115
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
Vert
ical
def
lect
ion,
mm
x co-ordinate, mmA (at the bottom) B (at the boat deck) C (at the sun deck)
27
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
-200 -100 0 100 200
z co-
ordi
nate
, mm
Normal stress, MPa
m2cell traditionalA
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
-80 -30 20 70
z co-
ordi
nate
, mm
Normal stress, MPa
traditional m2cellB
TRADITIONAL
M2CELL
superstructure which opposes the external moment. Since the boat deck allows certain amount of
vertical deflection, the deckhouses takes slightly smaller curvature than the main hull. Thus, the
phenomena related to the hull-deckhouse interaction of the compared structures are similar.
3.1.2 Stresses and stiffness At first, the influence of the changes made to the traditional structure on the stress levels is presented.
The comparison of average normal stress distribution in the decks is given for the mid-ship and x=L/4
in Figure 19.
At the mid-ship, the change in average stresses at mid-ship is most significant at the top of the
structure, where it has increased 21% and in the bottom, the stress has reduced about 19%. In the
proposed structure, previously described reduction of normal stresses in the boat deck and at the
lowest deck of the deckhouse is clearly visible. In the traditional structure, the reduction of normal
stress is more pronounced at the location where the upper longitudinal bulkhead is situated, whereas
at the boat deck, the reduction is almost unnoticeable. The influence of the changes made to the
proposed structure on the shape of the average normal stress distribution is less significant at x=L/4,
where it is almost linear for both structures. However, the average normal stress has considerably
increased on top of the proposed structure.
The comparison of shear stresses at x=L/4 in the sides of the hull and the superstructure of traditional
and the proposed structure are given in Figure 20.
Figure 19. Comparison of average normal stresses at A) x=L/2 and B) x=L/4
TRADITIONAL
M2CELL
28
Figure 20. Comparison of shear stresses at x=L/4
The removal of decks in the proposed structure has also increased the maximum shear stresses in the
deck house side by about 25%. In the proposed structure, the offsetting of the side of the deckhouse
has reduced shear stresses in the side of deckhouse near the boat deck at z=21300. At the same
time, the shear stresses have reduced in the hull side close to the boat deck. This means that due to
shear lag, the transitions of shear forces from the side shell of the hull to the deckhouse side has
reduced. The sudden increase of shear stresses at z=29000 in both structures is due to use different
plate thicknesses used for the deckhouse side and the longitudinal bulkheads in the proposed and
traditional structures respectively (see main frame drawings in Appendices 1 and 2). In case of the
traditional structure, where the offset distance of the deckhouse side is considerably smaller, the
reduction of shear stresses is not as pronounce above the boat deck as in case of the proposed
structure. The participation of decks in the shear flow in the traditional structure can also be seen as
they reduce the shear stresses in longitudinal bulkheads.
The impact of removing the decks from the deckhouse on the stiffness of the structure is given in
Table 1 together with the mass of the unit length of the longitudinal members of the steel structure and
the location of the vertical centre of gravity relative to the bottom plating.
Table 1. Comparison of vertical deflections and cross-sectional properties
model Total deflection, mm VCOG, m mass, t/m m2cell 310 (+11.8%) 16.3 (-12.2 %) 48.3 (-14.7 %) traditional 277 18.5 56.6
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
24000
28000
32000
36000
40000
44000
30 50 70 90 110
z co-
ordi
nate
, mm
Shear stress, MPatraditional m2cell
TRADITIONAL
M2CELL
29
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
24000
28000
32000
36000
40000
44000
-30.00 -15.00 0.00 15.00 30.00
z co-
ordi
nate
, mm
Deck forces, MNm2cell traditional
A
M2CELL
TRADITIONAL
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
24000
28000
32000
36000
40000
44000
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
z co-
ordi
nate
, mm
Deck forces, MNm2cell traditional
B
M2CELL
TRADITIONAL
The total deflection of the proposed structure is 11.8% larger than in case of traditional structure.
However, in case of the proposed structure, the mass and the height of VCOG are smaller by 14.7%
and 12.1% respectively.
3.1.2 Forces and moments In order to understand the differences in the load carrying mechanism, the force and moment
distributions are compared. The comparison of deck force distributions at x=L/2 and x=L/4 is given in
Figure 21.
As could have been expected, the narrow decks near the centre line of the proposed structure carry
considerably less normal force when compared to the wide decks in the traditional structure.
Consequently, the upper decks carry more normal force in the proposed structure.
In order to obtain a better understanding of the differences of the shear load carrying mechanism of
the investigated structures, shear flow in the sides of the hull and deckhouses are given for both
structures at x=L/4 in Figure 22.
Figure 21. Comparison of deck forces at A) x=L/2 and B) x=L/4
30
It can be seen that the removal of decks and offsetting the superstructure side has reduced the
contribution of the hull side for carrying the shear load. The importance of the side of the deckhouse
has however increased. As in the case of the shear stresses, the participation of decks in the shear
flow is also visible. In case of the traditional structure, the similar reductions of shear flow due to shear
lag appear in the upper longitudinal bulkhead as at the deckhouse side in the proposed structure.
For obtaining the bending moment distributions, the location of neutral axis which was defined in
paragraph 3.1.4, was found and is presented as a function of the longitudinal co-ordinate system for
both structures in Figure 23. The location of neutral axes varies along the length of the both structures,
being located under the boat deck near the mid-ship and rising when moving towards the end. In case
of the proposed structure, the maximum height of the neutral axis is above the boat deck. However, in
case of the traditional structure, the neutral axis rises to the deck where the upper longitudinal
bulkhead is located. In both structures, the maximum height of the neutral axis is located above the
deck where the deckhouse side or the longitudinal bulkhead is closer to the centre line. This means
that the location of the neutral axis is determined by the hull-deckhouse interaction since the
deckhouse side tends to reduce normal strains in the boat deck, thus increasing the height of the
neutral axis. When comparing the cross-section of the traditional and the proposed structure and the
location of the neutral axes, it appears that the reasons for the increased height of the neutral axes are
the same.
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
24000
28000
32000
36000
40000
44000
0.25 0.75 1.25
z co-
ordi
nate
, mm
Shear flow MN/mm2cell traditional
TRADITIONAL
M2CELL
Figure 22. Comparison of shear flow at x=L/4
31
Figure 23. Comparison of the height of neutral axis along the length with the vertical shear force distribution
Only difference is that the longitudinal bulkhead which is closer to the centre line is higher than in the
proposed structure. It should also be noted that due to complicated normal force distribution at the
ends where several locations of zero deck forces were observed, the neutral axis locations was not
calculated. It should also be noted that there is a large oscillation in the height of the neutral axis,
especially towards the ends. For explaining the change of the neutral axes heights and the oscillation
of neutral axis position, the look has to be taken into the longitudinal distribution of normal force in the
decks. This will be conducted in the next paragraph.
The bending moment variation along the length of the structures is given in Figure 24 along with the
contribution of hulls of the proposed and traditional structures.
05000
10000150002000025000300003500040000
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
z co-
ordi
nate
, mm
x co-ordinate, mm
m2cell traditional
traditional m2cell
web-frame fire bulkhead
watertight bulkhead
Q(x)
x
32
Figure 24. Bending moment variation along the ship length with the vertical shear force distribution
As can be seen, when the neutral axis is defined as the location of zero deck forces, the
superstructure where the decks have been removed would carry more bending moment at the mid
ship than in the case of the traditional structure. Similarly to the location of neutral axis, the ratios of
bending moment carried by the hull oscillate when moving closer to the end and are not calculate
where the neutral axes were not calculated. It should also be noted that the moment inside the
elements was not considered when calculating the total moment of the structure. However, when
calculating the total moment carried by the whole structure, the same value is obtained as the applied
moment on the structure. This means that the magnitude of the moments inside the individual
elements is trivial in the global scale or the moments cancel each other out when considering the hull
and superstructure together.
3.1.3 Secondary effects As was shown in the previous paragraph, the location of neutral axes and the ratios of the moment
carried by the hull and superstructure oscillated strongly when moving away from the mid-ship. These
are caused by strong secondary effects which will be described in this paragraph.
Since the location of neutral axis was determined as the location of zero deck force, the comparison of
deck forces is needed for determining the relevant factors influencing the location of the neutral axes
and the moment distributions. At first, the normal forces in the deckhouse decks of the proposed
structure are compared in Figure 25.
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
M to
tal/M
appl
ied.
max
x co-ordinate, mm
Mtotal Mhull (m2cell) Mhull (traditional)
x
web-framefire bulkhead
watertight bulkhead
Q(x) L/4
33
Figure 25. Deck force in the deckhouse decks of the proposed structure
The red lines in Figure 25 represent transversal fire bulkheads which extend throughout the height of
the whole structure. The grey lines represent the location of web-frames. As can be seen from Figure
25, the oscillation of neutral axis position is not caused by the deck force distribution in the deckhouse.
There is a minute oscillation of deck forces in decks 12 and 13 where side openings and also pillars
create the local stress concentrations which are visible in the overall force distribution. However, the
oscillation is so small that it cannot cause the change in neutral axis location in the magnitude visible
in Figure 23. The normal forces in the deckhouse decks of the traditional structure are compared in
Figure 26.
Figure 26. Deck force in the deckhouse decks of the traditional structure
As can be seen, the total membrane forces carried by the decks oscillate strongly in the deckhouse of
the traditional structure. The difference between the deckhouses of the proposed and traditional
structures is the absence of pillars in the proposed structure. Thereby, the pillars are the main source
-1
4
9
14
19
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Deck
forc
e, M
N
x co-ordinate, mmD7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 sundeck
web-framefire bulkhead
sundeck
D13D12D11D10D9D8D7
boat deck
-2
02
46
810
12
1416
18
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Deck
forc
e, M
N
x co-ordinate, mmD7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 sundeck
web-framefire bulkhead sundeck
D13
D11D10D9D8
D12
D7boat deck
34
of the strong secondary effects encountered in the primary response level. The source of these effects
lays in the peculiarities of the hull-deckhouse interaction. However, due to similarity of the hull-
deckhouse interaction of the compared structures, the source of the secondary effects will be
explained by investigating the deck forces in the proposed structure due to its simplicity when
compared to the traditional structure. The longitudinal distribution of normal forces in the hull,
excluding the double bottom, is given in Figure 27.
Figure 27 Deck forces force in the hull of the proposed structure with the vertical shear force distribution
As can be seen, the oscillation of normal force carried by the presented decks is strong. Thereby, in
case of the proposed structure, the oscillation of the location of neutral axis is directly related to the
presence of pillars in the hull. The other peculiarity is the upper decks of the hull (D4, D5 and the boat
deck) which were under tensions also become under compression when moving towards the end of
the structure. For opening up the physical causes of these behaviours, closer look has to be taken at
the deformation and the normal stress distribution of the boat deck in Figure 28.
-7
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Deck
forc
e, M
N
x co-ordinate, mm
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 boat deck
web-frame
watertight bulkhead
boat deck
D5
fire bulkhead
D4D3D2D1
xL/4
Q(x)
35
Figure 28. Deformed main deck of the proposed structure with normal stress distribution
As can be seen from, the boat deck is completely under compression at the very end of the structure.
The reason is that there cannot exist any force which would resist the tendency of the lower part of the
deckhouse side to contract. At the mid-ship, the boat deck is under tension near the side shell of the
hull and under compression near the side of the deckhouse. However, as can be seen at section A in
Figure 28 the boat deck is under tension under the deckhouse and compressed when moving away
from the centre line. The reason lays in the fact that pillars have been used under the boat decks
which allow certain amount of shear deformation between decks without considerably influencing the
membrane forces. As can be seen in Figure 29, when comparing the locations of the web frames
under the boat deck in the initial and the deformed states, their longitudinal displacement is
cumulative, meaning that the shear deformation between the decks increases in the hull when moving
towards the end of the structure.
Figure 29. Deformed and initial state of the boat deck
77.7 MPA
-22.1 MPA
0
deckhouse side
centreline
mid
-shi
p A
A
initial state
deformed state
36
It should also be noted that the shear deformation between the decks is smaller near the sides of the
hull and larger when moving towards the centre-line. Consequently, as illustrated in Figure 30, the
pillars under the boat deck will start to restrict the shear deformation between the decks, causing
tension shown in the boat deck at section A in Figure 28.
Figure 30. Shear deformation between the decks in the hull
Tension visible at section A in Figure 28 is only present in the boat deck because the presence of the
deckhouse side which will deform the deck plating towards the mid-ship. Due to the absence of this
influence in lower decks, these decks will be compressed across the whole width. In addition, as
illustrated in Figure 31 the pillars will also be bent at the connections with decks. This is the reason of
the strong oscillation of the deck forces which are connected by pillars and thus, also the reason
behind the strong oscillation of the position of the defined neutral axis
Figure 31. Bending of the pillars
A-A
A
A
pillars
123 MPa
0
-80.7 MPa
Deckhouse side
Longitudinal girder Pillar
37
The deck cannot balance the bending moment of the pillars by itself, due to its small thickness. Thus,
longitudinal girders and the side of the deckhouse at the connection of the boat deck will carry the
moment. The mechanism of balancing the moment exposed by the pillars is illustrated in Figure 32
Figure 32. Local effects due to bending of pillars
The flange and web of the girder and the side of the deckhouse together with the deck plating carries
the moment. As a consequence, the membrane force in the deck will be reduced on the mid-ship side
of the pillar and vice versa on the other side. The mechanism is the same in case there is no
longitudinal bulkhead above the longitudinal girder.
The distribution of normal forces is also given for the double bottom in Figure 33
Figure 33. Deck forces in the double bottom of the proposed structure
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Deck
forc
e, M
N
x co-ordinate, mmbottom tanktop average
web-frame
watertight bulkhead tanktop
web-frame
fire bulkhead
watertight bulkhead
bottom
38
As can be seen, there are strong secondary effects in the double bottom at the location of transversal
bulkheads. However, the oscillation of the normal forces carried in the bottom and tank top are in the
opposite phase. Thus, these forces will not cause the magnitude of oscillation in the location of neutral
axis seen in Figure 23. It can also be seen that at the end of the structure, the bottom becomes under
tension and tank top under compression at the end of the structure. The location where the transition
occurs is where second neutral axis is formed. The reason for the strong secondary effect in the
double bottom is caused by the complicated loading due to the hull deckhouse interaction. As was
shown in the previous paragraph in Figure 18 the end of the deckhouse will rise from the boat deck
and will sink into it at the mid-ship. This means that the vertical shear forces are applied to the main
hull and carried mainly by the transversal bulkheads to the double bottom as illustrated in Figure 34.
Figure 34. Loading of the double bottom
3.2 Sensitivity analysis
The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in the current paragraph. A number of designs will
be investigated with different combinations of plate thicknesses used in the boat deck and the side of
the deckhouse. The aim is to investigate the influence of the varied parameters on the load carrying
mechanism of the proposed structure with the goal to enhance its performance
3.2.1 Thin and thick deckhouse side on a thin boat deck In the current comparison, boat deck thickness is kept the same as in the initial mode. The boat deck
thickness is small near the side wall of the super structure (5mm+HP 100x6), thus load carrying
capacity of the boat deck has been reduced considerably. The comparison of behaviour in hogging
condition is given for three models:
1) m2cell_initial – this is the initial model compared to a model of traditional structure in the
previous paragraph, main frame drawing given in Appendix 2
2) m2cell_1 –thin plating (5 mm) in deckhouse side, main frame drawing given in Appendix 3
3) m2cell_2 – thick plating (13 mm) in deckhouse side, main frame drawing given in Appendix 4
39
0
4 000
8 000
12 000
16 000
20 000
24 000
28 000
32 000
36 000
40 000
44 000
-30.00 -15.00 0.00 15.00 30.00
z co-
ordi
nate
, mm
Deck forces, MNm2cellm2cell_1m2cell_2
A
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
24000
28000
32000
36000
40000
44000
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
z co-
ordi
nate
, mm
Deck forces, MNm2cellm2cell_1m2cell_2
B
The cross-sectional drawings of all the models are given in Appendix 1. The comparison of deck force
distribution is given in Figure 35.
As can be seen, the effect on the deck forces at the top of the superstructure is marginal. However,
the influence is noticeable at the bottom plating and most significant near the boat deck. In case of the
thicker plating in the longitudinal bulkhead, the force carried in the boat deck has decreased
considerably. Since the boat deck is relatively thin when compared to the thickness of the longitudinal
bulkhead, the extent of shear deformation and thus reduction of normal forces is larger when
compared to other designs. The deck distribution of deck forces have also changed in the bottom and
tank top. The comparison of shear flow and stresses is given in Figure 36.
Figure 35. Distribution of deck forces at A) x=L/2 and B) x=L/4
40
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
24000
28000
32000
36000
40000
44000
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
z co-
ordi
nate
, mm
Shear flow, MN/m
m2cell m2cell_1 m2cell_2
B
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
24000
28000
32000
36000
40000
44000
35 55 75 95 115
z co-
ordi
nate
, mm
Shear stress, MPa
m2cell m2cell_1 m2cell_2A
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0Boat deck Sun deck
Vert
ical
def
lect
ion,
mm
m2cell_1
m2cell_2
m2cell
A 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Boat deck Sun deck
Vert
ical
def
lect
ion,
mm
m2cell_1
m2cell_2
m2cell
B
As could have been expected, the thicker longitudinal bulkhead carries more shear force than the
thinner one. As a result, the shear force carried by the side of the hull has been reduced in case of the
Thick deckhouse side and vice versa in case of the thinner deckhouse side. The comparison of
vertical deflections of decks in ship co-ordinate system is given in Figure 37.
It can be seen that the deckhouse sinks slightly deeper into the hull in case of the thick bulkhead. On
the other hand, the end of thick bulkhead raises considerably less from the main deck than the thinner
one. Thus, the difference in curvature of superstructure and the main hull is smaller in case of the
Figure 36. Comparison of A) the shear stresses and B) the shear flow
Figure 37. Relative deflection of the decks in A) x=L/2 and B) x=L
41
thicker bulkhead. The difference in curvature is caused by the moment produced by shear force at the
connection of deckhouse side and the main deck. However, the magnitude of the shear forces
depends on the main deck ability carry shear forces. In the current models, the deck thickness was
constant and only the deckhouse side thickness was varied. This means that the shear force causing
the difference of the curvature is the same for the compared models. However, the deckhouse side
with smaller plate thickness will deflect more when compared to the one with thicker plate thickness
when the moment caused by the moment is the same. The reasons is that the thin deckhouse side will
also deform more than the thicker one. Due to this, the thinner deckhouse side sinks less into the main
deck. This statement is also supported by larger vertical deflection of the sun deck in case of thin
deckhouse side.
The total deflections and mass of the unit length of the longitudinal members and the height of the
VCOG is given in Table 2 for the compared designs.
Table 2. Comparison of the total deflections, mass and height of VCOG
Although, the decks have been removed from the investigated structures, the total vertical deflections
in case of the thick longitudinal bulkhead the deflections are even comparable to the traditional
structure. The masses and the height of VCOG have decreased however.
3.2.2 Thin and thick deckhouse side on a thick boat deck In the current comparison, boat deck thickness is increased to be uniform over the whole width
(13mm+HP 140x8). The comparison of behaviour of three models is given:
1) m2cell_initial – this is the initial model compared to a model of traditional structure in the first
paragraph, main frame drawing given in Appendix 2
2) m2cell_3 – this model has a superstructure wall made of relatively thin material (5mm), main
frame drawing given in Appendix 5
3) m2cell_4 – this model has a superstructure wall made of relatively thick material (13 mm),
main frame drawing given in Appendix 6
Design max vertical deflection, mm VCOG, m mass, t/m
m2cell_1 321 (+15.9 %) 16.1 (-12.9 %) 46.4 (-18.0 %)
m2cell_2 289 (+4.30 %) 16.7 (-9.40 %) 48.4 (-14.5 %) m2cell 310 (+11.8 %) 16.2 (-12.2 %) 48.3 (-14.7 %) traditional 277 18.5 56.6
42
0.00
4000.00
8000.00
12000.00
16000.00
20000.00
24000.00
28000.00
32000.00
36000.00
40000.00
44000.00
-30.00 -15.00 0.00 15.00 30.00
z co-
ordi
nate
, mm
Deck forces, MN
m2cellm2cell_3m2cell_4
A
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
24000
28000
32000
36000
40000
44000
-15 -5 5 15
z co-
ordi
nate
, mm
Deck forces, MNm2cell
m2cell_3
m2cell_4
B
The comparison of deck force distribution is given in Figure 38.
As in the previous comparison, the change in the deck forces in the top deck is marginal. However,
changes of deck forces in the bottom and near the boat deck are more noticeable. The change in deck
forces can be explained using the analogy from the previous paragraph. The thicker longitudinal
bulkhead will reduce the stresses in the middle of the boat deck, thus reducing the whole force carried
by the deck. As in the previous cases, the alterations have also changed the deck force distribution in
the lower part of the hull. The comparison of shear stresses and flow is given in Figure 39.
Figure 38. Comparison of deck forces in A) x=L/2 and B) x=L/4
43
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
0.45 0.95
z co-
ordi
nate
, mm
Shear flow, MN/m
m2cell m2cell_3 m2cell_4A
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45 95z c
o-or
dina
te, m
m
Shear stress, MPa
m2cell m2cell_3 m2cell_4B
-9-8
-7-6-5-4
-3-2-1
0Boat deck Sun deck
Vert
uica
l def
lect
ions
, mm
m2cell_3m2cell_4m2cell
A 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Boat deck Sun deck
Vert
ical
def
lect
ion,
mm
m2cell_3m2cell_4m2cell
B
When comparing the results with the previous shear stress distribution, it reveals that the thicker boat
deck will increase the shear stresses at the connection of the deckhouse side. This is expected since
the thicker boat deck plating is able to carry more loads with smaller deformation. The comparison of
vertical deflections of decks in ship co-ordinate system is given in Figure 40.
Figure 39. Comparison of A) shear stresses and B) shear flow
Figure 40. Relative deflection of the decks in A) x=L/2 and B) x=L
44
Thick and thin deckhouse sides behave in the similar way on the thick boat deck as on the thin boat
deck. The relative deflections are smaller in case of thicker bulkhead which follows the logic of the
comparison presented in the previous paragraph. However, the deflections are slightly larger when
compared to the deflections on the thinner boat deck. This can be explained by the fact that the shear
force at the connection of the boat deck is larger and thus, larger moment develops in the side of the
deckhouse wall.
The total deflections and mass of the unit length of the longitudinal members and the height of the
VCOG is given in Table 3 for the compared designs.
Table 3. . Comparison of total deflections, mass and height of VCOG
As was found in the previous paragraph, the hull girder stiffness is higher in case of thicker deckhouse
side. As can be seen, when compared with the traditional structure, the vertical stiffness has increased
5.2% in the design where thicker plating was used in both the side of the deckhouse and the boat
deck. However, the overall weight is reduced 10.8 % and the height of VCOG 8.2 % when compared
to the proposed structure
model max deflection, mm VCOG, m mass, t/m m2cell_3 296 (+6.70 %) 16.3 (-11.5 %) 48.5 (-14.3 %)
m2cell_4 263 (-5.20%) 17.0 (-8.20 %) 50.5 (-10.8 %) m2cell 310 (+11.8 %) 16.2 (-12.2 %) 48.3 (-14.7 %) traditional 277 18.5 56.6
45
4. Discussion and Conclusions
The aim of the current thesis was to investigate the impact of the structural changes required for a
conventional cruise ship structure in order to satisfy the needs posed by the m2cell modular outfitting
concept. A conventional cruise ship structure with internal longitudinal bulkheads for carrying shear
forces was selected for the basis for creating the proposed structure. The differences in hull-
deckhouse interaction, load carrying mechanism and the performance between the proposed and the
traditional structures were examined. An attempt was also made to profit the knowledge about the
load carrying mechanism of the proposed structure to enhance its performance to a level comparable
to the traditional structure.
The results indicate that the nature of the hull-deckhouse interaction in the selected traditional cruise
ship structure and the proposed structure does not differ. Moreover, the mechanics of the hull-
deckhouse interaction follows the explanations given by various authors describing the phenomenon
(i.e. Bleich, 1952; Schade 1966). However, in the light of the current work, it would be appropriate to
take a closer look at the previous theories and methods used for evaluating the response of the
vessels where hull-superstructure or hull-deckhouse interaction must be considered from the
perspective of the modern cruise ship design.
For facilitating the discussion, the use of terms superstructure and deckhouse is loosen. In essence,
distinguishing deckhouses from superstructures is important since in case of deckhouses, the shear
lag effect at the boat deck is an important factor. However, if the superstructure is defined as general
decked structure on the boat deck and the relevant shear effects are classified, the loosening of this
term is justified. In essence, the shear effects can be generalized as the anomalies in the context of
classical beam theory which reveal as a warping of the cross-section of the whole hull girder. The
results indicate that the response of the investigated structures are defined by the shear coupling of
the hull and superstructure and the shear effects in the decks and longitudinal bulkheads or side shells
of the whole structure. Thus, the theories are also distinguished by the locations where they take into
account the shear effects since in the earliest works; the focus was on describing the shear effects at
the connection of the main deck and the superstructure only. In addition, three criteria are used in the
evaluation of the previously presented methods and theories which are important in the context of
modern cruise ship design. First of them is the applicability to multi-deck structures. This is important
in the modern cruise ship design and was not considered in the early works since the passenger ships
at the era had primitive deckhouses. The second criterion is the ability to grasp 3D-effects of the
structural behaviour. This is important since the behaviour of modern cruise ship structures cannot be
described by investigating 2D sections of the structure (Remes et al., 2011). The third criterion is the
suitability of the method for the early design process of the modern cruise ship structure.
46
A comparison of selected methods and theories based on the described phenomena is given in Table
4.
Table 4. Comparison of methods and theories
App
roac
h
Theory or method
Shear effects at the connection of the hull and
superstructure
Shear effects (in hull or
superstructure) Usable in multi-deck
super-structures
3D effects
Usable at early
design phase of modern
passenger vessels
shea
r lag
in t
he
mai
n de
ck
vert
ical
stiff
ness
of
mai
n de
ck shear effects
in the superstructure
side or longitudinal bulkheads
deck
s
supe
rstr
uctu
re si
de
or lo
ngitu
dina
l bu
lkhe
ad
Bea
m th
eory
Crawford, 1950
NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO
Bleich, 1952
NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO
Muckle, 1962
NO YES YES YES YES YES NO NO
Chapman, 1957
NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO
Schade, 1966
YES YES NO YES NO NO NO NO
Naar et al., 2004
NO YES YES NO YES YES YES YES
Pla
ne s
tress
Caldwell, 1957
NO YES YES YES YES NO NO NO
Jaeger & Woortman,
1961 NO YES YES YES YES NO NO NO
Oth
er
Heder & Ulfvarson,
1991 NO NO NO YES YES YES NO YES
Fransman, 1988
NO YES YES YES YES YES NO YES
FEM YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO
47
When examining the comparison of methods in Table 4, it can clearly be seen that the older methods
cannot be applied for investigating the modern cruise ship structure. However, the shortcomings of the
older methods are due to the peculiarities of the investigated structures rather than the researchers’
ability to grasp the physical phenomenon itself. At the era of presenting the older theories (i.e. Bleich,
1952; Cladwell, 1957 etc.) the passenger ship structures were considerably simpler when compared to
the modern cruise ship structures. Thus, a number of simplifications were allowed. The more recent
works can be implemented in some of the modern design. For example, the method offered by
Fransman (1988) proved to be a fairly good tool for evaluating the response of the large passenger
ship at the early design phase. However, Fransman’s (1988) work was an enhanced method proposed
by Caldwell (1957) and thereby it does not take into account shear lag at the boat deck where the
superstructure is located. Heder and Ulfvarson (1991) provided a method for evaluating the response
of the passenger ships which have large opening at the deckhouse side. However, their method
cannot describe the interaction between the hull and superstructure when the sides of the
superstructure are offset from the side shell of the hull. So far, the most versatile method for analysing
the large passenger ship structures has been provided by Naar et al. (2004). However, the method
cannot take into account the shear lag in the decks. One of the main assumptions made by Naar et al.
(2004) is that the decks of the large passenger ships can be considered as thin walled beams. In case
of the currently presented structures, this assumption is invalid for some decks. However, it seems
that the method can be modified to take into account the shear effects in the decks and could provide
a formidable tool for evaluating the response of a modern cruise ship structures at the early design
phase. The advances in the computing hardware and the development of equivalent shell elements
(i.e. Avi, 2012) suggest that the use of FEM might also become feasible at the early design phase of
modern passenger ships.
When it comes to comparing the responses of the investigated structures to the responses of the ship
structures which have been presented in the literature, it becomes apparent that there are very few
similarities. The reason is that the majority of the works dealing with the hull-deckhouse interaction
deal with the older generations of passenger ship (i.e. Vasta, 1949; Bleich, 1952) structures or the
presented structures are not comparable (i.e. Muckle, 1962; Fransman, 1988; Naar et al., 2004) to the
ones investigated in the current work. However, the structure investigated by Remes et al. (2011) was
comparable to the traditional structure presented in the current work. Remes et al. (2011) reported
similar effects in the response of the investigated structure as was encountered in the current thesis.
The height of the neutral axis also increased when moving toward the end of the structure and
secondary effects described in the current work were also encountered. However, Remes et al. (2011)
did not discuss the physical reasons behind those effects.
The load carrying mechanism of the investigated structures had surprisingly small differences. In both
structures, superstructures carried more bending moment than the main hull when the reference point
is selected at the location of zero deck forces. This follows well the description given for the modern
cruise ship structures (Kujala, 2003). However, it was noticed that the deckhouse of the proposed
48
structure contributed slightly more to the bending moment carrying capacity of the whole hull girder. In
a sense, this result is intriguing since the wide accommodation decks are not present in the proposed
structure. However, a critical mind has to be reserved when interpreting this result. The moment was
calculated about the location of zero deck forces. It was shown that the neutral axis changes position
over the length of the investigated structures due to the hull-superstructure interaction induced
secondary effects. Nevertheless, the neutral axis is often used for calculating the moment carried by
the passenger ship structure (i.e. Remes et al., 2011). However, the term neutral axis itself originates
from the classical beam theories. In the current and previous works investigating passenger ship
structures, it was clearly shown that the basic assumptions made in the classical beam theories are
violated. The loose treatment of the terms originating from the classical beam theories can lead to
invalid understandings and calculation methods when considering cruise ship structures. For example,
in the current work it was shown that the response of the proposed structure was strongly affected by
the shear stiffness of the boat deck. The shear stiffness has two components in the current approach:
the vertical and horizontal shear stiffness. It was shown that reduced horizontal shear stiffness
increased the effect of shear lag which decreased the overall vertical stiffness of the structure. In the
classical beam theories, the vertical stiffness is described by flexural stiffness which depends on the
Young’s modulus and the second moment of the cross-sectional area of the beam (Timoshenko,
1949). Maximising the second moment of the cross-section of the cruise ship structure has been
offered as one objective in the optimisation process (i.e. Caprace et al., 2010). This however does not
lead to optimal structural design solution since the maximisation of the second moment of the area in
cruise ship structure leads to increasing the amount of material in the top and the bottom plating and
reducing the amount of material used at the middle. This leads to a rapid decrease of the vertical
stiffness of the structure which is highly unwanted in case of the cruise ship structures. In essence,
using the terms such as flexural rigidity and neutral axis in the context of the compared cruise ship
structure is a paradox since the hull-deckhouse interaction at the boat deck needs to be described
with the theory of elasticity, rather than the terms which are based on the classical beam theories from
the strength of materials. However, the results indicated that the deckhouse and the hull separately
behave more or less according to the classical beam theories as have been suggested by early works
describing the hull-deckhouse interaction (i.e. Bleich, 1952).
When it comes to the impact of removing the decks and creating a narrow deckhouse on the
performance of the cruise ship structure, it was noted that the increase of the normal and shear
stresses was noticeable in the proposed structure. The vertical stiffness also suffered considerably.
However, the increase of stresses occurred at the locations where relatively thin plates were used.
Thus, it seems that the acceptable stress levels might be achieved with reasonable measures.
Moreover, the sensitivity analysis suggested that the vertical stiffness of the structure could increase
considerably when using thicker plating for the boat deck and the deckhouse side. In case of a one
design, even greater vertical stiffness was achieved than in case of the traditional structure. However,
the savings in the structural weight and the height of the VCOG was considerable when compared to
the traditional structure. Naturally, the vertical stiffness of the traditional structure can be increased in
49
the same manner as in the case of the proposed structure by using thicker plates at the longitudinal
bulkheads and the decks participating in the shear flow. On the other hand, these measures would
have negative impact on the height of the VCOG and the weight of the whole structure. However, it is
too early to make any conclusions one the weight savings of the whole cruise ship structure. The
m2cell modular outfitting system has not been developed yet and the weight of the modules and their
installation system is unknown. Thereby the gains in the weight and the location of VCOG of the whole
structure are hypothetical at the moment. Thus, further studies are needed for making any statements
about the feasibility of the m2cell modular outfitting system. Nevertheless, the necessity of using
accommodation decks for carrying the vertical bending moment can be questioned when considering
the investigated structures. In essence, the effectiveness of the deckhouse decks has been
investigated before (i.e. Caldwell, 1957; Muckle, 1966). It has been shown that the effect of shear lag
strongly affects the load carrying capacity of the decks (Muckle, 1966).
When considering further investigation of the m2cell structure, it must be considered that a number of
simplifications have been made in the current work when studying the proposed structure. However, it
seems that the influence of the simplification is not the main concern at this stage. Due to the removal
of the accommodation decks and absence of the side shell, torsional stiffness has been reduced
dramatically. The same applies to the horizontal stiffness. The dynamic response will have to be
investigated, since low eigen frequencies of the structure will have a devastating effect on the comfort
level. For this reason, the issues related to the torsional and horizontal stiffness and dynamic
response of the proposed structure should be addressed.
50
References
Ahola, M. 2010. Living in a Motion. Master’s thesis. Aalto University School of Art and Design.
Department of Design. Helsinki.88 p.
Andric, J. & Zanic, V. 2010. The Global Structural Response Model for Multi-Deck Ships in Concept
Design Stage. Ocean Engineering, Vol. 37, pp.688-704.
Avi, E. 2012. Equivalent shell element for ship structural design. Master’s thesis. Aalto University
School of Engineering, Department of mechanical Engineering, Ship Laboratory. Espoo. 62 p.
Baumgart, F. 2000. Stiffness – an unknown world of mechanical science. Injury, Int. J. Care Injured.
vol 31 pp. 14-23.
Bergström, M. 2010. Longitudinal Strength Analysis of a Cruise Ship with a Narrow Superstructure.
Master’s thesis. Aalto University School of Engineering, Department of mechanical Engineering, Ship
Laboratory. Espoo. 102 p.
Bleich, H.H. 1952. Nonlinear Distribution of Bending Stresses due to Distortion of the Cross Section.
J. Applied Mechanics. vol. 29. p. 95-104
Caldwell, J. B. 1957. The effect of superstructures on the longitudinal strength of ships. The Institution
of Naval Architects. Vol. 99, p. 664.
Caprace, J.D. et al. 2010. Multi-criteria Scantling Optimisation of Cruise Ships. Ship Technology
Research, Schifftechnik, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 210-220.
Carrera, E. et al. 2011.Beam Structures. Classical and Advanced Theories. UK: John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd. ISBN 9780470972007.
Chapman, J.C. 1957. The Interaction Between a Ship’s Hull and a Long Superstructure. Trans. INA. p.
618.
Choi, K. K. 2005. Structural sensitivity analysis and optimization. Germany: Springer Science+
Business Media. ISBN: 0387273069.
Crawford, L. 1950. Theory of Long Ship’s Superstructures. Trans. SNAME. Vol 58, p. 693-732.
deOliveira, JG. 1983. Hull-deck interaction. In: Evands JH, editor. Ship Structural Design Concepts,
second cycle. USA: Cornell Maritime Press; p. 160–278.
Kujala, P. 2003. Development of Innovative Structural Concepts for advanced Passenger Vessels.
Det Norske Veritas (DNV), 2009. Rules for Classification of Ships
51
Det Norske Veritas (DNV), 2007. Direct Strength Analysis of Hull Structures in Passenger Ships.
Ehlers, S. 2011. Large Complex Structures. Lecture Notes (2nd version). Aalto University School of
Engineering, Department of mechanical Engineering, Ship Laboratory. Espoo.
Fransman, J. 1988. The Influence of Passenger Ship Superstructures on the Response of the Hull
Girder. Trans. RINA.
Heder, M. & Ulfvarson, A. 1991. Hull Beam Behaviour of Passenger Ships. Marine Structures vol 4,
pp. 17-34.
Hughes O.F, et al. 2010. Ship structural analysis and design. Jersey City, N.J. USA: Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers. ISBN: 9780939773787
Hughes, O.F. 1983. Ship Structural Design: A Rationally-Based, Computer-Aided Optimization
Approach. John Wiley &Sonds inc. ISBN 0471032417.
International Maritime Organisation, IMO. 1999. SOLAS, International Convention for the Safety of Life
at Sea. IMO Publishing. ISBN 9280161016.
ISSC, 1997. Proceedings of the 13th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress. Trondheim
Jaeger, H.E. and Woortman J.J. 1961. Some New Factors in the Calculation of the Interaction
between a Ship’s Hull and a Long Deckhouse. Trans. RINA.
Kauppi, A. 2012. M2cell Concept – an interchangeable module system for cruise ship hotel spaces.
Master’s thesis. Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Department of Architecture.
Helsinki. 40p.
Klanac, A. and Jelovica, J. 2009.Vectorization and constraint grouping to enhance optimization of
marine structures. Marine Structures 22(2). pp. 225-245.
Muckle, W. 1962. The Influence of Large Side Openings on the Efficiency of Superstructure. Trans.
RINA, p. 177-178.
Muckle, W. 1966. Superstructures with Large Side Openings: a Comparison between Theory and
Experiment. Trans. RINA.
Naar H. et al. 2004. A Theory of Coupled Beams for Strength Assessment of Passenger Ships. Marine
Structures 12. vol 17(8). pp. 590-611.
Paulling, J.R. and Payer, H.G. 1968. Hull-Deckhouse Interaction by Finite-Element Calculations.
Trans. SNAME, 76: pp. 281–296.
Rardin, R.L. 1998. Optimization in operations research. Prentice Hall. 919 p. ISBN 0023984155
52
Remes, H. et al. 2009. ConStruct – Platform for Conceptual Structural Design. IMPROVE-
Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Remes, H. et al. 2011. Hull/Superstructure-interaction in optimized passenger ships. Advances in
Marine Structures. p. 625-632.
Rigo, P. 2001. Least-Cost Structural Optimization Oriented Preliminary Design. Journal of Ship
Production 17(4). pp. 202-215.
Richir, T. et al. 2007. Least-Cost Optimization of Large Passenger Vessel. Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Advancements in Marine Structures, Glasgow, pp.483-488.
Schade, H.A. 1966. Two-Beam Deckhouse Theory with Shear Effects, Schiff und Hafen. Heft 5, p.
291.
Skaloud, M. & Kristek, V. 1991. Advanced Analysis and Design of Plated Structures. Elsevier Science
& Technology. ISBN 0444987657
Sörenesen, M. 1969. Finite element techniques: Proceedings of the Symposium on Finite Element
Techniques held at Stuttgart, Germany, June 10-12, 1969. Stuttgart, Germany: Institut für Statik und
Dynamik der Luft- und Raumfahrtkonstruktionen. 551 p.
Turner M. J. et al. 1956. Stiffness and deflection analysis of complex structures. J. Aero. Sci., 23, 805-
23.
Vasta, J. 1949. Structural Tests on the Passenger Ship S.S. President Wilson – Interaction between
Superstructure and Main Hull Girder. Trans. of the society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
vol.57, p.253.
Ylirisku, V. 2012. Building Blocks on the Sea – simulating the realisation of the M2Cell system in
contemporary context of cruise industry. Master’s thesis. Aalto University School of Arts, Design and
Architecture, Department of Design. Espoo. 73 p.
Zienkiewicz, O.C. 1971. The Finite Element in Engineering Science. USA: McGraw Hill.
53
List of Appendices
Appendix 1. The main frame of the traditional cruise ship structure (traditional)
Appendix 2. The main frame of the proposed cruise ship structure (m2cell)
Appendix 3. The main frame of the design m2cell_1
Appendix 4. The main frame of the design m2cell_2
Appendix 5. The main frame of the design m2cell_3
Appendix 6. The main frame of the design m2cell_4
HP 240 x 1213.0
HP 280 x 1116.0
HP 240 x 1211.5
2000
4100
2800
2800
3000
2800
3800
4100
3300
2750
2750
2750
2800
2800
1200
2000
6100
8900
11700
14700
17500
21300
25400
28700
31450
34200
36950
39750
42550
43750
D.1
D.2
D.3
D.4
D.5
D.6
D.7
D.8
D.9
D.10
D.11
D.12
D.13
D.15D.14
T 440 x 8 + 200 x 10
Title:
Based on:
Part of:
Replaces:
Designer:
Date:
Checked by.:
Date:Approved by:
Date:Program:
Mass:A4
Paper size(210x297)
Scale: 1:300
Drawing number: Rev. Page
1(pages)
(1)
Oliver Parmasto
03.06.2012
AutoCAD 2010
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 67
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 67
14.0HP 180 x 11
15.0HP 180 x 11
16.0HP 180 x 11
HP 140 x 813.0
HP 100 x 7 13.0
HP 100 x 6 7.0
HP 100 x 6 7.0
HP 100 x 6 7.0
HP 100 x 6 7.0
HP 100 x 6 7.0
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
203 x 12.5
HP 100 x 66.0
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
FRAME SPACING (GENERALLY)WEB FRAME SPACING (GENERALLY)PILLAR SPACING (GENERALLY)
680 mm2730 mm2730 mm
Appendix 1. The main frame of the traditional
cruise ship structure (traditional)
Title:
Based on:
Part of:
Replaces:
Designer:
Date:
Checked by.:
Date:Approved by:
Date:Program:
Mass:A4
Paper size(210x297)
Scale: 1:300
Drawing number: Rev. Page
1(pages)
(1)
Oliver Parmasto
03.06.2012
AutoCAD 2010
FRAME SPACING (GENERALLY)WEB FRAME SPACING (GENERALLY)PILLAR SPACING (GENERALLY)
680 mm2730 mm2730 mm
2000
4100
2800
2800
3000
2800
3800
4100
3300
2750
2750
2750
2800
2800
1200
2000
6100
8900
11700
14700
17500
21300
25400
28700
31450
34200
36950
39750
42550
43750
D.1
D.2
D.3
D.4
D.5
D.6
D.7
D.8
D.9
D.10
D.11
D.12
D.13
D.15D.14
HP 240 x 1213.0
HP 280 x 1116.0
HP 240 x 1211.5
T 440 x 8 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 66
HP 100 x 67
14.0HP 180 x 11
15.0HP 180 x 11
16.0HP 180 x 11
HP 140 x 813.0
HP 100 x 7 13.0
HP 100 x 6 7.0
HP 100 x 6 7.0
HP 100 x 6 7.0
HP 100 x 6 7.0
HP 100 x 6 7.0
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 66.0
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 7 13.0T 440 x 8 + 200 x 10
Appendix 2. The main frame of the proposed
cruise ship structure (m2cell)
Title:
Based on:
Part of:
Replaces:
Designer:
Date:
Checked by.:
Date:Approved by:
Date:Program:
Mass:A4
Paper size(210x297)
Scale: 1:300
Drawing number: Rev. Page
1(pages)
(1)
Oliver Parmasto
03.06.2012
AutoCAD 2010
FRAME SPACING (GENERALLY)WEB FRAME SPACING (GENERALLY)PILLAR SPACING (GENERALLY)
680 mm2730 mm2730 mm
2000
4100
2800
2800
3000
2800
3800
4100
3300
2750
2750
2750
2800
2800
1200
2000
6100
8900
11700
14700
17500
21300
25400
28700
31450
34200
36950
39750
42550
43750
D.1
D.2
D.3
D.4
D.5
D.6
D.7
D.8
D.9
D.10
D.11
D.12
D.13
D.15D.14
HP 240 x 1213.0
HP 280 x 1116.0
HP 240 x 1211.5
T 440 x 8 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 66
HP 100 x 67
14.0HP 180 x 11
15.0HP 180 x 11
16.0HP 180 x 11
HP 140 x 813.0
HP 100 x 7
HP 100 x 6 5
HP 100 x 6
HP 100 x 6
HP 100 x 6
HP 100 x 6
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 66.0
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 7 T 440 x 8 + 200 x 10
5
5
5
5
5
5
Appendix 3. The main frame of thedesign m2cell_1
Title:
Based on:
Part of:
Replaces:
Designer:
Date:
Checked by.:
Date:Approved by:
Date:Program:
Mass:A4
Paper size(210x297)
Scale: 1:300
Drawing number: Rev. Page
1(pages)
(1)
Oliver Parmasto
03.06.2012
AutoCAD 2010
FRAME SPACING (GENERALLY)WEB FRAME SPACING (GENERALLY)PILLAR SPACING (GENERALLY)
680 mm2730 mm2730 mm
2000
4100
2800
2800
3000
2800
3800
4100
3300
2750
2750
2750
2800
2800
1200
2000
6100
8900
11700
14700
17500
21300
25400
28700
31450
34200
36950
39750
42550
43750
D.1
D.2
D.3
D.4
D.5
D.6
D.7
D.8
D.9
D.10
D.11
D.12
D.13
D.15D.14
HP 240 x 1213.0
HP 280 x 1116.0
HP 240 x 1211.5
T 440 x 8 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 66
HP 100 x 67
14.0HP 180 x 11
15.0HP 180 x 11
16.0HP 180 x 11
HP 140 x 813.0
HP 100 x 7 13.0
HP 100 x 6
HP 100 x 6
HP 100 x 6
HP 100 x 6
HP 100 x 6
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 66.0
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 7 13.0T 440 x 8 + 200 x 10
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
Appendix 4. The main frame of thedesign m2cell_2
Title:
Based on:
Part of:
Replaces:
Designer:
Date:
Checked by.:
Date:Approved by:
Date:Program:
Mass:A4
Paper size(210x297)
Scale: 1:300
Drawing number: Rev. Page
1(pages)
(1)
Oliver Parmasto
03.06.2012
AutoCAD 2010
FRAME SPACING (GENERALLY)WEB FRAME SPACING (GENERALLY)PILLAR SPACING (GENERALLY)
680 mm2730 mm2730 mm
2000
4100
2800
2800
3000
2800
3800
4100
3300
2750
2750
2750
2800
2800
1200
2000
6100
8900
11700
14700
17500
21300
25400
28700
31450
34200
36950
39750
42550
43750
D.1
D.2
D.3
D.4
D.5
D.6
D.7
D.8
D.9
D.10
D.11
D.12
D.13
D.15D.14
HP 240 x 1213.0
HP 280 x 1116.0
HP 240 x 1211.5
T 440 x 8 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 66
HP 100 x 67
14.0HP 180 x 11
15.0HP 180 x 11
16.0HP 180 x 11
HP 140 x 813.0
HP 100 x 7
HP 100 x 6 5
HP 100 x 6
HP 100 x 6
HP 100 x 6
HP 100 x 6
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 66.0
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 7 T 440 x 8 + 200 x 10
5
5
5
5
5
5
Appendix 5. The main frame of thedesign m2cell_3
Title:
Based on:
Part of:
Replaces:
Designer:
Date:
Checked by.:
Date:Approved by:
Date:Program:
Mass:A4
Paper size(210x297)
Scale: 1:300
Drawing number: Rev. Page
1(pages)
(1)
Oliver Parmasto
03.06.2012
AutoCAD 2010
FRAME SPACING (GENERALLY)WEB FRAME SPACING (GENERALLY)PILLAR SPACING (GENERALLY)
680 mm2730 mm2730 mm
2000
4100
2800
2800
3000
2800
3800
4100
3300
2750
2750
2750
2800
2800
1200
2000
6100
8900
11700
14700
17500
21300
25400
28700
31450
34200
36950
39750
42550
43750
D.1
D.2
D.3
D.4
D.5
D.6
D.7
D.8
D.9
D.10
D.11
D.12
D.13
D.15D.14
HP 240 x 1213.0
HP 280 x 1116.0
HP 240 x 1211.5
T 440 x 8 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 67.5
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 66
HP 100 x 67
14.0HP 180 x 11
15.0HP 180 x 11
16.0HP 180 x 11
HP 140 x 813.0
HP 100 x 7 13.0
HP 100 x 6
HP 100 x 6
HP 100 x 6
HP 100 x 6
HP 100 x 6
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
203 x 12.5
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 66.0
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
T 330 x 7 + 200 x 10
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 65
HP 100 x 7 13.0T 440 x 8 + 200 x 10
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
Appendix 6. The main frame of thedesign m2cell_4