Ship Structures

Preliminary Structural Weight Estimation

Yuriy Cherevichenko
MSc Naval Architecture
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University College London
April 2018
Introduction
The following sections describe steps in preliminary weight estimation of a general-purpose frigate. The methods used,
are mostly those summarised by Chalmers (1993). It is assumed, that the reader is familiar with the nomenclature used,
the description of which was, therefore, mostly excluded from the text.

1. Design Bending Loads

To synthesise the mid-ship structure, it was first necessary to estimate the design loads. The Shear Force, required to
calculate the shear stress was already provided, whereas the Bending Moments (for estimation of bending stress) needed
to be calculated. As a general rule in preliminary design, the ship’s structure was designed for a maximum BM, having
1% chance of exceedance in ship’s life. The initial data required for following load estimations is presented in Table 1
below.
Table 1. Initial data for bending load calculation

Initial Data
Design Life, Life 25
Hours at sea per year, Hrannum 3200
No. of cycles per hour, Numhour 400
Still Water Bending Moment, BMsw -4.00E+07
khog -1.10E+07
ksag 1.70E+07

Firstly, the number of cycles in entire ship’s life was calculated

𝑁 = 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒 × 𝐻𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑚 × 𝑁𝑢𝑚ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 = 3.2 × 107
The probability per cycle corresponding to a through life probability of 1% was then obtained as follows:
𝑃𝐿𝑁 0.01
𝑃𝐿1 = = = 3.125 × 10−10
𝑁 𝑁
The formula for BM was obtained by re-arranging the equation for PL1:
𝐵𝑀
𝑃𝐿1 = 𝑒 − 𝑘
𝐵𝑀
𝐵𝑀
ln(𝑃𝐿1 ) = ln(𝑒 − 𝑘 ) =−
𝑘
This allowed to find the wave induced BM components in hog and sag:
𝐵𝑀ℎ𝑜𝑔 = −𝑘ℎ𝑜𝑔 ln(𝑃𝐿1 ) = −2.41 × 108
𝐵𝑀𝑠𝑎𝑔 = −𝑘𝑠𝑎𝑔 ln(𝑃𝐿1 ) = 3.72 × 108
The total Bending Moments for these two conditions were obtained by summation of wave-induced and still water
components, while taking account of the general sign convention:
𝑀(𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙)ℎ𝑜𝑔 = 𝐵𝑀ℎ𝑜𝑔 + 𝐵𝑀𝑆𝑊 = −2.81 × 108 𝑁𝑚
𝑀(𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙)𝑠𝑎𝑔 = 𝐵𝑀𝑠𝑎𝑔 + 𝐵𝑀𝑆𝑊 = 3.32 × 108 𝑁𝑚
The total bending moment in sagging condition was, therefore, used in following calculations of bending stress.

2. Main Considerations
A general purpose frigate has a relatively high structural weight fraction. This implies, that a small percentage reduction
in structural weight, will allow the warship to carry significantly more payload. On the other hand, due to very high-
cost of on-board equipment, the cost fraction of the structure is relatively low. Therefore, increasing the structure’s cost,
by making it more efficient will not have significant implications on overall ship cost.
Hence, it was decided to design the frigate’s structure for minimum weight. This included high amount of longitudinal
stiffening with the smallest allowable stiffener spacing. This approach permits to employ much smaller and lighter
stiffeners, which, in turn, results in lower structural weight.

3. Mid-ship Section Discretisation

To facilitate initial estimation of Second Moment of Area and Neutral Axis of mid-ship section (and hence, estimation
of bending stresses), the ship’s mid-section was discretised as a number of flat panels. This approach for a preliminary
design stage is advocated by Chalmers (1993). However, in this case, the above-waterline side shell was split into two
sections, rather than 1, to facilitate higher flexibility in further calculations. It can be seen from Figure 1 that the plating,
at Deck 1 and 2, which was in line with the Uptakes/Downtakes, was considered ineffective, and hence, not included in
structural strength estimation.

Fig. 1. Mid-ship Section Discretisation

4. Evaluation of Panel Thicknesses

The estimation of minimum plate thicknesses required to withstand the design loads was performed iteratively.
Therefore, an Excel spreadsheet tool was constructed to allow changes to the stiffener and plating to be performed
efficiently. This tool is based on the methods for preliminary longitudinal strength estimation provided by Chalmers
(1993, p.123-136) and expected to prove useful for similar preliminary structural calculations. At first iteration, the
values of the plate thickness for each section were selected, as proportions of thicknesses suggested by the Chalmers
(1993), based on the author’s experience. These were then modified in later iterations, based on the provided
specifications and design loads.
The discretised mid-ship section was used to find the Second Moment of Area and the position of Neutral Axis. This
was needed in order to estimate the design Bending Stress, σ, based on Simple Beam Theory. It has to be mentioned,
that, due to each plate having very high slenderness ratio (Length/thickness), these plates were treated as 1D elements,
when calculating the length of side shell sections and estimating the Neutral axis of each plate. This assumption allows
to simplify calculations involved, while having a negligible effect on the obtained values, which appears logical at the
preliminary design stage.
A simple trigonometry was used to estimate the length of the side shell sections, while formula, derived from Young
and Budynas (2002) were used to estimate their Second Moment of Area about own NA. This formula is presented
below:
𝑏ℎ3 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 2 ℎ𝑏 3 𝑂𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 2
𝐼𝑜𝑤𝑛 = ( ) + ( )
12 𝐻𝑦𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑠𝑒 12 𝐻𝑦𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑠𝑒
The position of ship’s NA was obtained by taking moments of area of each section:
∑ 𝐴𝑦
𝑦= ∑𝐴
= 4.67𝑚 from keel
Second Moment about the ship’s Neutral axis was then estimated from Parallel Axis Theorem:
2
𝐼(𝑁𝐴) = 𝐼𝑜𝑤𝑛 + 𝐴𝑦𝑛

The final results, showing the proposed values of thicknesses for each plate section, are therefore shown in Table A1.
Due to Port/Starboard symmetry, the calculations of INA were only performed for 1 side of the mid-ship section.
The total Second Moment of Area of Mid-ship section was then obtained by summation of INA for each section and
multiplied by two, to account for both sides:
7

𝐼𝑁𝐴 = 2 × ∑(𝐼(𝑁𝐴)𝑛 ) = 8.76 𝑚4

𝑛=1
Largest Bending Stresses will arise at Deck 1, due to its neutral axis having the largest distance from ship’s NA.
Therefore, the bending stresses at Deck 1 were estimated from the Simple Beam Theory, as follows:
𝑀𝑦𝑑
𝜎𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑘 1 = = 174.9 𝑀𝑁/𝑚2
𝐼
Chalmers (1993) suggests to use a factor of 0.57 between the design stress at main deck and the material yield stress
(i.e. 𝜎𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑘 1 < 0.57𝜎𝑦 ) for a structure with the stiffener spacing to plate thickness ratios, b/t, between 60 and 90. The
margin for this case is:
𝜎𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑘 1 174.9
= = 0.564
𝜎𝑦 310
Based on the specified criteria and recommendations, this suggests a well optimised plating selection.

5. Upper Deck Grillage Design

To evaluate the bending strength of Deck 1, the following modes of failure needed to be considered:
 Plate Buckling
 Interframe Flexural Buckling
 Stiffener Tripping (Compressive and Lateral Loads)
As mentioned by Chalmers (1993), in warship design, the plate buckling is not considered critical, as in a well-designed
structure, the plate will still be able to carry some load even after deformation. Furthermore, the load will be transmitted
to much stronger longitudinals. Therefore, it was necessary to design the structure for resistance to latter two cases,
while preferably checking that the former collapse mode will not occur. Therefore, this section was effectively split into
three parts.
5.1 Plate Buckling
The initial data required to perform the plate buckling strength evaluation is presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Initial parameters for Deck 1 calculations

Bending Stress at Deck 1, σ (Pa) 174891874

Plate Thickness, t (m) 0.013
Length between Frames, a (m) 1.5
b/t 60
Length between Longitudinals, b (m) 0.78
Yield Stress, σy (Pa) 310000000
Young's Modulus, E (Pa) 1.99E+11
Firstly, the plate slenderness ration, β was calculated:
𝑏 𝜎𝑦
𝛽 = √ = 2.37
𝑡 𝐸
The plate critical buckling stress, σcr is given by the formula:
𝜎𝑐𝑟 𝛽2
=1−( )
𝜎𝑦 4𝐾
Where value for K was obtained from the datasheet shown in Figure 2, with the aspect ratio a/b=1.92. This formula for
𝜎𝑐𝑟 was used, as the critical buckling stress was found to be higher than the limit of proportionality for steel (0.5𝜎𝑦 ).
 Fig. 2. Flat Plate Buckling in Compression

𝐾 = 3.6
Hence,
𝜎𝑐𝑟 = 189.3 𝑀𝑃𝑎
The plate was assumed to be free from residual stresses, therefore the critical plate buckling stress was found to be:
𝜎𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑏𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 𝜎𝑐𝑟 − 𝛥𝜎𝑐𝑟 = 𝜎𝑐𝑟 = 189.3 𝑀𝑃𝑎
However, the option of including the residual stress tension block, and hence, obtaining the value for 𝛥𝜎𝑐𝑟 was created
in the excel spreadsheet, to include the effects of imperfections in future calculations.
5.2 Interframe Flexural Buckling
The method of estimating the resistance to interframe flexural buckling is based on effective breadth approach proposed
by Faulkner (1975). It was assumed that the plate edge stress is equal to yield stress of the material, at the point of
buckling:
𝜎𝑒 = 𝜎𝑦
The effective slenderness ration was then found:
𝑏 𝜎𝑒
𝛽𝑒 = √ = 2.37
𝑡 𝐸
Due to assumption of zero residual stresses:
𝑅𝑟 = 1
This allowed to estimate the effective width of plating, be, and reduced effective width, be’:
𝑏𝑒 2 1
= ( − 2 ) 𝑅𝑟 = 0.67
𝑏 𝛽𝑒 𝛽𝑒
𝑏𝑒 = 0.520 𝑚
𝑏 × 𝑅𝑟
𝑏𝑒′ = = 0.329𝑚
𝛽𝑒
To proceed to the next step of strength evaluation it was necessary to propose the type and dimensions of longitudinal
stiffening for upper deck grillage. The Tee bar stiffeners were selected and after several iterations, the dimensions shown
in Table 3 were established.
 Table 3. Tee bar Stiffener Properties

Web Height, dw (m) 0.1

Web Thickness, tw (m) 0.008
Flange Width, df (m) 0.12
Flange Thickness, tf 0.012

These dimensions were used to find the effective 2nd Moment, Ie’, which included the stiffener and acting plating
(reduced effective width, be’). The results of Ie’ calculations are presented in Table A2.
The position of Neutral Axis of the section was obtained from
∑ 𝐴𝑦
𝑦= = 0.038 𝑚
∑𝐴
This allowed the Ie’ to be calculated
3

𝐼𝑒 ′ = ∑(𝐼(𝑁𝐴)𝑛 ) = 1.49 × 10−5 𝑚4

𝑛=1
Next, the effective area of column, Ae, which consisted of stiffener area and area of acting plating (effective width, be)
was found
𝐴𝑒 = (𝑡 × 𝑏𝑒 ) + 𝐴𝑤𝑒𝑏 + 𝐴𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 9.00 × 10−3 𝑚
This allowed the radius of gyration, k, and hence, column slenderness ratio, λ, to be calculated:
𝐼𝑒 ′
𝑘 = √ = 0.041
𝐴𝑒
𝐿𝑒 𝜎𝑦 𝑎 𝜎𝑦
𝜆= √ = √ = 0.46
𝑘𝜋 𝐸 𝑘𝜋 𝐸
As the obtained value of λ was significantly smaller than √2, this suggested the use of Johnson’s parabola, to estimate
the critical stress σcr
𝜎𝑐𝑟 𝜆2
= 1 − = 0.95
𝜎𝑦 4
𝜎𝑐𝑟 = 293 𝑀𝑃𝑎
5.3 Stiffener Tripping
Compressive Load
The formula for calculation of critical stiffener tripping stress in compression is shown below
(𝜎𝑠 𝐴𝑠 + 𝜎𝑝 𝑏𝑡)
𝜎𝑡𝑟 =
(𝐴𝑠 + 𝑏𝑡)
It can be seen that the effects of plating and stiffener on critical tripping stress are accounted for separately, where
𝐺𝐽 𝜋 2 𝐸(𝐼𝑍 𝑑 2 + 𝛤)
𝜎𝑠 = +
𝐼𝑜 𝐼𝑜 𝐴2
𝑡 2
𝜎𝑝 = 3.62𝐸 ( )
𝑏
Therefore, several parameters first needed to be estimated:
𝐸
𝐺= = 76.5 𝐺𝑃𝑎
2(1 + 𝜈)
(𝑡𝑤3
𝑑𝑤 + 𝑡𝑓3 𝑑𝑓 )
𝐽= = 8.62 × 10−8
3
𝐴𝑓3 𝐴3𝑤
𝛤= + = 3.50 × 10−11
144 36
The Tables A3 and A4 show results of calculations of the 2nd Moment of Area of stiffener about the toe, Ix, and 2nd
Moment of Area about an axis through the web, Iz
𝐼𝑋 = 1.89 × 10−5 𝑚4
𝐼𝑧 = 1.73 × 10−6 𝑚4
Finally, the Polar 2nd Moment about the toe, I0 was obtained by summation of Ix and Iz:
𝐼0 = 2.06 × 10−5 𝑚4
This allowed to calculate the stiffener and plate buckling components, and hence, the critical tripping stress:
𝜎𝑠 = 1.24 × 109
𝜎𝑝 = 2.00 × 108
𝜎𝑡𝑟 = 3.89 × 108
Chalmers (1993) suggested, that the compressive tripping stress should be at least 1.3 times higher than the critical stress
for interframe flexural buckling:
𝜎𝑡𝑟
= 1.32
𝜎𝑐
Furthermore, for optimum resistance to tripping, Chalmers (1993) suggested to use following criteria:
𝑑𝑓 𝐸
≤√
𝑡𝑓 𝜎𝑦

𝑑𝑤 𝐸
≤ 1.5√
𝑡𝑤 𝜎𝑦

𝑎 𝐸
≤√
𝑑𝑓 𝜎𝑦
All three criteria were met by the proposed stiffener dimensions:
𝐸
√ = 25.3
𝜎𝑦
𝑑𝑓
= 10
𝑡𝑓
𝑑𝑤
= 12.5
𝑡𝑤
𝑎
= 12.5
𝑑𝑓

Lateral Load
The stiffener tripping stress for lateral load case was calculated as follows:
𝐺𝐽 𝜋 2 𝑛2 𝐸(𝐼𝑍 𝑑2 + 𝛤) 𝐸𝑎2
𝜎𝑡𝑐 = + + = 2.49 × 109 𝑃𝑎
𝐼𝑜 𝐼𝑜 𝐴2 2 2 𝑏 𝑑𝑤
𝐼𝑜 𝑛 𝜋 (3 3 + 3.6 3 )
𝑡 𝑡𝑤
Chalmers (1993) states that σtc should ideally be larger than the applied stress by a factor of 4. However, in this case,
the obtained factor was 14.2, which suggested that some further optimisation was necessary.

6. Side Shell Grillage Design

The data required for calculation of design shear stress and side shell’s shear strength is provided in Table 8 below.
Table 4. Initial Parameters for side shell calculations

Plate thickness, t (m) 0.009

a 1.5
b 0.78
Young's Modulus, E (Pa) 1.99E+11
Shear Force, F (N) 8000000
Position of NA, ybar (m) 4.31632908
Second Moment of Midship Section, I(NA) (m^4) 10.7916471
Second Moment of Area of Stiffener about the toe, Ix (m^4) 1.8864E-05
Yield Stress, σy (Pa) 310000000
6.1 Design Shear Stress
The following formula was used to calculate the applied design shear stress:
𝐹𝐴𝑧
𝜏𝐷 =
𝐼𝑏
The results of estimation of A, z and I are shown in Table A5.
These results were used to obtain the following:
Table 4. Applied Design Shear Stress

Area above z, A (m^2) 0.346808

Centroid of A, zbar (m) 4.0206989
Breadth of Material at z, b (m) 0.018
Applied Design Shear Stress, τD (Pa) 57427565.2

6.2 Shear Buckling of a Flat Plate

Firstly, the critical shear buckling stress of a side shell plate was obtained as follows:
𝑡 2
𝜏𝑐 = 𝜒𝐸 ( )
𝑏
The value of χ was obtained from the datasheet shown in Figure 3, for b/a=0.52 and simply supported condition

Fig. 3. Shear Buckling of flat plates (1)

The obtained τc was then reduced by plasticity reduction factor, ηc. The data sheet from which this factor was obtained
can be seen in Figure 4 below:
 Fig.4. Shear Buckling of flat plates (2)

The critical buckling stress was then obtained as follows:

𝜏𝑠𝑐 = 𝜂𝑐 × 𝜏𝑐 = 152 𝑀𝑃𝑎
This value meets the criteria of being higher than the applied design stress, τD
6.3 Shear Buckling of a long Panel
To estimate the buckling strength of a side shell panel between two frames, it was necessary to assume stiffener
dimensions and proportions for the side shell grillage. At first iteration, it was decided to use the same stiffener
properties, as in Section 5 to obtain an initial estimate. However, it was then found, that the shear strength of the grillage,
with the specified in Section 4 plate thickness and the initial stiffening is close to optimum and little further iteration is
required.
The critical shear buckling strength of the panel was calculated using the formula below:
𝑡 2
𝜏𝑠𝑐 = 𝐾𝐸 ( )
𝑏
Where value of K was obtained from datasheet shown in Figure 5.
 Fig.5. Shear Buckling of Stiffened Panels

The following values were therefore required to use the datasheet:

𝐼𝑠𝑡 𝑏
𝜇 = √ 2 3 = 3.00
𝑎 𝑡
𝑎
= 1.92
𝑏
The obtained K=5.9 was then used to estimate the critical shear buckling strength:
𝜏𝑠𝑐 = 156 𝑀𝑃𝑎
This satisfies the criteria suggested by Chalmers (1993), that the critical shear buckling stress needs to be at least twice
higher than the applied stress.

7. Weight Estimation
Finally, a preliminary estimation of weight was performed, based on the selected dimensions of plating and stiffeners.
Due to same stiffener properties being selected for both Deck 1 and side shell, the area of a single longitudinal stiffener
was the same for every part of the mid-ship section. However, for future work, it is recommended to slightly modify the
stiffening in the side shell. Furthermore, based on distribution of bending and shear stresses, throughout the mid-ship
section, it seems optimum to use same stiffeners for Deck 1, Deck 2, inner bottom and outer bottom, with all other
sections having stiffeners similar to ones in Section 5 (at half depth).
The total areas of each section can be seen in Table A6. It can be seen that both effective and ineffective structure was
used when calculating the total mid-ship area.
The calculated value of total mid-ship area allowed mass/m, and hence, weight/m to be obtained as follows.
7

𝐴 = ∑(𝐴𝑛 ) = 1.02 𝑚2
𝑛=1
𝑚 = 𝐴𝜌 = 7957 𝑘𝑔/𝑚
𝑤 = 𝑚𝑔 = 78.1 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
Where the density of B Quality steel was taken as 7800 kg/m3
References
Chalmers, D. W. (1993) Design of ships' structures, Stationery Office Books (TSO)
Faulkner, D. (1975) A review of effective plating for use in analysis of stiffened plating in bending and compression,
Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 19.
Young, W.C. and Budynas, R.G. (2002) Roark's formulas for stress and strain, Vol. 7. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Appendix
Table A1

Adjacent/ Opposite/
Section Thickness, Hypotenuse Length, L/b Area, A ynbar^2 I(NA)n
horizontal Vertical yn (m) Ayn (m^3) Iown (m^4)
No. t/h (m) (m) (m) (m^2) (m^2) (m^4)
(m) (m)
1 0.013 N/A N/A N/A 5.25 6.83E-02 10 6.83E-01 9.61E-07 3.23E+01 2.20E+00
2 0.008 N/A N/A N/A 5.13 4.10E-02 7 2.87E-01 2.19E-07 7.20E+00 2.95E-01
3 0.014 N/A N/A N/A 6.00 8.40E-02 1 8.40E-02 1.37E-06 1.10E+01 9.24E-01
4 0.010 0.25 3.00 3.01 3.01 3.01E-02 9 2.56E-01 2.26E-02 1.75E+01 5.49E-01
5 0.009 0.25 3.00 3.01 3.01 2.71E-02 6 1.49E-01 2.03E-02 1.40E+00 5.83E-02
6 0.008 2.00 3.00 3.61 3.61 2.88E-02 3 7.21E-02 2.16E-02 3.30E+00 1.17E-01
7 0.014 6.00 1.00 6.08 6.08 8.52E-02 1 4.26E-02 7.10E-03 1.46E+01 1.25E+00

Table A2

Width, Depth, Area, Centroid, Moment of Area, Iown I(NA)n

Section ynbar (m) (ynbar)^2 A((ynbar)^2)
b (m) d (m) A (m^2) yn (m) Ayn (m^3) (m^4) (m^4)
1 (Plate) 0.329 0.013 4.28E-03 0.007 2.78E-05 6.03E-08 3.18E-02 1.01E-03 4.32E-06 4.38E-06
2 (Web) 0.008 0.100 8.00E-04 0.063 5.04E-05 6.67E-07 -2.47E-02 6.12E-04 4.89E-07 1.16E-06
3 (Flange) 0.120 0.012 1.44E-03 0.119 1.71E-04 1.73E-08 -8.07E-02 6.52E-03 9.38E-06 9.40E-06

Table A3

Width, Depth, Area, Centroid, Iown ynbar I(NA)n

Section (ynbar)^2 A((ynbar)^2)
b (m) d (m) A (m^2) yn (m) (m^4) (m) (m^4)
2 (Web) 0.008 0.100 8.000E-04 0.050 6.67E-07 0.050 2.50E-03 2.00E-06 2.67E-06
3 (Flange) 0.120 0.012 1.440E-03 0.106 1.73E-08 0.106 1.12E-02 1.62E-05 1.62E-05
 Table A4

Width, Depth, Area, I(NA)n

Section Iown (m^4)
b (m) d (m) A (m^2) (m^4)
2 (Web) 0.100 0.008 8.000E-04 4.27E-09 4.27E-09
3 (Flange) 0.012 0.120 1.440E-03 1.73E-06 1.73E-06

Table A5

Section Thickness, t/h Opposite/Vertical Area, A Distance from keel, yn Distance from NA, ybarn A(ybarn)
Length, L/b (m)
No. (m) (m) (m^2) (m) (m) (m^3)
1 0.013 N/A 5.250 6.83E-02 10.000 5.684 3.88E-01
2 0.008 N/A 7.125 5.70E-02 7.000 2.684 1.53E-01
4 0.010 3.000 3.010 3.01E-02 8.500 4.184 1.26E-01
5 0.009 2.000 2.006 1.81E-02 6.000 1.684 3.04E-02

Table A6

Section Length No. of stiffeners Area of 1 Stiffener Total Stiffener Area Plating Thickness Plating Area Total Area of Section
1 (Deck 1) 14.500 19 2.240E-03 4.16E-02 0.013 1.89E-01 2.30E-01
2 (Deck 2) 14.250 18 2.240E-03 4.09E-02 0.008 1.14E-01 1.55E-01
3 ( Inner Bottom) 12.000 15 2.240E-03 3.45E-02 0.014 1.68E-01 2.02E-01
4 6.020 8 2.240E-03 1.73E-02 0.010 6.02E-02 7.75E-02
5 6.020 8 2.240E-03 1.73E-02 0.009 5.42E-02 7.15E-02
6 7.220 9 2.240E-03 2.07E-02 0.008 5.78E-02 7.85E-02
7 (Outer Bottom) 12.160 16 2.240E-03 3.49E-02 0.014 1.70E-01 2.05E-01