International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Applications

2015; 3(1-3): 47-53

Published online January 21, 2015 (http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ijmea)
doi: 10.11648/j.ijmea.s.2015030103.18
ISSN: 2330-023X (Print); ISSN: 2330-0248 (Online)

An assessment of MSC solutions for ship structural design

and analysis
Hung-Chien Do1, Vo Trong Cang2
1
Faculty of Naval Architecture, Ho Chi Minh City University of Transport, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
2
Faculty of Transportation Engineering, Ho Chi Minh city University of Technology, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Email address:
[email protected] (H. C. Do), [email protected] (V. T. Cang)

To cite this article:

Hung-Chien Do, Vo Trong Cang. An Assessment of MSC Solutions for Ship Structural Design and Analysis. International Journal of
Mechanical Engineering and Applications. Special Issue: Transportation Engineering Technology. Vol. 3, No. 1-3, 2015, pp. 47-53.
doi: 10.11648/j.ijmea.s.2015030103.18

Abstract: This paper presents assessment of ship structural analysis and design using MSC solutions. Linear and nonlinear
finite element analyses are applied to 3D model describing in MSC.NASTRAN and MSC.MARC, respectively. The structural
model analysis including geometric construction ability, size of meshing, boundary and loading conditions etc. are discussed.
Comparisons of stress and strain between MSC and other solutions have been investigated. Reliable numerical results are
adopted for direct strength analysis, ultimate strength as well as fatigue strength when applying the international association of
classification society common structure rules (IACS CSR) and membership classifications. Actually, the finite element
applications played an important in the large and ultra-ship structural analysis, the results obtained from numerical assessment
help designer to predict the ultimate limit state, duration of ship building and operation.

Keywords: ship structural analysis, solution, MSC.NASTRAN, MSC.MARC, IACS Common Structural Rules

easily to apply formulae for calculating the structural

1. Introduction particular and dimensions of a ship. In this way, the time to
It is well known that shipping plays an important role in design is significantly reduced while satisfying the basic
international transportation and trade. Ship has an advantage requirement of preliminary structural design of almost the ship.
to carry the large capacity of goods with about 95% of world Although this method has good advantages, several risks to
trade cargo transported by ships today [1]. In order to meet the design structural ship completely when applying of rules
increasing demands of modern life, the carry ability of ship is approach. The complexities of hull structures make the modes
larger and larger. It leads to the increasing of the ship of failure interdependent, complex, and numerous, while the
particular, such as dimension, speed, power machine, formula rules in using the margin against remains unknown. In
flexibility in ship operation. Toward dimension, size ships are several cases, simplified formulae cannot give truly efficient
characterized by specific aspects, which take an attention to design. Recognize the differences between the structural
special technology in design, construction and operation. This adequacy and overcapacity [2].
problem deals with the static and fatigue strength, structural The structural design aspect is more and more important in
flexibility in still water and waves, a new type of the large ship ship and offshore industries. The basic idea of traditional
has to be carefully designed and analyzed. The complicated design structures is “A ship will collapse when the load
modern ships and the requirement for greater economy, applied is bigger than the strength of ship.” Although the ship
efficiency and reliability need versatile, scientific and structures are designed by applying the rules of classification
powerful structural design method. societies, this does not provide full reliability. Particularly,
In the past, the traditional ship structural design used to there are several kinds of potential benefits when using
apply largely and empirically, based on ship performance, rationally-based design. The purpose of application is to
experience formulae and criteria of structural design code or reduce the hull structural weight of ship so as to increase the
requirement of ship classification societies rules. The economic benefits, especially for many very large ships. Take
Common Structural Rules (CSR) provide simply, quickly and tanker as an example, the rationally-based gains a 6%
economy in the price of ship structure compared with current
48 Hung-Chien Do and Vo Trong Cang: An Assessment of MSC Solutions for Ship Structural Design and Analysis

standard designs. The largest ship was actually about 565,000 limit state, (6) the one-bay sliced hull model is often adopted,
DWT (dead weight tons) tanker the Seawise Giant, making a as it is considered that the resulting computations are good
saving of over 1 million dollars and an even greater amount of enough.
extra revenue from the increase of cargo capacity thanks to
structural weight-reducing. In the weight-reducing aspect, 2.2. FEM for Ship Strength Assessment
especially naval vessels can obtain greater mission capability. Generally, in order to solve mechanics problem by FEM,
Ship designers achieve a large increase in design capability designers consider the multidiscipline component such as
and efficiency and are able to focus more on the concept and geometric model, material properties, size of mesh and
design. Finally, the safe and reliable ship structures also obtain element type, boundary conditions, combined loads. In
substantial benefits [3]. addition, the initial imperfection and residual stress are also
Base on the finite element method (FEM), there are many behaved strictly. The FEM for ship structural strength
applications for ship structural analysis such as ANSYS, assessment flow chart is shown in Fig. 1.
ABAQUS, NASTRAN, MARC, etc. This paper focuses on
MSC.NASTRAN and MSC.MARC solution which
assessment for the ship and offshore structures. The discussion
results are also obtained from reports of International ship and
offshore structure congress (ISSC).

2. Study methods
2.1. Model types for progressive hull collapse analysis by the
finite element method

The techniques of structural model are applied for analysis

of progressive hull collapse model considering mesh size and
initial imperfections. Six types of modeling are considered in
calculating the extent of progressive hull collapse, as follows,
(1) The entire hull model;
(2) The three-cargo hold model;
(3) The two-cargo hold model;
(4) The one cargo hold model;
(5) The two-bay sliced hull model;
(6) The one-bay sliced hull model.
In the type (1), the entire hull model is often performed by a
team or a group with the strength of work station system. The
multi discipline solution is also executed in this type.
According to CSR and American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)
the type (2), the three-cargo hold model is always applied to
assessment for the ship hull model, it details for bulk carrier,
oil tanker and container ship. Dealing with type (3), the
two-cargo hold model (½ + 1 + ½ hold model with two
bulkheads) is guided by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) to take Figure 1. FEM for direct strength assessment flowchart
into account the effect of rotational restraints at the transverse
For linear finite element analysis (FEA), MSC.NASTRAN
bulkheads. When vertical or horizontal shearing forces are
can solve the yielding and buckling problems with good
applied, with or without vertical or horizontal bending
agreement. Meanwhile, the nonlinear finite element analysis
moments, however, the transverse frames can fail or at least
(NFEM) can be performed by MSC.MARC, which is better
deform significantly before the stiffened panels between the
than MSC.NASTRAN solution in this case. In new version,
adjacent transverse frames reach the ultimate limit state, and
designer can assess the fatigue strength with Nastran
thus at least (4) the one cargo hold model must be applied in
Embedded Fatigue, which can be found in MSC.PATRAN
this case. To take into account the effect of rotational restraints
2014.
on the transverse frames, it is recommended to adopt (5) the
This study presents analytical solutions to the elastic
two-bay sliced hull model, which is composed of half a bay
buckling strength and plastic collapse of beam-column, plate
panel, one bay panel, and half a bay panel with two transverse
and stiffened panel structures. Beam-column structures are
frames. When a vertical or horizontal bending moment is a
found in the cargo hold, double-hull and double bottom, etc.,
predominant hull-girder load component and the transverse
they are simultaneously acted by both axial and lateral loads.
frames are strong enough not to fail before the stiffened panels
The plates are the member of bottom, deck, side and bulkhead
between the two adjacent transverse frames reach the ultimate
 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Applications 2015; 3(1-3): 47-53 49

structures, etc., they are supported by frames or stiffeners in edge shear, longitudinal in-plane bending, and transverse
transverse direction and girder or stiffeners in longitudinal in-plane bending are specified as in-plane loads. It is
direction. In ships structures, these plates are likely to be necessary noted that buckling does not occur in plates under
subjected to both in-plane (including longitudinal axial axial tension or out of-plane actions alone, but rather it occurs
compression/tension, transverse axial compression/tension, through the application of compressive loads. The model of
edge shear, longitudinal in-plane bending, and transverse unstiffened plates is shown in Fig. 2.
in-plane bending) and out-of-plane loads (including cargo and
water pressure are known as lateral pressure). Stiffened panels
are assembly structures of ship, which they consist of welded
plate and stiffeners. In elastic buckling strength and plastic
collapse analysis, they are also subjected to both in-plane and
out-of-plane.
Ship structures are primary importance of marine industry
because they serve house and support to the systems and
equipment necessary for the overall success in operation. The
capability provides accurately and consistently the needed
safety margin while encounter both the requirements of
structural safety and economy are keys to the structural design
successfully. Thus, design principles, procedures, and criteria
play an important role in marine industry. In other words, it is
Figure 2. Buckle shape of long plate.
necessary to encounter adequately the various requirements
and regulations on health, safety, and the environment for According the ISSC 18th, many laboratories perform the
assessment successful structures during their life cycle. same an un-stiffened plate model, which using the difference
This study explains the buckling and ultimate strength of of solutions. For example, Pusan National University (PNU)
unstiffened plates, stiffened panel, and fatigue of FPSO crane uses ALPS/ULSAP, Det Norske Veritas (DNV) uses
by using MSC solutions [4]. DNV/PULS, Indian register of Shipping (IRS) using ANSYS,
and Osaka University (OU) apply MSC.MARC solution for
3. Buckling and Ultimate Strength of NFEA [7]. The principle dimension of plate model is shown in
Fig. 3. Material and section properties of plate are described as
Ship Structures with MSC.MARC follows,
3.1. Buckling and Ultimate Strength of Plates Yield stress of plate: σYP = 313.6 N/mm2
Elastic modulus: E = 205800 N/mm2
In marine and aeronautical structures, various shape plates Poisson's ratio: ν = 0.3
are often used which under normal compressive and shearing Plate length: a = 2550mm
loads in the middle plane of the plate (in-plane loads). Plate Plate breath, b = 850 mm
buckling and elastic instability aspect plays an important role Plate thickness: tp = 9.5; 11; 13; 16; 22; 33 mm
when a plate under certain conditions such loads can result in a
plate buckling. The thickness as well as the slenderness of
plates affects the buckling load for example the thinner the
plate, the lower is the buckling load. The plate buckling
analysis take an important part in general analysis of
structures due to the failures of plate elements in many cases,
may be attributed to an elastic instability and not to the lack of
their strength [5,6].
A plate is an element basically of a continuous
stiffened-plate structure which is subjected to study in the
elastic buckling by means of analytical solution and the Figure 3. Unstiffened plate candidate analysis.
carried experiment. Along the longitudinal stiffener/girder and
Unstiffened plate model is applied biaxial compressed loads,
transverse frame/stiffener edges is the boundaries of a plate, it
and the obtained results are shown in Fig. 4. The ultimate
can be seen the support members, thus implying that the
stress along x-direction and y-direction is σxu and σyu,
rotational restraints at the plate edges are neither zero nor
respectively. In comparison of the results, it is clear that
infinite. In ships and offshore structures, there are many
MSC.MARC and ANSYS solution give the same value, while
literatures shown that the plates are likely to be subjected to
the ALPS/ULSAP and DNV/PULS have a different value.
both out-of-plane and in-plane loads. The lateral pressures that
This proves the MSC.MARC solution with good agreement in
caused by cargo and/or water pressure are specified as
NFEA of unstiffened plates including effect of initial
out-of-plane loads. The present of such longitudinal axial
imperfection.
compression/tension, transverse axial compression/tension,
50 Hung-Chien Do and Vo Trong Cang: An Assessment of MSC Solutions for Ship Structural Design and Analysis

Plate breath, b = 850 mm

Plate thickness: tp = 9.5; 11; 13; 16; 22; 33 mm
For NFEA under biaxial loading Pusan National University
(PNU) uses ALPS/ULSAP, Det Norske Veritas (DNV) uses
DNV/PULS, University of Liege (ULG) and Indian register of
Shipping (IRS) using ANSYS, and Osaka University (OU)
apply MSC.MARC solution for NFEA.

Figure 5. Stiffened panel in NFEA

Figure 6. Nomenclature of Stiffened panel

The stiffened panel under biaxial compressive load with

Figure 4. Results of benchmark on unstiffened plates
effect of initial deflection, the obtained result is illustrated in
3.2. Buckling and Ultimate Strength of Stiffened Panel Fig.7-10,

The bottom of stiffened panel (panel A) a bulk carrier is

analytically performed, with 4 sizes (size 1, size 2, size 3, size
4) are illustrated in Tab. 1 and Fig.6 [7]

Table 1. Dimension of stiffened panel

Flat bar (hw x tw) Angle bar Tee bar

Size 1 150x17 138x90x9/12 138x90x9/12
Size 2 250x25 235x90x10/15 235x90x10/15
Size 3 350x35 383x100x10/17 383x100x10/17
Size 4 550x35 580x150x15/20 580x150x15/20

The material, dimension and properties are described in

Fig.5 as follow,
Yield stress of plate: σYP = 313.6 N/mm2
Yield stress of stiffeners: σYs = 313.6 N/mm2
Elastic modulus: E = 205800 N/mm2
Poisson's ratio: ν = 0.3
Plate length: a = 2550mm Figure 7. Stiffened panel with flat bars size 1
 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Applications 2015; 3(1-3): 47-53 51

In this section, the ultimate strength of stiffened panel is

regarded, in which the interaction between the plate elements
and support members. Their ultimate strength, buckling, and
plastic collapse patterns depend on geometrical and material
properties and other factors such as loading condition and
initial imperfections. The possible collapse modes of a
stiffened panel can be summarized into the following six types
as,
- Collapse mode I: Overall collapse of plates and stiffeners
as a unit;
- Collapse mode II: Biaxial compressive collapse without
failure of the stiffeners;
- Collapse mode III: Collapse of beam-column type;
- Collapse mode IV: Buckling stiffener web locally (after
the origin of the buckling collapse of plate between the
stiffeners);
- Collapse mode V: Flexural–torsional buckling or tripping
Figure 8. Stiffened panel with angle bars size 2
of the stiffeners;
- Collapse mode VI: Gross yielding.
A single stiffener is attached to plate, the equivalent yield
stress is determined as follows,

btσ Yp + ( hwtw + b f t f ) σ Ys
σ Yeq =
bt + ( hwtw + b f t f )
(1)

As stiffeners are flat bar, the different values of derived

results in collapse mode III between ANSYS and
MSC.MARC is negligible, it is shown in Fig.7. As stiffeners
are angle bar this difference is negligible between three
solutions, see Fig. 8. Additionally, tee bar model is considered
in Fig.9 and Fig. 10, the ratio of σxu/σYeq and σyu/σYeq in
collapse mode II, III and IV is small. Generally, the reliability
of MSC.MARC is good agreement in NFEA of unstiffened
plate and stiffened panels.

Figure 9. Stiffened panel with tee bars size 3 4. Analysis of FPSO crane with MSC.
NASTRAN Embed Fatigue Solution

Figure 11. Selected location for fatigue estimation

Han et al. [8] studied to establish a procedure for systematic

design and performance evaluation of an offshore platform
(FPSO; Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading) crane
using a computational approach. Coupling analyses of the
Figure 10. Stiffened panel with tee bars size 4 finite element and finite volume methods, which are
52 Hung-Chien Do and Vo Trong Cang: An Assessment of MSC Solutions for Ship Structural Design and Analysis

applicable for ensuring robust design under the consideration estimation is shown in Fig. 11, the local meshes of hot-spot
of nonlinear environmental effects, were carried out. In order stress evaluation for fatigue estimation is shown in Fig.12.
to investigate the effects of dynamic loading, the boundary
conditions of an offshore platform crane having a lifting
capacity of 100 tons were studied. In the finite volume method,
a series of analyses were carried out using the computational
fluid dynamics code, FLUENT. The crane's weight, maximum
lifting load, calculated wind pressure and boundary conditions
such as the inclination of the deck due to the extreme roll
motion of FPSO were also considered in the finite element
analyses using the commercial code, MSC/NASTRAN.
Deformation, stress distribution, as well as fatigue life
estimation were conducted under the unified computational
environment. An advanced procedure for evaluating design
concept validation was proposed for the application of FPSO
Figure 12. Local meshes of hot-spot stress evaluation
design and construction. The selected location for fatigue
Table 2. Analysis scenarios

Case no Gravity Lifting load Dynamic factor Wind loads Rolling inclination Direction of offshore crane
1 0 - - - -
2 0 100 tons 1.8 - -
3 0 100 tons - 18 m/s -
4 0 100 tons - 30 m/s -
5 0 100 tons 1.8 18 m/s -
6 0 100 tons 1.8 -
7 0 100 tons 1.8 -
8 0 100 tons 1.8 30.6 Crosswise (port)
9 0 100 tons 1.8 30.6 Crosswise (st. board)
10 0 100 tons 1.8 30.6 Lengthwise

By using MSC.NATRANS solution, the FPSO crane model The obtained values of accumulated fatigue damage at the
is calculated in 10 load cases, the obtained result is shown in interest locations are calculated being less than 1.0. This
Tab.3. Failure is assumed to occur when the accumulated means that the crane is still safe against fatigue failure at the
damage is equal to 1. Assuming that the crane has 20 years of two locations for 20 years.
lifetime, the number of applied load cycles is shown in Tab.3.
Table 3. Summary of resultant stress (MPa)

Case no Max stress Boom part 1 Boom part 2 King post Pedestal
1 107 81.6 28.6 107 87.2
2 333 267 27.4 333 279
3 485 395 31.8 485 447
4 323 257 29.5 323 282
5 381 248 33 318 297
6 531 421 32.5 531 450
7 514 405 34.5 514 465
8 384 332 31 384 284
9 485 401 28.4 451 485
10 681 596 77.9 681 488

5. Conclusion
This paper discussed the performance of MSC solutions References
with NASTRAN and MARC for ship structural analysis. The [1] O. F. Hughes, Paik, J.K., Béghin, D., “Ship structural analysis
results are obtained from reports of ISSC 18th and Han et al. It and design”. Jersey City, N.J.: Society of Naval Architects and
is proved the advanced of MSC solution is complying with Marine Engineers, 2010.
linear finite analysis as well as nonlinear finite analysis. These
[2] T. Lamb and SNAME, “Ship design and construction”, New ed.
solutions play an important role in assessment of strength, vol. I. Jersey City, NJ: Society of Naval Architects and Marine
buckling, ultimate limit state and fatigue. Engineers, 2003.
 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Applications 2015; 3(1-3): 47-53 53

[3] Y. Okumoto et al., “Design of ship hull structures : A practical ships and ship-shaped offshore structures: Part II—Stiffened
guide for engineers”. Berlin ; London: Springer, 2009. plates”. Ocean Engineering, 2008. 35(2): p. 271-280.
[4] MSC, “Patran 2014 Interface To MSC Nastran Preference [7] ISSC, "Committee III.1: Ultimate Strength," in 18th
Guide Volume 1: Structural Analysis”, MSC, 2014. International ship and Offshore structure congress, Rostock,
Germany, 2012, pp. 285-363.
[5] Paik et al., “Methods for ultimate limit state assessment of
ships and ship-shaped offshore structures: Part I—Unstiffened [8] Han, D.-S., et al., “Coupling analysis of finite element and
plates”. Ocean Engineering, 2008. 35(2): p. 261-270. finite volume method for the design and construction of FPSO
crane”. Automation in Construction, 2011. 20(4): p. 368-379.
[6] Paik et al., “Methods for ultimate limit state assessment of

Biography
Hung-Chien DO (1978, Hai Phong, Vo Trong CANG (1961, Saigon). Senior
Vietnam). He obtained Bachelor’s Degree in lecturer of the Faculty of Transportation
Ship Design and Master’s Degree in Ship Engineering at the Ho Chi Minh city
Engineering from Vietnam Maritime University of Technology (HCMUT), Vietnam
University in 1996 and 2007, respectively. He National University of Ho Chi Minh city
got PhD degree in School of Mechanical (VNU-HCM). Research fields: maintenance
Science and Engineering (2014, Huazhong optimization and 3D modeling in ship
University of Science and Technology, construction.
Wuhan, China). Work experience: shipbuilding, CG, R&D, educator. Former Head
Dr Do is Head of Ship Mechanics Department, Faculty of Naval of the Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Department of
Architecture in Ho Chi Minh City University of Transport, Vietnam. HCMUT. He has 20 publications in scientific papers and 10
Research experience: Ship mechanics, Ship structural design, Ship presentations on international conferences. He has published 5
longitudinal strength, Plate and stiffened panel strength, Ultimate books and instructions in ship design and construction. He is an
strength of ship structures. He is an author of 3 journal and associate researcher at the Digital Control and Systems Engineering
conference papers in the field of Ship structural buckling and Key-Lab (DCSE-Lab) under the VNU-HCM.
ultimate strength.