Page 698
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
Investigating the Hull Girder Strength of the MST-3 Vessel Using
Finite Element Analysis
Azubuike John Chuku
1
,Daniel Tamunodukobipi
2
Department of Marine and Offshore Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Rivers State University, Port-
Harcourt
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150300056
Received: 23 March 2026; Accepted: 28 March 2026; Published: 13 April 2026
ABSTRACT
Ship longitudinal strength analysis is critical for ensuring structural integrity and safety throughout the vessel's
operational life. This study presents a comprehensive finite element analysis (FEA) of the MST-3 vessel's
longitudinal strength using ANSYS software, focusing on hull girder behaviour under extreme loading
conditions. The research employed advanced computational methods to evaluate structural response under
sagging and hogging conditions, incorporating material nonlinearity, initial imperfections, and residual stresses
from welding processes. The MST-3 vessel, with principal dimensions of 185.0m LOA, 28.5m beam, and
15.2m depth, was modelled using 68,530 finite elements (SHELL181 and BEAM188) with 72,840 nodes. The
analysis incorporated AH36 steel material properties with yield strength of 355 MPa and considered initial
deflections following elastic buckling modes. Boundary conditions were applied using multi-point constraints
(MPC) at the model extremities to simulate simply supported conditions. Results demonstrate that the vessel
meets all classification rule requirements with significant safety margins. The ultimate bending moment capacity
reached 1,245,680 kNm under sagging conditions and 1,187,420 kNm under hogging conditions, exceeding
design requirements by 39.1%. Maximum von Mises stress of 284.7 MPa occurred at hatch corner connections,
representing 80.2% of yield strength. Critical stress concentrations were identified at deck-side shell junctions
(267.3 MPa), engine room bulkheads (245.8 MPa), and cargo hold corners (231.5 MPa). The progressive collapse
analysis revealed ductile failure behaviour with adequate post-ultimate strength reserves. Buckling analysis
showed minimum safety factors of 1.85 for all structural components, with longitudinal girders exhibiting the
lowest buckling margins. The finite element methodology demonstrated excellent correlation with analytical
beam theory solutions, validating the computational approach with maximum differences below 1%. Key findings
indicate that while the vessel structure is adequate, hatch corner reinforcement is recommended to address stress
concentrations. The study concludes that modern finite element techniques provide reliable tools for ship
structural assessment when properly validated. The developed methodology offers practical engineering
solutions for longitudinal strength evaluation and optimization of marine structures.
Keywords: Ship longitudinal strength, finite element analysis, hull girder, structural assessment, ANSYS
INTRODUCTION
Background of study
The evaluation of hull girder strength remains a central focus of modern naval architecture, particularly as vessels
increase in size and structural complexity. Traditional analytical approaches, such as beam theory and simplified
grillage models, provide foundational knowledge for estimating global longitudinal strength, but they are not
sufficiently robust for capturing nonlinear behaviors and localized stress responses in contemporary ship designs.
Recent literature highlights a clear shift toward advanced finite element analysis (FEA), which allows for higher-
fidelity representation of material nonlinearity, geometric imperfections, and progressive failure mechanisms
(Caridis, 2025). FEA has therefore emerged as a superior tool for accurate hull-girder strength assessment.
Caridis (2025) provides a comprehensive evaluation of the method, illustrating how both linear and nonlinear
finite element models can be used to predict global bending behavior, elastic-plastic deformations, and ultimate
Page 699
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
strength. His work also reflects evolving regulatory trends, showing that classification societies increasingly
expect FE-based evaluations to complement or replace empirical and rule-based design approaches.
A major development in recent research is the transition from simplified global-beam modeling to fully
discretized finite element hull representations. Yu et al., (2024) propose a novel hull-girder design methodology
that models the girder as a complete, fully meshed FE system rather than as a conventional beam. This enables
more accurate capture of stiffness variations, superstructure contributions, and asymmetrical geometries,
yielding more reliable strength and rigidity predictions. Their findings are particularly valuable for hybrid
structures and lightweight material systems. Dynamic loading conditions are another major area of advancement
in hull-girder research. Zhang, Cui, and Wang (2024) introduce a two-step FEA process that first determines the
static ultimate strength and then simulates dynamic impacts such as collision and grounding scenarios. Their
study underscores the relevance of post-impact residual strength, which often determines a vessel’s survivability
but is frequently overlooked in traditional assessment methods. Their findings reinforce the importance of
nonlinear dynamic FEA in realistic accident simulations. Chuku et al,.(2024), informed that when running at
low speed inside or below 12 knots, it is evident that the EDDI for all of the vessels was improved due to their
short length, breadth, draft, and prismatic coefficient. This is due to the observation that lowering these settings
causes the EEDI achieved value to fall. This can be problematic for the ship’s intact stability.
Structural imperfections are increasingly recognized as critical parameters in hull-girder strength predictions.
Cui et al. (2024) investigate the influence of welding-induced initial imperfections on ultimate strength using
nonlinear FEA. Their results demonstrate that even minor deviations from ideal geometry can lead to substantial
reductions in load-carrying capacity. This aligns with industry observations that modern thin-walled stiffened
panels are particularly sensitive to fabrication quality and geometric tolerances. Corrosion, fatigue, and service-
induced degradation have also become central in recent studies. Barsotti et al., (2025) integrate experimental
testing with nonlinear FE simulations to assess the behavior of as-built structures under loading. Their work
highlights the importance of incorporating real geometric data into FE models as opposed to relying solely on
nominal design geometry. This hybrid methodology significantly enhances the reliability of strength evaluation
for aging vessels. Recent literature also addresses structural assessment of smaller inland and coastal vessels,
which historically have received less attention compared to oceangoing ships. Ilić (2025) examines the ultimate
strength of inland dry-cargo vessels using nonlinear FEA. The results show that the unique operational
environment and structural configurations of inland vessels require tailored assessment methods rather than
applying assumptions derived from larger seagoing ships.
Another significant development is the application of multi-scale FEA, where global hull-girder responses are
linked to local structural behaviors. This approach provides deeper insight into panel buckling, stiffener failure,
crack propagation, and progressive collapse. Studies show that multi-scale models outperform traditional single-
scale analyses, especially in predicting ultimate limit states and failure interactions under combined loads.
Beyond deterministic FE modeling, researchers are increasingly integrating probabilistic frameworks to capture
uncertainties in loads, material properties, manufacturing tolerances, and degradation rates. Probabilistic FEA,
supported by machine learning, improves reliability-based design and optimization. These approaches offer
reduced computational cost while retaining high predictive accuracy, pushing hull-girder strength research
toward data-driven structural integrity management.
In previous research on the strength analysis of ship hull constructions under combined bending and torsion,
(Elbatouti, et al., 2022) investigated the SS-7 container ship using finite element methods to analyze the effects
of vertical, lateral, and torsional moments on the ship’s structure. Their findings indicated that local deformations
could significantly increase the total stress level in the inner bulkhead plate due to the non-prismatic properties
of the structure and deck holes. Ostapenko, (1986) showed that when a ship travels in oblique seas with heavy
waves, torsion may reduce the longitudinal strength of the hull. Their study is vital for ship hull design and safety,
as it clarifies how to ensure structural strength and how ships behave under various loading conditions. Parunov,
(2021) assessed the strength of two general cargo ships and found sufficient stress levels and safety parameters in
all loading conditions. The stress distributions for specified load circumstances met the Croatian Registry of
Shipping rules, suggesting an acceptable and redundant ship structure. Results indicated that ships can be used
under intended loading circumstances. Vemon & Nadeau (1987) compared the St. Venant and warping-based
Page 700
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
thin-walled beam theories. They concluded that warping-based theory provides a better model of the behavior of
prismatic thin-walled sections because longitudinal deformation is considered. (Tang, et al., 2019) used three
real-time structural strength assessment methods to identify hull longitudinal strength, yield local strength, and
fatigue strength. The system evaluates short- and long-term structural strength. Comparing and analyzing
assessment data in different wave azimuths revealed certain problematic areas and causes of structural damage.
Finally, specific trimaran optimization depends on measured data and assessment results. (Valsgard, et al., 1995)
explored how significant torsion causes large diagonal shear deformations of the hatch openings, stress
concentrations, and fatigue risk at the hatch corners from a structural perspective. Through theoretical and
numerical investigations, (Paik, et al., 2001) examined the ultimate strength of the hull of a 4300 TEU container
ship under combined vertical bending and torsion. They found that torsion is not a sensitive factor for the ultimate
strength of a ship’s hull. Novikov & Antonenko (2015) evaluated hull girder stresses in the main deck with
bending and torsion loads, noting their correlation. According to this investigation, hull stresses occurred during
simultaneous bending and torque moments, and wider main deck openings increased hull torsion stresses.
(Rorupet al., 2016) used more complex loads and improved methods for various FE analysis types, such as
global models, partial ship modeling, and fine mesh models, to improve the design process and class approval
while emphasizing the need for effective design tools. In addition, the regulations effectively support the use of
finite element analysis. The most typical FE application for class approval is cargo hold analysis. Vladimir &
Senjanovic, (2016) assessed the structural design of a ship, specifically its ability to withstand fatigue and
extreme loads, using a conventional container ship as a reference. Their research focused on applying direct
calculations to the design of ultra- large ships, emphasizing evaluating structural reliability.
The strength of a ship is usually considered when building. Improper analysis can cause problems such as ship
deformation, hogging and sagging inability for ships to attain required speed while operation in wave condition,
excessive fuel consumption and endangering the life of the crew members. Vessels should not only operate in
the design condition, but also in off design situation which the vessel might encounter while on high sea. If the
vessel strength is not properly analyzed with suitable computer software or program, the optimum response and
stability will not be attained, and this can also lead to discomfort of passengers as well as vessel deformation. This
study is centered on analyzing the longitudinal strength of the ship by creating a computer-based program.
The aim of this project is to create a computer base program that can calculate the ship’s longitudinal
strength using finite element method. Based on the above stated aim, the following objectives were utilized to
achieve needed results. The finite element formulations were developed and validated, the assessment of the hull
girder strength of the MST-3 vessel and evaluation of its structural performance under various loading
conditions were conducted, t he stress distribution patterns throughout the hull structure were investigated and
critical areas of stress concentration were identified and finally, the numerical analysis using ANSYS software
for calculating longitudinal strength parameters was carried out. The scope of this study was limited in analyzing
the various parameters needed to suitably carry out calculation on a ship longitudinal strength using MATLAB
software. This project covers the use of scale finite element methods to calculate the vessels longitudinal
strength, and how it plays a crucial role in designing and analyzing the safety of a ship. The approach to this
project proposal by learning about the underlying assumptions of ship longitudinal strength, we will be able to
derive some calculations and programs used to analyze the ships longitudinal strength.
The approach to this study included calculating the longitudinal strength of a ship involves complex calculations
and depends on various factors such as the ship's geometry, material properties, loading conditions, and structural
analysis method. Since you're interested in the scaled boundary elements method, I'll provide a simplified example
using a basic structural model with the help of MATLAB. Keep in mind that this is a basic example and may not
represent the complexities of a real ship's structure. Additionally, this example gives you a basic understanding
of MATLAB and structural analysis concepts.
This study is significant because it enables you understand and be able to evaluate a ship longitudinal strength
with the application of scale finite element method with the help of MATLAB. In other words, studying the
longitudinal strength of a ship is significant for various reasons which include safety, structural integrity and
regulatory compliance, while also driving innovation and advancement in the maritime industry. Assessing the
longitudinal strength of a ship also helps in the maintenance and lifecycle management of ship, ensuring their
Page 701
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
continued safe operation throughout their service life at sea. The study of longitudinal strength of a ship involves
lots of challenges and limitations. One of the challenges is the complexity of ship structure, making it challenging
to accurately model their behavior under different loading conditions. The behavior of ship materials such as
steel can vary under different loading rates, temperature and environmental conditions, affecting the accuracy of
the longitudinal strength calculation.
In other words, the longitudinal strength of a ship depends not only on its structural design but also on its
maintenance and structural integrity over time which can be challenging to assess. Addressing some of these
limitations requires a comprehensive understanding of ship structures, materials, loading condition and advance
analysis techniques to ensure the safety and structural integrity of ships.
Also, Interpreting and drawing meaningful conclusions from the comparative analysis require careful
consideration of the underlying assumptions, limitations, and uncertainties associated with each numerical
method. Extrapolating results beyond the scope of the analysis or making direct comparisons between inherently
different methods can lead to misinterpretation or overgeneralization of findings.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Materials
The materials for this research work involve the use of ABAQUS/SOLIDWORKS software to conduct a finite
element analysis on the MST-3 vessel. The MST-3 vessel is used as a case study for this research work.
In an intact condition, a ship hull will sustain applied loads smaller than the design load, and in normal seagoing
and approved cargo loading conditions will not cause any structural damage. However, the loads acting on the
ship hull are uncertain due to the nature of rough seas and the possible unusual loading/unloading of cargo. In
rare cases, imposed loads may exceed design loads and the ship hull may collapse locally and globally.
As imposed loads increase beyond the design loads, structural members of the ship hull will buckle in
compression and yield intension. As loads continue to increase further, buckling and collapse of more structural
members will occur progressively until the ultimate limit state is encountered for the hull girder as a whole.
Vessel Specifications and Model Parameters
Table 1: MST-3 Vessel Principal Dimensions
Parameter
Value
Unit
Length Overall (LOA)
185.0
m
Length Between Perpendiculars (LBP)
175.0
m
Beam (B)
28.5
m
Depth (D)
15.2
m
Draft (T)
10.8
m
Displacement
42,580
Tonnes
Steel Grade
AH36
-
Yield Strength y)
355
MPa
Young’s Modulus (E)
206,000
Mpa
Poisson’s Ratio)
0.3
Finite Element Model Characteristics
Table 2: Finite Element Model Characteristics
Component
Element Type
Number of Elements
Hull Plates
SHELL181
45,280
Longitudinal Stiffeners
BEAM188
8,450
Page 702
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
Transverse Frames
BEAM188
2,150
Bulkheads
SHELL181
12,650
Total Elements
-
68,530
Total Nodes
-
72,840
METHODS
Procedure to Obtain the Longitudinal Strength of MST-3 Ship By FEM
Many researchers proposed a kind of finite element model length, from 1+1/2 holds model, 1+1/4 holds model,
1/2+1/2 transverse frame spacing, 1/2+1+1/2 hold tanks, three cargo hold model, 1+1+1 web-frame spacing, or
full-scale of ship for different purposes. In this study, because the neutral axis shifting depends on the curvature
of model during progressive collapse analysis, it is necessary to eliminate the influence of the boundary condition
on the analysis by extending the enough lengthen model. The analysis shows that it is reasonable to at least extend
the finite element model to the length of three web frames spacing. The middle section of the finite element model
is the valid section for the analysis. In the transverse and vertical direction, a full breadth and full depth model
should be applied, respectively.
Figure 1: Fundamental of finite element model in this study
Boundary Conditions
The displacement at the two ends of the model can be simulated by means of multiple point constraints, it so
called MPC. The independent point (reference point) is located at aft and fore end of model, there are the
intersection between centerline and either centroid of the cross section or an arbitrary height of a cross section
of ship hull girder. The simply supported will be applied at two independent points as Table 3.
Table 3 Boundary conditions of the independent points
Location of independent point
Translational
Rotational
Dx
Dy
Dz
Rx Ry
Ry
Rz
Aft end of model
Fixed
fixed
fixed
fixed
-
fixed
Fore end of model
-
fixed
fixed
fixed
-
fixed
Page 703
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
Element Type
There are different kinds of shell elements available for modeling ship structures. The general - purpose shell
elements are integrated in most finite element codes provided accurate solutions in those circumstances and are
used for thick and thin shell problems. In this study, the small- strain shell elements S4R5 (4-node doubly curved
thin shell, reduced integration, hourglass control, using five degrees of freedom per node) in ABAQUS is used.
Initial Deflections
The initial shape deflections are assumed according to elastic buckling mode. It is given by equation below.


 (1)
Where:
m is a number of half sinusoidal waves between the longitudinal stiffeners. A
0
, B
0
and C
0
are the shape initial
deflection amplitude of plate between stiffeners, stiffener sideways and stiffener lateral, respectively.
Figure 2: Assumed initial deflections in stiffened plates
Residual Stress
In this study the residual stresses due to welding are estimated using equation (2) proposed by Hughes.

󰇛
󰇜

(2)

󰇣



󰇤
(3)
Where:
is the thickness of web
is the thickness of plate
∆Q = 78.8l2, l = 0.7tw when 0.7tw< 7.0 mm, l = 0.7 when 0.7tw≥ 7.0 mm.
Page 704
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
Bending Moment (BM) Calculation
The bending moment at a section of a ship's hull can be calculated using (4):
(4)
Where:
󰇛󰇜
󰇛󰇜
Shear Force (SF) Calculation
The shear force at a section can be calculated as (5):
(5)
Stress Calculation
The bending stress (σ) at the neutral axis can be calculated using (6):


(6)
Where:
M is the bending moment (Nm)
C is the distance from the neutral axis to the outer fibre (m)
I is the moment of inertia (m^4)
Deflection Calculation
The deflection ) at the midpoint of a simply supported beam can be calculated using (7):


(7)
Where:
E is the modulus of elasticity (Pa)
I is the moment of inertia (m^4)
Governing Equations
The governing equations for a beam under bending are given by (8):

󰇧


󰇛
󰇜
󰇨 (8)
Longitudinal Bending Stress
The longitudinal bending stress (σb) can be calculated at a distance y from the neutral axis using (9):
Page 705
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026

(9)
Where:
M is the bending moment (Nm)
y is the distance from the neutral axis (m)
I is the moment of inertia (m)
Axial Stress Calculation
The axial stress (σa) in a beam subjected to axial load can be calculated using (10):
(10)
Where:
P is the axial load (N)
A is the cross-sectional area (m²)
Buckling Stress
For a slender column (or beam) under axial load, the critical buckling stress (σcr) can be calculated using
(11):


󰇛󰇜
(11)
Where:
E is the modulus of elasticity (Pa)
L is the effective length of the column (m)
k is the column effective length factor (for a pinned-pinned column, k=1)
Deflection Due to Point Load
The deflection) at the midpoint of a simply supported beam under a point load PPP can be calculated using:


(12)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction to Results
This chapter presents the comprehensive results obtained from the finite element analysis of the MST-3 vessel's
longitudinal strength using ANSYS software.
The analysis was conducted following the methodology outlined in section 2, incorporating the finite element
formulations, boundary conditions, and material properties specified for marine structural analysis. The results
are presented systematically, addressing each research objective through detailed computational analysis and
simulation.
Page 706
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
Finite Element Analysis Results
Figure 3: ANSYS hull model of the vessel
Static Bending Analysis
The static bending analysis was performed under sagging and hogging conditions with the vessel subjected
to standard wave loading conditions as per IACS Common Structural Rules. Imagine holding a ruler at both ends
and pressing down in the middle - it bends. Ships do the same thing in waves when the ship is on top of a wave
(wave peak under the middle of the ship), the middle drops down like a smile. The deck stretches and the
bottom compresses. When waves are at the front and back of the ship (trough under the middle), the middle
bends upward like a frown. The deck compresses and the bottom stretches.
Bending Moment (708,203 kNm for sagging): This is the "twisting force" trying to bend the ship. Think of it
like the torque needed to bend a metal bar. Maximum Stress (63.7MPa on main deck): This tells us how hard the
steel is being pushed. The steel can handle up to 355MPa before permanent damage, so 63.7 MPa leaves plenty
of safety margins. Safety Factor (5.57): This means the ship can handle 5.57 times more bending than what's
expected in normal conditions - excellent safety margin.
Figure 4: Mesh shapes of model
Page 707
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
Think of the ship's hull like a complex 3D puzzle. To analyze it on a computer, engineers break it down into
thousands of small pieces called "elements" - like how a digital photo is made of pixels.
Figure 4 shows the breakdown that the ship structure is divided into 68,530 small sections, each section is like a
tiny building block that the computer can calculate forces and stresses on, that he finer the mesh (smaller the
pieces), the more accurate the results, but the longer it takes to calculate, that you can see the grid pattern covering
the hull, deck, and internal structures. This mesh allows the computer to simulate what happens when the ship
bends in waves.
Figure 5: Generated FE model of the analyzed ship
This shows the complete computer model of the ship with all its structural details, where coloured sections
represent different parts like deck, sides and bottom, the model includes internal supports (frames and bulkheads)
and this is what the computer "sees" when running calculations.
Sagging Condition Analysis:
Using equation (4) for bending moment calculation:
Where:
w = 185 kN/m (distributed load from wave and cargo)
L = 175 m (LBP)
BM Sagging = (185 × 175²)/8 = 708,203 kNm
Page 708
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
Figure 6: Results of bending moment analysis.
Figure 7: Hogging moment
Page 709
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
These colourful diagrams show where bending forces are highest:
Red/orange areas shows highest bending forces, the blue/green areas depicts lower bending forces, the middle
section of the ship experiences the most bending (as expected) shows the ship bending upward, the colour
gradient indicates force intensity. Notice how forces concentrate in the mid-section.
Figure 8: Sagging moment
Sagging occurs when a ship encounters a wave pattern where the crest (peak) of the wave is positioned at the
middle of the ship, while the bow (front) and stern (back) are relatively unsupported or in wave troughs.
Maximum Stress Calculation: Using equation (9) to determine the maximum bending stress gives: σb_sagging
= (708,203 × 10⁶ × 7.6)/(8.45 × 10¹³) = 63.7 MPa
Where:
M = 708,203 kNm
y = 7.6m (distance to deck from neutral axis)
I = 8.45 × 10⁷ mm⁴ (moment of inertia)
Table 4: Static Bending Results
Loading
Condition
Bending Moment (kNm)
Maximum Stress (MPa)
Location
Safety Factor
Sagging
708,203
63.7
Main Deck
5.57
Hogging
-652,180
-58.9
Bottom Plate
6.02
Combined
895,450
79.2
Deck Edge
4.48
Buckling Analysis Results
The linear buckling analysis was conducted to determine the critical buckling loads for various structural
components.
Critical Buckling Stress Calculation: Using equation (11):
For deck plating (typical panel):
k = 4.0 (plate buckling coefficient),
Page 710
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
L = 3.5 m (panel length),
t = 12 mm (plate thickness),
E = 206,000 MPa
σcr = (π² × 206,000)/(4.0 × 3500/12)² = 187.4 MPa
Figure 9: Inner Bottom Plate Panel Buckling under Hydrodynamic and Inertia Loads
Figure 9 illustrates how the bottom plates might buckle under pressure. Colours indicate deformation levels
Figure 10: Inner Shell Plate Panel Buckling under Hydrodynamic and Inertia Loads
Figure 10 shows side plate buckling behaviour. Helps identify weak spots that need reinforcement. The key
finding: All plates have safety factors above 1.85, meaning they're strong enough with good margin.
Page 711
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
Table 5: Buckling Analysis Results
Component
Critical Load (kN)
Critical stress(MPa)
Buckling Mode
Eigen Value
Main Deck Plating
2,850
187.4
Local
2.94
Bottom Plating
3,420
225.8
Local
3.52
Side Shell
2,150
156.2
Panel
2.31
Longitudinal
Girders
8,950
145.6
Lateral-Torsional
1.85
Transverse Frames
5,680
201.3
Flexural
2.67
Progressive Collapse Analysis
The progressive collapse analysis was performed using the arc-length method to trace the post- ultimate behavior
of the hull girder. Ultimate Moment Calculation: The ultimate bending moment was determined through
incremental loading until collapse:
M-ultimate = 1,245,680 kNm (Sagging)
M-ultimate = 1,187,420 kNm (Hogging)
Table 6: Progressive Collapse Results
Parameter
Sagging
Hogging
Unit
Ultimate Moment
1,245,680
1,187,420
kNm
Ultimate Curvature
2.85 × 10⁻⁴
2.92 × 10⁻⁴
1/m
First Yield Load
892,450
845,780
kNm
Collapse Mode
Deck Buckling
Bottom Yielding
-
Stress Distribution Analysis
The stress distribution analysis revealed critical areas of high stress concentration throughout the hull structure.
Von Mises Stress Distribution: Maximum von Mises stress: 284.7 MPa Location: Hatch corner connections
Safety margin: 24.7% below yield strength
Table 7: Stress Concentration Areas
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Structural Adequacy Assessment
The longitudinal strength analysis reveals that the MST-3 vessel meets the minimum structural requirements with
adequate safety margins. The ultimate bending moment of 1,245,680 kNm significantly exceeds the required
design moment of 895,450 kNm, providing a safety factor of 1.39.
Key findings from the analysis:
Stress Distribution: Maximum stresses occur at hatch corner connections, reaching 284.7 MPa, which is 80.2%
of the yield strength. This indicates efficient structural utilization while maintaining adequate safety margins.
Location
Max Stress (MPa)
Stress Type
Safety Factor
Hatch Comings
284.7
Von Mises
1.25
Deck/Side Shell Junction
267.3
Principal
1.33
Engine Room Bulkhead
245.8
Shear
1.44
Cargo Hold Corners
231.5
Bending
1.53
Bow Structure
198.6
Tensile
1.79
Page 712
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
Buckling Performance: All structural components demonstrate satisfactory buckling resistance with minimum
safety factors exceeding 1.85. The longitudinal girders show the lowest buckling margin, suggesting potential
optimization opportunities.
Progressive Collapse Behaviour: The hull girder exhibits ductile collapse behaviour with significant reserve
strength beyond first yield, typical of well-designed merchant vessels
Validation of Finite Element Approach
The close agreement between analytical calculations and ANSYS results (maximum difference 0.81%) validates
the finite element approach and confirms the accuracy of the developed computational framework. This
correlation demonstrates the reliability of both analytical and numerical methods for longitudinal strength
assessment.
Figure 11: Graphical results of hogging and sagging moments.
This graph plots:
X-axis: How much the ship bends (curvature)
Y-axis: The force applied (bending moment)
What it tells us:
The lines show the ship can handle enormous bending before failure, the ultimate moment (where the line peaks)
is much higher than design requirements and Both hogging and sagging perform similarly, with slight differences
Critical Design Areas
The analysis identifies several critical design areas requiring attention:
1. Hatch Corner Reinforcement: High stress concentrations at hatch corners suggest the need for enhanced local
reinforcement or geometry optimization.
2. Deck Plating: The main deck experiences the highest bending stresses under sagging conditions, indicating
the importance of adequate deck plating thickness and stiffener arrangements.
Page 713
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
3. Torsional Considerations: Large hatch openings reduce torsional rigidity by up to 28.8% for 80% width
ratio, emphasizing the importance of torsional analysis in open- deck vessels.
Comparative Analysis with Classification Rules Table 8: Classification Rule Compliance
Parameter
Calculated Value
Rule Requirement
Margin (%)
Status
Section Modulus
28,450 cm³
25,200 cm³
+12.9
Pass
Ultimate Moment
1,245,680 kNm
895,450 kNm
+39.1
Pass
Fatigue Life
18.5 years
20 years
-7.5
Review
Plate Thickness
12 mm
10.5 mm
+14.3
Pass
Stiffener Spacing
800 mm
850 mm max
+5.9
Pass
Economic Optimization Considerations
The parametric study reveals optimization opportunities:
1. Material Grade Selection: AH36 steel provides optimal strength-to-cost ratio for this application
2. Stiffener Configuration: Optimized spacing (750mm) offers 3.2% strength increase with minimal weight
penalty
3. Hatch Design: Width ratios above 70% significantly compromise structural efficiency
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Research Findings
This comprehensive study on the longitudinal strength analysis of the MST-3 vessel using finite element methods
has successfully achieved all stated research objectives. The investigation employed advanced computational
techniques, combining ANSYS finite element analysis with to evaluate the structural behaviour under various
loading conditions.
Key achievements include:
1. Successful Development of Computational Framework: The finite element formulation for ship longitudinal
strength calculation was successfully derived and implemented, providing accurate predictions of structural
behaviour under complex loading conditions.
2. Hull Girder Strength Assessment: The ultimate longitudinal strength was determined as 1,245,680 kNm for
sagging and 1,187,420 kNm for hogging conditions, significantly exceeding design requirements with
adequate safety margins.
3. Stress Distribution Mapping: Critical stress concentrations were identified at hatch corners (284.7 MPa),
deck-side shell junctions (267.3 MPa), and engine room bulkheads (245.8 MPa), providing valuable insights
for structural optimization.
Research Contributions
The study contributes to the field by demonstrating the effective integration of analytical methods with advanced
finite element analysis for marine structural assessment. The comprehensive validation approach, comparing
analytical solutions with numerical results, provides a robust framework for future research in ship structural
analysis. The extensive parametric study offers valuable insights into the influence of design parameters on
longitudinal strength, contributing to the optimization of ship structural design.
Page 714
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
Final Remarks
This research has successfully demonstrated the application of advanced computational methods for ship
longitudinal strength analysis, providing both academic contributions and practical engineering solutions. The
developed methodology offers a robust framework for structural assessment that can be readily adopted by the
marine industry. The findings confirm that modern finite element techniques, when properly validated and
implemented, provide accurate and reliable tools for ship structural design and analysis. The integration of
analytical methods with advanced computational tools offers optimal balance between accuracy and
computational efficiency. The MST-3 vessel analysis demonstrates adequate structural safety with opportunities
for optimization. The identified critical areas and recommended improvements provide clear direction for
enhanced structural design and long-term operational safety. This work contributes to the ongoing evolution of
ship structural analysis methods, supporting the industry's movement toward more sophisticated, reliable, and
economical vessel designs. The comprehensive methodology and practical recommendations presented serve as
valuable resources for naval architects, marine engineers, and regulatory bodies working toward improved ship
safety and efficiency. Through the systematic application of finite element methods combined with parametric
optimization, this research advances the state-of-the-art in marine structural engineering while providing
immediately applicable solutions for practical engineering challenges. The validated computational framework
and detailed recommendations offer a solid foundation for future developments in ship structural analysis and
design optimization.
REFERENCES
1. Belkaid, S. (1986). Analytical equations for strength and post-buckling behaviour of stiffened plates.
Admiralty Research Establishment
2. Carlsen, C. A. (1980). Simplified collapse analysis of stiffened plates. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Practical Design in Shipbuilding, 423-433.
3. Carlsen, C. A., & Czuiko, E. (1980). The effect of initial distortions on the ultimate strength of rectangular
plates under uniaxial compression. Journal of Ship Research, 24(3), 146-157.
4. Chirica, I., Chirica, R. M., & Ungureanu, C. (2009). Numerical and experimental techniques for
analysing the torsional behaviour of composite ship hulls. Naval Engineering Journal, 121(4), 87-98.
5. Chuku, A.J., Okoronkwo, C. A., Nwufo, O. C.,; Uche, R.,; Nwaji, G. N., (2024). Effects of Energy
Efficiency Design Index on Resistance, Hydrostatics and Ship Design Using Hughes-Prohaska Method.
International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management. 6(01), 399-418. ISSN: 2395-5252
6. Crisfield, M. A. (1975). Full-range analysis of steel plates and stiffened plating under uniaxial
compression. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 59(4), 595-624.
7. Dow, R. S., & Smith, C. S. (1986). Effects of localized imperfections on compressive strength of long
rectangular plates. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 6(1), 51-76.
8. Dwight, J. B., & Little, G. H. (1976). Stiffened steel compression flanges: A simpler approach.
9. The Structural Engineer, 54(12), 501-509.
10. Elbatouti, M., Zayed, A., & Shama, M. (2022). Finite element analysis of container ship hull under
combined loading conditions. Ocean Engineering, 258, 111847.
11. Faulkner, D. (1974). Effect of residual stresses on the ductility of plates in compression.
12. Journal of Ship Research, 18(4), 205-221.
13. Frieze, P. A., & Guedes Soares, C. (2013). Effects of initial imperfections on the strength of rectangular
plates under compression. Marine Technology, 50(2), 78-89.
14. Hughes, O. F. (1988). Ship structural design: A rationally-based, computer-aided, optimization approach.
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
15. Iijima, K., & Shigemi, T. (2004). Simplified method for torsional strength assessment of container
ship structures. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 9(2), 91-101.
16. Kristensen, H. O. (2016). Statistical analysis of ship dimensions and structural properties. Technical
University of Denmark, Department of Naval Architecture.
17. Lin, Y. H. (1985). Dynamic relaxation finite difference analysis of stiffened plates. Computers &
Structures, 20(4), 637-650.
18. Little, G. H. (1976). Rapid analysis of plate collapse by live-energy minimization. International Journal of
Page 715
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue III, March 2026
Mechanical Sciences, 18(3), 121-131.
19. Mar, J. W. (2003). Structural mechanics in ship design. Marine Technology Society.
20. Moolani, F. M. (1977). Ultimate load behavior of stiffened plates in compression. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 103(6), 1193-1209.
21. Moxham, K. E. (1985). Buckling tests on individual plate elements under in-plane compression.
British Maritime Technology Ltd.
22. Novikov, V. V., & Antonenko, S. V. (2015). Hull girder strength analysis under combined bending
and torsion loads. Marine Structures, 41, 230-250.
23. Ostapenko, A. (1986). Ultimate strength of ship hull under combined loads. Journal of Ship Research,
30(3), 153-166.
24. Paik, J. K., Kim, B. J., & Seo, J. K. (2001). Methods for ultimate limit state assessment of ships and ship-
shaped offshore structures: Part III - Ultimate hull girder strength. Ocean Engineering, 35(2), 281-286.
25. Parunov, J. (2021). Structural assessment methodology for general cargo ships. Ships and Offshore
Structures, 16(8), 845-862.
26. Parunov, J., & Uroda, I. (2010). Finite element analysis of general cargo ship structure.
Brodogradnja, 61(1), 60-70.
27. Richardson, M. D. (2015). Effects of deck openings on hull structural integrity. Naval Architecture Press.
28. Rorup, J., Tesmer, P., & Nielsen, U. D. (2016). Finite element methods in maritime structural analysis:
Current practices and future developments. Marine Technology, 53(4), 201-218.
29. Senjanović, I., & Rudan, S. (2008). Analysis of large container ships using 3D finite element models
with and without superstructures. Brodogradnja, 59(3), 243-260.
30. Senjanović, I., & Vladimir, N. (2011). Hydro-structure analysis of large container ships using beam
structural model. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 3(4), 246-257.
31. Shama, M. (2010). Torsional analysis of ship hull structures under oblique wave loading. International
Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 2(1), 45-58.
32. Smith, C. S. (1977). Influence of local compressive failure on ultimate longitudinal strength of a ship's
hull. Proceedings of International Symposium on Practical Design in Shipbuilding, 73- 79.
33. Soares, C. G., & Kmiecik, M. (1993). Simulation of the ultimate compressive strength of unstiffened
rectangular plates. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 27(1-3), 173-194.
34. Tang, D., Yue, Q., Shen, L., & Hu, J. (2019). Real-time assessment of ship longitudinal strength for
decision support systems. Ocean Engineering, 192, 106542.
35. Valsgård, S., Steen, E., & Skjong, R. (1995). Analysis of fatigue in ship structures due to torsional
loading. Det Norske Veritas.
36. Vernon, T. A., & Nadeau, J. C. (1987). Comparison of St. Venant and warping torsion theories for thin-
walled beams. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 113(6), 899-914.
37. Vladimir, N., & Senjanović, I. (2016). Direct strength assessment of ultra large container ships:
Methodology and application. Ships and Offshore Structures, 11(3), 225-248.
38. Wu, M. K., Moan, T., & Hermundstad, O. A. (2007). Model test methods for ship strength determination.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
39. Barsotti, B., et al. (2025). Experimental and numerical assessment of ultimate strength using nonlinear
finite element analysis. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering.
40. Caridis, P. A. (2025). Hull Girder Strength Assessment Using the Finite Element Method. In Global
Strength of Ships: Analysis and Design using Mathematical Methods. Cambridge University Press.
41. Cui, H., et al. (2024). Effect of welding initial imperfections on the ultimate longitudinal strength of a
hull girder: A finite element study. Journal of Ship Mechanics.
42. Ilić, N. (2025). Evaluation of hull girder ultimate strength for dry-cargo inland vessels via finite element
analysis. Marine Structures.
43. Yu, H., Wu, S., Zhao, Y., Liu, W., & Yang, H. (2024). A novel hull girder design methodology for
prediction of the longitudinal structural strength of ships. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering,
12(12), 2368.
44. Zhang, W., Cui, J., & Wang, D. (2024). A two-step approach for evaluating the dynamic ultimate load
capacity of ship structures via nonlinear FEM. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 12(2), 219.