Fatigue damage sensitivity analysis of a naval high speed light craft via spectral fatigue analysis

References

• Aldous L, Smith T, Bucknall R, Thompson P. 2015. Uncertainty analysis in ship performance monitoring. Ocean Eng. 110(Part B):29–38. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.05.043
   Google Scholar
• American Bureau of Shipping. 2012. Guidances notes on spectral-based fatigue analysis for vessels. Houston, TX: American Bureau of Shipping.
   Google Scholar
• Benasciutti D, Tovo R. 2006. Comparison of spectral methods for fatigue analysis of broad-band Gaussian random processes. Probab Eng Mech. 21(4):287–299. doi: 10.1016/j.probengmech.2005.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bretschneider C. 1959. Wave variability and wave spectra for wind generated gravity waves. Washington, DC: Beach Erosion Board, US Army Corps of Eng. Tech. Memo. No. 118.
   Google Scholar
• Cannon S, Guzsvany G, Turner T. 2004. A study of the effect of wave loading on a frigate operating in the Southern Ocean versus the North Atlantic. Pacific 2004 International Maritime Conference; Sydney, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Chiu F-C, Tiao W-C, Guo J. 2009. Experimental study on the nonlinear pressure acting on a high-speed vessel in irregular waves. J Mar Sci Technol. 14(2):228–239. doi: 10.1007/s00773-009-0050-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ćorak M, Parunov J, Guedes Soares C. 2015. Probabilistic load combination factors of wave and whipping bending moments. J Ship Res. 59(1):11–30. doi: 10.5957/JOSR.59.1.140052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Det Norske Veritas. 2010. Fatigue assessment of ship structures. Høvik: Det Norske Veritas. Classification Notes 30.7.
   Google Scholar
• Faltinsen O. 2005. Hydrodynamics of high-speed marine vehicles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guzsvany G, Flockhart C, Cannon S. 2006. Operational profile of naval surface ships and lifetime structural load analysis. Pacific 2006 International Maritime Conference; Sydney, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• International Association of Classification Societies (IACS). 2010. Common structural rules for bulk carriers. United Kingdom.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen J. 2001. Load and global response of ships. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Jiao G, Moan T. 1990. Probabilistic analysis of fatigue due to Gaussian load processes. Probab Eng Mech. 5(2):76–83. doi: 10.1016/0266-8920(90)90010-H
   Google Scholar
• Li Z, Mao W, Ringsberg JW, Johnson E, Storhaug G. 2014. A comparative study of fatigue assessments of container ship structures using various direct calculation approaches. Ocean Eng. 82:65–74. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.02.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma M, Zhao C, Hughes O. 2014. A practical method to apply hull girder sectional loads to full-ship 3D finite-element models using quadratic programming. Ships Offsh Struct. 9(3):257–265. doi: 10.1080/17445302.2013.770725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MAESTRO 11.2.2. 2015. Stevensville, USA: DRS Defense Solutions.
   Google Scholar
• Magoga T. 2017. Trials and tribulations: load and structural response measurements of a naval semi-planning craft. Pacific 2017 International Maritime Conference; Sydney, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Magoga T, Aksu S, Cannon S, Ojeda R, Thomas G. 2016. Comparison between fatigue life values calculated using standardised and measured stress spectra of a naval high speed light craft. 13th International Symposium on the Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures; Copenhagen, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Magoga T, Aksu S, Cannon S, Ojeda R, Thomas G. 2017. Identification of slam events experienced by a high-speed craft. Ocean Eng. 140:309–321. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.07.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magoga T, Aksu S, Cannon S, Ojeda R, Thomas G. 2019. Through-life hybrid fatigue assessment of naval ships. Ships Offsh Struct.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magoga T, Aksu S, Slater K. submitted for publication. Proposed implementation of nominal stress approach for fatigue assessment of aluminium naval ships. Proc Institut Mech Eng J Eng Marit Environ.
   Google Scholar
• Magoga T, Brincat M, Dawes-Lynch J. 2016. Verification of pressure sensors and strain gauges installed onboard HMAS Maryborough. Melbourne: Defence Science and Technology Group. DST-Group-TN-1576.
   Google Scholar
• Magoga T, Dwyer D. 2018. Fatigue life as a variable in assessing naval ship flexibility. Nav Eng J. 130(3).
   Google Scholar
• Mohammadi SF, Galgoul NS, Starossek U, Videiro PM. 2016. An efficient time domain fatigue analysis and its comparison to spectral fatigue assessment for an offshore jacket structure. Mar Struct. 49:97–115. doi: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2016.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molent L, Aktepe B. 2000. Review of fatigue monitoring of agile military aircraft. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 23:767–785. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-2695.2000.00330.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• QinetiQ North America. no date. Micro air-launced expendable wave buoy operators manual. Slidell, LA: QinetiQ North America.
   Google Scholar
• Razola M, Rosen A, Garme K. 2014. Experimental evaluation of slamming pressure models used in structural design of high-speed craft. International Shipbuilding Progress. 61.
   Google Scholar
• Recommended Procedures and Guidelines: Seakeeping Tests. 2014. Denmark: International Towing Tank Conference. 7.5-02-05-04.
   Google Scholar
• Rules for Classification of High Speed, Light Craft and Naval Surface Craft. 1996. Høvik, Norway: Det Norske Veritas.
   Google Scholar
• Rychlik I. 1993. Note on cycle count in irregular loads. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 16(4):377–390. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2695.1993.tb00094.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott EM, editors. 2008. Sensitivity analysis. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Sgarioto D, Turner T, van Walree F, Macfarlane G. 2015. Development and validation of a non-linear seakeeping tool For high speed craft. Pacific 2015 International Maritime Conference; Sydney, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Soliman M, Barone G, Frangopol DM. 2015. Fatigue reliability and service life prediction of aluminum naval ship details based on monitoring data. Struct Health Monit. 14(1):3–19. doi: 10.1177/1475921714546059
   Google Scholar
• Stambaugh K, Drummen I, Cleary C, Sheinberg R, Kaminski M. 2014. Structural fatigue life assessment and sustainment implications for a new class of US coast guard cutters. Trans Soc Nav Architect Marine Eng. 122:434–444.
   Google Scholar
• Technical Committee CEN/TC 250. 1999. Eurocode 9: design of aluminium structures. Brussels: British Standards.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson I. 2016. Validation of naval vessel spectral fatigue analysis using full-scale measurements. Marine Struct. 49:256–268. doi: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2016.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran Nguyen K, Garbatov Y, Guedes Soares C. 2013. Spectral fatigue damage assessment of tanker deck structural detail subjected to time-dependent corrosion. Int J Fatigue. 48:147–155. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2012.10.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vacca G, Galliussi M, Simone S. 2007. Structural optimization in fatigue-life assessment concerning a DDG of Ammiragli class of the Italian navy. Advancements in Marine Structures – Proceedings of MARSTRUCT 2007, The 1st International Conference on Marine Structures.
   Google Scholar
• Wirsching PH. 1980. Fatigue reliability in welded joints of offshore structures. Int J Fatigue. 2(2):77–83. doi: 10.1016/0142-1123(80)90035-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao C, Ma M. 2016. A hybrid 2.5-dimensional high-speed strip theory method and its application to apply pressure loads to 3-dimensional full ship finite element models. J Ship Product Design. 32(4):216–225. doi: 10.5957/JSPD.32.4.150010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu J, Collette M. 2017. A Bayesian approach for shipboard lifetime wave load spectrum updating. Struct Infrastruct Eng. 13(2):298–312. doi: 10.1080/15732479.2016.1165709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar