Phil. Trans. R. Soc.

A (2011) 369, 2892–2919

doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0118

REVIEW

Slamming of ships: where are we now?

B Y G. K. K APSENBERG*
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

Ship Hydromechanics and Structures Department, Maritime Research

Institute Netherlands, Netherlands Delft University of Technology,
Wageningen, The Netherlands

Literature published on the problem of ship slamming in waves is reviewed from the point
of view of someone working at a ship research institute. Such an institute is confronted
with rather practical questions regarding the acceptability of certain design parameters
such as the acceptable amount of bow flare angle for use at sea. The importance of
these questions is illustrated by noting that actual slamming or the presumed danger of
slamming is the main reason for ship operators to reduce speed or to change heading. The
review shows that such questions cannot yet be answered. The problem of the local effect
of the impact is very complicated owing to the importance of air inclusions, bubbles in
the water, compressibility of water and cavitation effects. Only a computational method
properly including all these effects will give an accurate answer; also model tests will
not be capable of doing this, if only because the methods to extrapolate the results of
models to full scale are not yet developed. The problem of the global response of the ship
to a wave impact is closer to being solved. A two-stage approach is proposed, consisting
of a computational fluid dynamics method for individual impacts and an approximate
method to be included in long-term simulations. However, to arrive at a realistic long-
term distribution, one has to account for the seamanship of the captain; avoiding the
worst conditions or adapting the ship speed and course has a large effect on the actual
extremes. Research on this topic has hardly begun.
Keywords: slamming; wave impacts; boundary-element method; statistical method;
scaled experiments; full-scale measurements

1. Introduction

If we define the start of slamming research as the publication of von Kármán’s

paper in 1929, the topic is now a healthy 82 years old and still going strong. The
subject is still far from being solved, so we might expect a good many years to
come. The interest in this subject from the scientific community has had some ups
and downs, but in general it is rather steady, resulting in an impressive amount of
papers; more than 1000 papers were listed in the Ship Structure Committee report
*g.k.kapsenberg@marin.nl

One contribution of 13 to a Theme Issue ‘The mathematical challenges and modelling of

hydroelasticity’.

2892 This journal is © 2011 The Royal Society

 Review. Slamming of ships 2893

SSC-385 [1]. Recent years have seen some of the ‘ups’ being caused by serious ship
accidents, sometimes with a significant loss of life. The accident with the ferry
Estonia in 1994 jumps immediately to mind and, more recently, in 2007, the
accident with the container ship MSC Napoli. The latter incident clearly showed
that slamming and slamming-induced whipping are not yet soundly incorporated
in the rules of Class societies; even today, an estimated factor of the maximum
bending moment is used to account for these dynamic effects.
This review is written from the point of view of a consultant working for a ship
research institute. The mission of the research institute is to apply and extend
hydrodynamic knowledge for the maritime industry. This means that there is
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

always a view to practical applications rather than pure fundamental research.

The most important question that the research institute needs to answer on
slamming is: is a certain amount of bow flare for a certain ship on a particular
route acceptable or not? Much more specific, but essentially the same question is:
what does a large bow flare mean in terms of the need to reduce speed in adverse
conditions? These questions are much more important than the question of the
ultimate slamming load.
In writing this review, use has been made of some excellent reviews written
in the past. Publications that can be mentioned are Henry & Bailey [2], the
International Ship Structure Conference (ISSC) Committee II.3 report Slamming
and impact [3], the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME)
Panel HS-2 review by Dalzell et al. [4], Daidola & Mishkevich [1], Mizoguchi
& Tanizawa [5], Faltinsen [6] and more recently Faltinsen [7], Faltinsen et al.
[8] and finally Hirdaris & Temarel [9]. This review is somewhat different in the
sense that the focus is not on the details of theoretical methods, but rather on
the possibilities for practical application of a certain theoretical approach. The
sections in this review focus on the different approaches.

2. The importance of slamming

Accidents are not the only focus of attention for work on the subject of slamming.
It has been recognized for a very long time that slamming is the primary reason
for voluntary speed reduction for ships sailing in head or bow-quartering seas
[10]. As such, it affects the arrival time of the ship and therefore the economy,
and, if the master decides to avoid a heavy weather area, it also affects the fuel
required for a certain voyage [11].
The main reason why ship captains reduce speed to avoid slamming is
the fact that the peaks of slamming forces have a peculiar probability of
exceedance distribution. If we use a three-parameter Weibull distribution, defined
b
as Pr{x > a} = e((x−c)/a) to fit peaks of data, we are used to a Rayleigh
distribution (b = 2) for linear processes and to an exponential distribution (b = 1)
for quadratic processes. Slamming peaks have a distribution with even lower
values of b; a consequence of this is that extreme values are really extreme:
the slamming force associated with a probability of exceedance of 10−4 can be
three times higher than the slamming force at a probability of exceedance of
10−3 . It seems plausible that it is this fact that makes the severity of slamming
so unpredictable and that, therefore, operators are very cautious and react to
incidental impacts by reducing speed.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 2894 G. K. Kapsenberg

port side starboard side f¢cl dk

10 no.1 cargo hold

col.bhd
38
10
30 70 longl
upp. dk upp. dk
100
150

no.2 pant. str.

Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

crack
crack
t = 6600 + 3500 L.W.L.
l = 150
no.1 pant. str.
30
no.1 ballast tank (P)

fore peak tank

B.L.
139 144 139 144 149 154 159 164 169 173 177
1 1
S.S. 8 2 S.S. 9 S.S. 9 2

Figure 1. Buckled areas (shaded) and a crack with a length of 10 m in the bow of a container ship.
Adapted from Yamamoto et al. [12].

Even mild slamming can introduce a whipping response of the ship’s hull.
This results in, notably at the fore and aft end of the ship, high accelerations
and a significant high-frequency contribution to the bending moment. The high
accelerations cause increased loads on the lashings of a container ship, which
ultimately might result in loss of containers overboard. The high-frequency
contribution to the bending moment contributes to fatigue damage. It is recalled
that bulk carriers have had many problems with fatigue damage, even to a point
that complete panels in the side of the ship have disappeared. Today, bulk carriers
use a monitoring system to check on fatigue damage and crack growth; in this
way, they have a better control over the damage and the time interval needed
between repairs. This way of monitoring might also be the future for other ship
types like large container ships.
Severe slamming can cause damage owing to one single impact. Yamamoto
et al. [12] reported damage owing to bow flare slamming on a small 819 twenty
feet equivalent unit (TEU) container ship in cyclone conditions. The remarkable
conclusion from the analysis of the damage and from the drop tests that were
carried out with a two-dimensional model of Station (St) 18.5 of this ship showed
that the pressure peaks were lower than expected—comparing with Wagner’s
theory—but the duration of the high peak was much longer than expected.
Yamamoto et al. concluded that the large impact consisted of a pressure of about
840 kPa on a circular area with a diameter of 13.7 m. This very high force caused
buckling and cracks in the structure (figure 1).

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 Review. Slamming of ships 2895
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

Figure 2. Path of the fracture line over 80% of the depth of the container ship Napoli.
Adapted from [14].

An extreme event was experienced by the Estonia in 1994 when she lost her
bow visor and damaged her watertight front door. This damage caused the ship
to capsize and to sink in a relatively short time with loss of a large number of
passengers and crew. The official report [13] indicates heavy slamming as the
cause of losing the bow visor. It is very unfortunate that the cause for such a
large accident is still being disputed, that sources of information regarding the
accident are still not opened and that no convincing research has been carried
out to analyse this drama.
The report on the accident with the Napoli [14] (figure 2), clearly revealed the
state of the art in the Class rules with respect to the level at which whipping
stresses are incorporated; just by a safety factor based on experience. Bureau
Veritas made an effort to use an estimation method based on a strip theory
approach ([14], Annex E), later published by Tuitman [15], and arrived at an
estimated contribution of whipping to the maximum wave bending moment of
30 per cent. Later on, Storhaug [16] estimated that the whipping contribution
could be anywhere between 20 and 60 per cent of the wave bending moment in
the sea state at the time of the accident. To complicate matters further, doubts
were raised about the role of the short-duration whipping stresses in the collapse
mechanism of the ship’s structure.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 2896 G. K. Kapsenberg

102
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
maximum deadrise angle (°)

Figure 3. Peak pressure coefficients (k = p/(1/2rv 2 )) of two- and three-dimensional bodies

as a function of the deadrise angle. Adapted from Lloyd & Andrew [17]. Results from experiments:
spheres (crosses), ellipsoids (open circles), curved wedges (open triangles), two-dimensional wedges
(open squares), cones (asterisks) and theory: Wagner theory (solid line). The dashed line is a fit
to the experimental data.

3. Slamming, physical phenomena

A slamming event is characterized by a sudden high force of relatively short

duration imposed on a body. This event occurs when a body enters a fluid with a
small relative angle between the body surface and the fluid surface. In this case,
the contact region between the fluid and the body surface expands at a high speed,
even if the speed of the body motion is moderate. The classical explanation for
the high pressure with the resulting force is the sudden acceleration of the fluid
close to the interface.
The impact pressure is very dependent on the relative angle between the
body and the fluid surface. This effect has been demonstrated by experiments
with dropping wedges with a varying deadrise. In particular, when the relative
angle becomes small, the pressure rises sharply, as illustrated in figure 3. When
the relative angle is really low, below 5◦ , the impact phenomena become more
complex. The air is being compressed below the body in the phase just before

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 Review. Slamming of ships 2897
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

Figure 4. Air enclosure during a flat impact of a breaking wave against a vertical wall. Adapted
from Bogaert et al. [18].

the impact. This high-pressure region causes a depression of the fluid surface;
therefore the body touches the fluid on the outer edges of the body in the first
instance, in this way enclosing a volume of air. Compressibility effects of this
volume of air play an important role in the pressure underneath the body. At
a second stage of the impact, this volume of air will escape, and there will be
direct contact of the body and the fluid. Compressibility effects of water might
play a role, but also the elastic/plastic response of the structure of the body. It
has been suggested that the dynamic response of a flat stiffened plate can cause
local cavitation [6].
These complex phenomena create a problem in predicting full-scale values
based on scaled experiments. For ‘normal’ impacts, when the relative angle
between the body and the fluid is larger than 5◦ , it is commonly accepted that
Froude’s Law of similitude holds. For flat impacts, if the relative angle is smaller
than 5◦ , this is no longer the case (figure 4); the compressed air affects the
slamming pressure, which means that the ambient pressure must be reduced for
scaled tests. Although this will certainly improve the similarity of the phenomena
during the scaled tests and at full scale, it is not sufficient, as discussed by
Bogaert et al. [18].

4. Momentum theory

Momentum theory is the oldest theory to tackle the problem of slamming. The
theory was initially applied to estimate forces on the floats of landing sea planes.
Von Kármán [19] was the first to use the change in the added mass of the floats
as an estimate of the impulsive force. The concept of added mass was already

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 2898 G. K. Kapsenberg

16

vertical bending moment (MN m)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

0
0 1 2 3 4
time (s)

Figure 5. Vertical bending moment on a destroyer in waves. Experimental result (solid line) and
calculated result (dashed line) using the momentum theory of Leibowitz [22].

well known in those days. Von Kármán based the added mass of the float on the
added mass of a flat plate with finite width; only the vertical velocity was used
in the force estimation.
The work of von Kármán attracted the interest of other researchers, who
improved his method. Pabst [20] used the vertical velocity normal to the float
to calculate the change in impulse, and in this way, the forward velocity was
included. Pabst already stated that, if the structure of the plane and floats
were infinitely stiff, the forces would be infinitely high; in other words, the
capability of the sea plane to survive a landing on water depends on the
flexibility of the connection to the floats. This statement is of course only true
if a flat plate impacts horizontally on water and if the effect of the water
surface being depressed by the air underneath the plate is neglected; but Pabst’s
realization of the importance of a flexible structure for the floats is worth
noting.
Perhaps the most well-known paper on momentum theory is that by Wagner
[21]. In contrast to the more intuitive papers mentioned previously, Wagner’s
approach was more mathematical, using potential flow theory. He used the
analogy of the impacting float with the flow around a wing at incidence. In this
way, the problem of the impact was linked to a planing vessel. The years following
Wagner’s work showed very little progress in the development or application
of momentum theory. One of the problems was the calculation of added mass
for ship sections, for which computers were required. The lack of computer
power was clearly illustrated by Leibowitz [22] who reported on the slamming
forces on a Dutch destroyer. The ‘measurement’ consisted of a series of still
photographs of the ship in waves. From these stills, the ship motion and the
parameters of the encountered wave were derived. The added mass of the ship
sections was calculated using Prohaska’s method [23] for different drafts. Using a
system of tables, the added mass and the relative velocity for each section were
painstakingly derived for each time step. Pile-up effects were estimated using
Szebehely’s approach [24] for sections with a large deadrise. Leibowitz went as
far as calculating the global deformation of the ship using a beam model and

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 Review. Slamming of ships 2899

12 000

10 000

8000
FZ bow (kN)

6000
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

4000

2000

0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
time (s)

Figure 6. Vertical force on a segment isolated in the bow of a ferry. Experimental results
(dotted line) and calculated results (solid line) using the approximate method of Kapsenberg &
Thornhill [25].

calculated local stresses in the ship’s structure. The comparison to measured

stresses was surprisingly good (figure 5). This enormous manual calculation has
not been repeated.
Recently, momentum theory was ‘revived’ by Kapsenberg & Thornhill [25].
The added mass at infinite frequency for a ship using a three-dimensional panel
code was calculated, from which they determined spatial added mass derivatives.
These added mass derivatives were multiplied by the relative velocity squared to
arrive at the impulsive force. It was shown that it is crucial to correct the incoming
wave for pile-up effects and for the draft-dependent stationary bow wave. It was
demonstrated that accurate predictions are possible (figure 6) also in quartering
waves, with a very fast method.

5. Boundary-element methods

Boundary-element methods (BEMs) have been developed for two-dimensional

impacts, initially by Greenhow & Lin [26], and later in Norway at the Norwegian
University of Science and Technology by Zhao & Faltinsen [27]. BEMs have
the advantage of a good solution—within the assumptions made of course—at
reasonable computational cost. There is a fundamental numerical problem at the
moment of the initial contact owing to the discontinuity of the velocity potential,
which causes an infinite pressure. This problem needs some ‘special treatment’ or,
as shown by Ogilvie [28], compressibility effects of the fluid should be included.
Just after the initial contact, the fluid close to the body starts to deform. This
deformation starts small, also small in relation to the panel size. This means
that the disturbance is not accurately modelled, so one has to hope that the

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 2900 G. K. Kapsenberg

code rectifies this inaccuracy automatically. As the impact progresses, the fluid
surface starts to deform more and more, and a jet can develop. This heavily
deforming fluid surface requires a method that continuously checks on the size
of the panels in relation to the neighbours and, if required, creates new panels
or deletes some panels. Usually the jet is cut away from the solution using the
argument that the pressure inside is just atmospheric with the additional benefit
that the re-entry problem of the jet is avoided. Even so, the large free-surface
deformation requires some tweaking and tuning to get a good panel distribution
during the simulation; it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to get this
right for all possible impacts. To do this in three dimensions will be even more
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

complicated. If one succeeds in building a stable method, the applicability is

restricted to rather academic cases. This is the reason that approximate methods
have been developed, the most well known being the one by Zhao et al. [29].
This method has been used for three-dimensional slamming predictions using
a strip-theory approach. The first to use this possibility were Kvålsvold et al.
[30] in their research on the Estonia accident. Later it was demonstrated by
Sames et al. [31] that the choice of the tilt angle of the strips in the bow had a
large effect on the resulting impact force. The approach is still used today in an
improved method whereby the bow wave system at different drafts is incorporated
in the estimation of the wetted surface, as demonstrated in a series of publications
by Hermundstad & Moan [32,33] and Tuitman [15].

6. Statistical methods

The statistical method of Ochi [34,35] to predict the probability of bottom

slamming is well known. The probability of the fore foot of the ship emerging and
the exceedance of a threshold re-entry velocity were combined to calculate the
probability of a slam. The probability was evaluated using a Rayleigh distribution,
hence linearizing ship motions. Ochi found initially a negligible difference in the
threshold velocity for U- and V-shaped vessels, analysing model experiments in
regular waves and irregular seas. Later on, Ochi & Motter [36,37] refined the
method by introducing slamming coefficients that were dependent on the shape
of the lowest 10 per cent (of the draft) of the considered section.
A severe drawback of the method is that the vessel—or essentially the section—
is supposed first to fully emerge from the water and then to impact on a flat
horizontal surface of the fluid. This is an approximation of bottom slamming;
bow flare slamming is not considered. However, the method is easy to use, which
made it popular. It also proved to be a valuable tool to compare different ships
and, adopting a certain allowable probability of bottom slamming, to determine
the maximum sustainable speed in different sea states.
Ochi’s method is applicable to short-term statistics: the statistics of slamming
events in a sea state with one particular wave energy spectrum, and with constant
speed and heading relative to the waves. To predict the long-term statistics, the
statistics of the slamming events that a ship will encounter during its lifetime at
sea, is much more problematic. Determining the extreme values itself is complex:
maximum impacts occur in a sea state with steep and breaking waves. These
breaking waves introduce air bubbles in the upper layer of the sea, which reduce
the speed of sound, thereby limiting the maximum speed of the pressure pulse.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 Review. Slamming of ships 2901

Vt/R
= 0.40 x
= 0.19 x
=0 x
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

Figure 7. Free-surface elevation at different time levels; results of a volume of fluid method (solid
line) and the first-order approximation (dashed line) [42].

This effect will increase the number of slamming events and the severity of the
slam. On the other hand, the upper layer is more compressible owing to the air
content, which should reduce the maximum peaks.
Next to this, the seamanship of the captain has a very large effect on the
long-term distribution of the slamming loads. First of all, the captain will try to
avoid the most severe conditions by re-routing. If this action is insufficient, he
will reduce speed or change heading; both actions have a very large effect on the
severity of the slamming impacts.

7. Analytical methods

In general, analytical methods provide the exact solution for a simplified impact
problem. As such, they are used as benchmark tools for approximate methods
and also for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods. One has to be aware,
however, that the analytical solution has no problems in predicting an infinite
pressure or an infinite pressure gradient; this will never be possible for a CFD
solution with a grid of finite dimensions.
Analytical work started with the previously mentioned paper by Wagner [21].
Potential theory was used to develop a solution for a wedge impacting on a flat
water surface. The approximate solution for the free surface was improved upon
by Dobrovol’skaya [38], who developed an exact method for impacting wedges,
known as the similarity solution. Korobkin [39] also used Wagner’s analysis,
and included higher order terms in the Bernoulli equation in order to improve
the comparison to experiments. The method was extended to three-dimensional
problems by Scolan & Korobkin [40] and Korobkin & Scolan [41]; a solution for
axisymmetric bodies or bodies that resemble an axisymmetric body was found.
Because the body boundary conditions were imposed on the plane of the free
surface, the method can only be used for the initial impact of bodies with a small
deadrise angle.
Cointe & Armand [42] studied the problem of an impacting circular cylinder.
It was clearly shown that their analytical method was very good for the initial
impact problem where the leading parameter Vt  R, in other words, the
immersion must be very small compared with the width of the section. This

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 2902 G. K. Kapsenberg

1.0

0.8

0.6

pressure (bar) 0.4

0.2
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

–0.2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
time (s)

Figure 8. Impact force on an elastic conical shell. Purely analytical result for one point (solid line),
analytical result averaged over the area of the pressure sensor (thin-dashed line) and experimental
result (thin solid line) [43].

requirement is illustrated by their estimated free-surface deformation (figure 7).

Scolan [43] showed results of impact force calculations and of experiments. The
calculated impact force shows the infinitely quick force build-up of the analytical
solution while the experimental force build-up is limited by the speed of sound
in the fluid (figure 8).

8. Computational fluid dynamics

CFD calculations, by which we mean volumetric methods rather than BEMs,

have been applied to impact problems for some 15 years. Arai et al. [44,45] were
the first to apply this approach to slamming of ship sections; in those days, this
was a simulation of a drop test of a two-dimensional section in calm water. They
used an Euler solver and the volume of fluid (VoF) method to determine the
free surface. This technique was also used by Germanischer Lloyd [31,46,47]; it
was applied in a strip-theory type manner to calculate the impact of pressure on
ships in waves. The basic ship motions were calculated using a classical linear
three-dimensional BEM.
Work was first done to develop CFD codes that could handle ship motions in
waves without considering steep waves and slamming. Problems were encountered
with wave propagation into the computational domain and with proper handling
of the outgoing waves at the boundaries, and, of course, the large grids required
were limited by computer memory. Computer requirements were impressive;
together with the memory limitations, this was often a reason not to do grid
studies. Moctar et al. [48] presented results of CFD calculations for a large
container vessel where both ship motions and impact pressures were calculated.
Calculations were done for critical conditions that were identified by a BEM. They
showed a good agreement for rigid-body motions, internal loads and local pressure
under the bow of the ship. Pressures from the CFD calculation were transferred
to a finite-element code for a whipping analysis. We note that the wave condition

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 Review. Slamming of ships 2903

used for the CFD analysis was not a very steep one; it was a condition that
produces a maximum vertical bending moment (VBM) in the midship section, a
head seas condition with a wavelength of the order of the ship’s length.
Results of calculations for the S-175 container ship were shown by Wilson et al.
[49]. His results showed nonlinear force components, but not real slamming events.
Kapsenberg & Thornhill [25] showed results for a ferry; the ship was held captive,
in agreement with the model experiments. The calculated impact force on a bow
element and local pressures agreed very well with the experimental results. On
the other hand, they could not successfully calculate the impact force for the
steepest waves used in the experiments, but the waves were much shorter than
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

the ship length.

More recently, the method smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) has been
applied to impact problems. The method is numerically very robust since it
is meshless. Overviews of the features of the method and the developments
were given by Monaghan [50–52]. Persisting problems are the interfaces between
the fluid and the body, numerical damping, which prohibits accurate wave
propagation in large domains, and internal pressure oscillations, which are
apparent in local pressures. Despite this, good results have been obtained for
the classical dam-break problem [53], problems with two-phase flows like a rising
bubble in a fluid [54] and violent wave impacts [55].
All CFD methods are quite computer intensive and need parallelization on a
large number of processors to get reasonable performance, but SPH is even worse
in this respect. The solver is quite fast since no large matrices need to be inverted,
each particle only interacts with its close neighbours, but the time step is very
small because, essentially, compressibility is used for time stepping.

9. Structural aspects: hydroelasticity

Already in the early days of research on landing aircraft, the importance of

flexible supports for the floats of a plane was realized [20]. A stiff support could
easily break at a more violent landing; flexibility in the supporting structure
reduces the peak loads in the support structure of the floats. This characteristic
is the definition of hydroelasticity: the forces of the fluid on the floats cause the
supporting structure to deform; the deformation velocity in its turn changes the
fluid loading on the floats.
The problem of hydroelasticity received an impulse from studies on very large
floating structures like floating airfields. This work is outside the scope of this
review. Relevant here is research carried out in Norway, especially on the loads
on flat plates supported by stiffeners. This research was stimulated by a strong
development of multi-hulls (surface-effect ships and conventional catamarans)
by the local shipyards; the flat plates were a model for the cross structure
hitting a wave crest. Kvålsvold & Faltinsen [56] reduced the problem of the
plate with stiffeners to that of a flexible beam impacting on a wave crest in
two dimensions. The beam was modelled as a Timoshenko beam and this was
coupled to a simplified solution (referred to as the outer solution) for the fluid
flow in the impact region. Details of the flow at the contact point of the body
and the fluid were ignored; it is assumed that this is allowable considering the
hydroelastic response of the beam. An analytical solution was found, but the

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 2904 G. K. Kapsenberg

forces (N m–1) × 106

hydrodynamic
2

–2

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

time (s) × 10–3
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

Figure 9. Force on a beam when impacting on a wave crest. The top line represents the force on
the fully rigid beam; the full line shows the very large reduction of this force due to the flexible
response of the beam [56]. Solid line, total force; dotted line, local excitation force; short-dashed
line, damping force; long-dashed line, inertial force.

0.25

0.20
emEI tanb
zaV 2rL2

0.15

0.10

0.05

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

tanb
V÷rL3/EI

Figure 10. Strain as a function of the non-dimensional ratio of the duration of the impulse and the
natural period of the structure. Results from calculations of a stiffened plate field Faltinsen [7].
Results of calculations at different non-dimensional impact velocities (crosses, open circles, triangles
and squares), quasi-steady orthotropic plate theory (dashed line) and hydroelastic beam theory
(solid line).

work on numerical solutions (BEMs) failed for stability and convergence reasons.
Since the analysis is linear, a decomposition of the different force components can
easily be made; the results in figure 9 show that the effect of the elasticity of the
beam on the hydrodynamic force is quite dramatic. This work was extended by
Haugen & Faltinsen [57] using orthotropic plate theory and applied to a physical
model consisting of three segments by Ge et al. [58].
Hydroelastic effects are only relevant for local impacts when the relative angle
between the body and the surface of the fluid is small, and if the duration of
the impact is short relative to the resonance period of the structure. This is
expressed by Faltinsen [59] by a parameter
 that we identify here as Faltinsen’s
slamming parameter: FSP = tan b/V rL /EI . FSP is proportional to the ratio
3
of the wetting time of the beam and to its lowest natural frequency. Using the
results of calculations on a wedge built from a stiffened plate, a diagram was
drawn showing the effect of hydroelasticity on the strain (figure 10). This figure

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 Review. Slamming of ships 2905

maximum displacement (m)

1.0 no hydroelasticity
(no air)
0.8

0.6 no hydroelasticity
(with air)
0.4
hydroelastic
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

(no air)
0.2
hydroelastic
10 19.0 (with air)
5 27.2
ang z)
le ( 2 35.4 y (H
°) q u enc
0 43.6 fre

Figure 11. Hydroelastic and air inclusion effects on the maximum displacement of different two-
dimensional wedges characterized by the deadrise angle (first horizontal axis). The structural
properties are characterized by the first dry natural frequency (second horizontal axis). Adapted
from Bereznitski [60].

shows a full elastic response for FSP < 0.25 where the stresses are proportional
to the impact velocity, a transition area for 0.25 < FSP < 1.50 and a quasi-static
response for higher values of the parameter where the stresses are proportional
to the impact velocity squared.
Bereznitski [60] essentially studied the same problem of a two-dimensional
wedge entry where the wedge consisted of a beam with finite stiffness. By
calculating a series of wedge shapes with a deadrise angle of 0◦ , 2◦ , 5◦ and 10◦
and, for each case, four different values of the stiffness of the beam, figure 11
was constructed. This figure shows that neglecting hydroelastic effects can, in
the extreme case, result in an overprediction of the displacement (and hence the
stress) by a factor of 10. Note that this is for a very extreme case; a flat impact
on a very flexible structure.

10. Experimental techniques

A slamming experiment is not an easy experiment; this was well detailed by

Lewis et al. [61]. The duration of the impact is usually short, especially if local
quantities, like the pressure, are of interest. This means that high sampling
rates like 5–10 kHz are required; for a flat impact even higher sampling rates
are necessary. In addition to the requirements for the measurement system and
the data acquisition system, there is the problem of the sensor itself. Nowadays,
there are piezo-electric pressure sensors with very high natural frequencies. It
must be realized that the quoted high frequency is the frequency in air; the
natural frequency submerged in water is much lower. Much work was done in

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 2906 G. K. Kapsenberg

the 1960s and 1970s to capture the peak of the local pressure pulse; these results
were no doubt affected by the accuracy and the maximum sampling rate of the
measurement systems of those days.
Systematic experiments were carried out on two-dimensional bodies like wedges
as early as 1952 by Bisplinghoff & Doherty and are still being done recently [61–
63]. Bisplinghoff & Doherty [64] carried out free-fall experiments and derived the
impact force from the deceleration of the test section. The wetted length of the
wedge during the impact was studied using a high-speed film camera that was
able to shoot 1500 frames per second. Their results for the 10◦ wedge did not
agree with the existing theories of Wagner [21] and Mayo [65]; the results for the
20◦ and 30◦ wedge showed a better agreement.
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

Tveitnes et al. [62] carried out more sophisticated tests on wedges using an
apparatus that imposed a constant velocity during water entry. Tests were carried
out for wedges having a deadrise angle ranging from 5◦ to 45◦ . All sections
had the same width; the models had a hard chine at the maximum width
and vertical walls. They measured the total force on the section for various
water entry velocities and also for some water exit cases. Their results from the
water entry tests showed significant dynamic effects that were attributed to the
different components of the test apparatus, illustrating the complexity of the
experiment. De Backer et al. [63] carried out drop tests with a hemisphere and
cones with different relatively high deadrise angles. A high-speed camera was
used to measure the impact velocity and the pile-up along the body. Measured
pressures on the bodies were significantly lower than predicted by asymptotic
theory, especially those of the cones. Regarding the relatively large deadrise angles
of the cone, this is not surprising. Lewis et al. [61] carried out drop tests with
a two-dimensional wedge. A high-speed camera was also used to measure the
position of the wedge and it was found to be more accurate than a traditional
position gauge and double-integrated acceleration signals. Lewis et al. detail an
extensive uncertainty analysis, again showing that attention to detail is required
for accurate measurements.
Research on hydroelastic effects initiated a series of experiments used for
validation of the developed theory. Work was done in Norway by Kvålsvold &
Faltinsen [66] on a flat plate supported by stiffeners dropping on a wave crest;
similar tests were carried out by Samuelides & Katsaounis [67] and Vredeveldt
et al. [68]. Results of this work showed that the lower deformation modes had a
dominant effect on the maximum strain. The slamming peaks can be very high,
but with a very short duration.
Experiments carried out by Shibue et al. [69] with a steel cylinder and by Arai &
Miyauchi [70] with a thin-walled aluminium cylinder showed large differences in
the deceleration (owing to the difference in mass) and in the stresses, owing to the
deformation of the aluminium model. A fully coupled hydrostructural approach
is necessary to predict stress levels in such a flexible structure. Such an analysis
was performed by Ionina & Korobkin [71]; a good agreement with Shibue’s results
was shown.
Kvålsvold & Faltinsen [66] presented the results of drop tests with a flat
plate on a wave crest. The results were compared with a two-dimensional theory
using a beam model for the plate and a nonlinear BEM developed by Zhao &
Faltinsen [27]. The displacement is shown in figure 12; the agreement for the initial
displacement is very good, but there is a marked change in the natural frequency

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 Review. Slamming of ships 2907

0.010

0.005

displacement (m)
0

–0.005

–0.010
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

–0.005 0 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020

time (s)

Figure 12. Maximum displacement of an impacting stiffened plate. The prediction using asymptotic
theory (solid line) shows a much longer period of oscillation than the experimental result
(dashed line) [6].

4
pressure (bar)

–2

–4
–0.005 0 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
time (s)

Figure 13. Prediction of the local pressure of the impacting stiffened plate [6]. Solid line, asymptotic
theory; dashed line, experimental results.

of the plate after the initial deflection, t > 0.008 s. Faltinsen [6] attributes this
to ventilation or cavitation, which causes the plate to vibrate in the dry natural
frequency. This seems logical considering the negative pressure that has been
measured (figure 13). The good agreement between the predicted and measured
initial displacement while the initial peak in the pressure was fully absent in the
theoretical result (figure 13) illustrates that a high, short-duration, pressure peak
has little consequence for the deformation.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 2908 G. K. Kapsenberg

Experiments with complete models of ships are carried out to measure the
global response. Basically, there are two ways to do this, to build a completely
elastic model or to divide the model into a number of segments and to connect
them with an elastic beam. The first approach can be quite expensive if one
attempts to model an existing ship in detail. For research purposes, a much
simpler model can be built from some elastic material. This last method was
used by Watanabe et al. [72] for experiments on the S-175 container ship and by
Hay et al. [73] for experiments on a frigate. Some problems were indicated by
the last group of authors regarding the effect of installing components like the
electrical motor and drive train needed for propulsion on the elastic properties
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

of the model. The approach of using a fully elastic model was reviewed by
Iijima et al. [74]. They concluded that it was unavoidable to use some plastic
as material for the elastic model; this material has a lot more internal damping
than the steel or aluminium prototype, thereby affecting the elastic response
of the model. This aspect is especially important for successive slamming; the
phasing of the second slam with the still-active whipping response of the model
has an enormous effect on the dynamic response of the second impact, as shown
by Kapsenberg et al. [75].
Most experiments on complete models of ships are carried out using segmented
models. There are two methods for designing the beam for such models: the first
is to build a beam with a very stiff main part and flexible connections and the
second is to build a continuously bending beam. Examples of the first method
are in the experiments carried out by Hermundstad et al. [76], Lavroff et al. [77]
and Drummen et al. [78]. Examples of the second method are the experiments
by McTaggart et al. [79], Dessi et al. [80] and Iijima et al. [74]. The advantage
of the first method is that the flexible connection can be made adjustable, while
adjusting the beam is more complicated. However, both methods appear to give
good results in comparison with calculation methods.

11. Full-scale measurements

There are quite a few full-scale experiments on slamming reported in the open
literature. In general, this type of measurement needs a complicated set of
instruments and measurement system, and, if you are looking for it, bad weather
is not always easy to find. For commercial ships sailing fixed routes, this means
that a measurement campaign needs to cover several years in order to have a
decent chance of success.
The earliest documented full-scale seakeeping trials were those on Dutch
destroyers reported by Warnsinck & Saint Denis [81]. The instrumentation was
self-made and consisted mainly of stress measurements. The main problem was
the lack of information on the sea state. This problem was avoided in later trials by
doing side-by-side tests [82]. These measurements were analysed by Leibowitz [22]
who applied momentum theory to compare theoretical results with the values
measured at full scale, as mentioned previously.
The Ship Structure Committee ordered an extensive study in the 1960s. This
study started by developing an automated measurement and recording system
for full-scale internal load measurements [83]. This system was later used for
several campaigns on cargo ships [84]. One of these ships, SS Wolverine State

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 Review. Slamming of ships 2909

Figure 14. Sistership of the Wolverine State.

Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

(figure 14) was further instrumented with pressure gauges to measure slamming
pressures in the bottom. It is interesting to note that this ship type experienced
damage to the bottom plating on earlier occasions. Results of the slamming
measurements were reported by Wheaton et al. [85]. Measurements took place
over a 3 year period; during all this period, significant slamming occurred only
on three west-bound trans-Atlantic voyages. No measurements were carried out
on the environmental conditions; also the wind speed was estimated by the crew
of the ship. The conclusions from this project are therefore rather general. The
Poisson distribution as predicted by Ochi [34] for the time interval between slams
was confirmed. The head seas condition was the most severe one considering the
number of slams. An effort was also made to estimate the relative velocity at the
moment of the impact; this was done on the basis of the signal of the pressure
gauge with considerable simplifications. Accepting the high uncertainties of this
procedure, a relation was found between impact velocity and peak pressure that
was close to Ochi’s [34] value from model experiments using a Mariner hull form,
but peak pressures were a factor of four lower than Chuang’s [86] results from
drop tests.
Aertssen [10,87] carried out measurements on many ships. From these
measurements, performance diagrams were created, as illustrated in figure 15.
These diagrams show basically the speed of the ship as a function of the weather
conditions—expressed as a Beaufort number—at various power levels, but they
also show some limiting seakeeping parameters like the number of slams and the
number of propeller emergences per hour, bow acceleration and probability of
deck wetness. The weather conditions were based on observations by the crew,
and the actual wave spectrum is only characterized by a Beaufort number.
Andrew & Lloyd [88] carried out side-by-side trials on two frigates of the Royal
Navy. They used wave buoys to measure the sea state; later on, their results were
used by Bishop et al. [89] to validate their unified dynamic theory of a flexible
ship hull with good results. One interesting conclusion from their work was that
different methods to estimate the slamming forces gave a wide spread of the
distribution of the peaks of the VBM amidships (figure 16).
Aalberts & Nieuwenhuijs [91] focused on the contribution of the whipping
component on the VBM onboard the 124 m general cargo/container vessel
Victoriaborg (figure 17). They did not measure the sea state, instead they used
an automated measuring system that collected data over a full year and from this
they considered statistical distributions of the peak values. It was concluded for

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 2910 G. K. Kapsenberg

17
8000 14
7000
12

pitch angle (°) stress (kg mm–2)

15 6000
10
0P

5
5000 E

PE
speed (kts)

dry ship 8
13
6

10
4000 spray
e
angl

25
E
ch
t pit

P
n

E
ifica 4
sign
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

3000 max. significant wavestress wet

11 stress 2
max. whipping

0S

1S
2
3
S
0

S
9
5 6 7 8
Beaufort number

Figure 15. Performance diagram of cargo liner Jordaens. Adapted from Aertssen [10]. Diagram
shows lines for different power settings (solid lines), maximum significant wave stress and maximum
whipping stress (dotted lines), significant pitch angle (dashed line), probability of propeller
emergence (PE; dashed-dotted line), probability of slamming (S; light dotted line).

103
no. exeedances per hour

102

10

1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
bending moment amplitude (MN m)

Figure 16. Distribution of the peaks of the VBM for different estimators of the slamming force
[89]. Estimations using the method of Leibowitz [22] (open squares), Stavovy–Chuang [90] (open
circles), Ochi–Motter [37] (open triangles) and measurements (crosses).

this hull form with very little bow flare that the whipping component contributed
significantly to the fatigue damage: the number of cycles increased by 35 per cent
and the extreme value by some 15 per cent.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 Review. Slamming of ships 2911
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

Figure 17. The container ship Victoriaborg.

More recent projects that have been carried out often remain unpublished for
confidentiality reasons. Within the Cooperative Research Ships, administrated
by the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN), several long-term
monitoring campaigns have been and still are being carried out. A recent
development is to use the backscatter of the navigation radar to estimate the
three-dimensional wave spectrum [92]. Several such systems are available on the
market and, after tuning, these systems give a good estimate of the sea state.
The main uncertainty is the estimate of the wave height. This measurement is
heavily affected by the presence of very small wavelets on top of the wave owing
to a local wind field.
It has been proposed by Thornhill & Stredulinsky [93] to combine the
measurement from the wave radar with measurements of the ship motions. Using
pre-calculated ship motions and the measured wave spectrum, one can determine
a correction factor for the spectral value for each frequency and wave direction
bin, thus correcting the significant wave height.

12. So, where are we now?

It is clear that an enormous amount of work has been done and that impressive
results have been obtained, but it is still insufficient to advise the industry on
the suitability of a particular ship design on a certain route. The questions posed
in the first section on the acceptability of a certain bow flare in a particular sea
state can still not be answered.
Developments in the last decades have shown that ships are getting bigger and
hence are more flexible than ever before. The use of high-tensile steel allows a
reduction of the structural dimensions (in comparison to normal steel), which
again makes the structure more flexible. This development increases the need
to determine the stresses owing to the flexural deformations of the ship’s hull.
The reason to include this is twofold: the effect of the flexural deformations on
the extreme wave-bending moment—hence the design value—and the effect on
fatigue aspects.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 2912 G. K. Kapsenberg

Calculating the dynamic response of the ship’s girder on a given dynamic load
using a structural model seems a solved problem. The introduction of deformation
modes into hydrodynamic calculations was developed by Bishop & Price [94] and
has basically remained unchanged. The main problem, however, resides in the
calculation of the excitation for the different deformation modes, as was clearly
demonstrated by Bishop et al. [89]. It is a pity that an enormous amount of work
has been devoted to a proper measurement and prediction of the peak value of
the impact pressure. For many purposes, this value has no consequences since
the duration of the peak is very short, therefore, it contains very little impulse.
The global response of the ship owing to a wave impact is determined by the
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

spatial integral of the pressure pulse as it travels over the hull. Although the peak
pressure might be high and the high-pressure area might be narrow—resulting
locally in a high pressure of short duration—the hull girder is excited with a force
of relatively long duration owing to the relatively low speed at which this pressure
pulse travels over the hull. The short-duration slamming peak is only important
for very special applications like the containment systems for liquefied natural
gas owing to the special structure of flexible panels and very stiff supports.
Analytical methods to predict slamming impacts have a limited usefulness.
Often they can only be applied to simplified shapes and are limited to just the
initial stage of the impact. BEMs are rather more flexible, certainly with respect
to the hull form, but the large surface deformations cause enormous problems
for a proper and accurate evaluation. This is the reason for the popularity of the
approximate BEMs.
The future of numerical predictions is certainly in CFD. The combination of
steep and large waves with a ship at speed is essential for a correct solution of
the slamming problem. It is recognized that viscous and boundary-layer effects
are not important for slamming, but the full interaction of the incoming wave
with the moving ship’s hull needs to be solved. CFD does not have the elegance
or the efficiency of the more traditional methods, but the power and memory
capability of modern multi-processor computer systems make simulations of
three-dimensional cases possible, although it still takes days for a simulation
of limited duration (a few wave encounters). The importance of predicting the
pressure pulse correctly requires small cells in the impact zone; this makes
the problem larger (with respect to memory requirements) than the normal
problem (without slamming) of a ship sailing in waves. Whether the future is
brighter for the ‘normal’ CFD methods or for SPH is difficult to predict. SPH is
numerically a very robust method and impressive results are obtained for very
violent phenomena. However, work on verification of the results (convergence with
respect to particle size and time step) is not yet at the level of the normal CFD.
For the moment, the main problems with SPH are wave propagation in a domain
and a robust treatment of the body–fluid interface, while computer requirements
are an order higher than for normal CFD methods.
Full-scale measurements are becoming more useful in slamming research.
Early measurement campaigns illustrated and quantified the seriousness of
the slamming phenomenon, but these data could not be used to validate
computational methods; only recently an accurate measurement of the actual
wave condition has been possible. Long-term measurements of one ship to
determine extreme values are not very useful, not even if they last over the
complete lifetime of the vessel. Serious slamming does not occur often and ship

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 Review. Slamming of ships 2913

operators try to avoid these conditions whenever possible. Monitoring campaigns

of large container ships have shown that they do not encounter slamming
conditions every year. Validation is only possible for the one occasion that the
ship encounters these conditions. Modern developments using wave radar [92]
show great promise. The estimation of the wave height is still the weak point;
this needs continuous tuning by an expert or it can be calibrated by the measured
ship motions [93], which is the course of current developments.
One of the objectives of all these developments is to have proper structural
requirements in the rules that include the effects of impulsive loads and
dynamic responses. Classification societies are working hard to include this in
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

the prediction of ultimate and fatigue loads, but they are not yet there, as was
demonstrated by the research carried out after the Napoli accident. Pedersen &
Jensen [95] have worked already on very general formulas to quantify dynamic
effects in a form suitable for rules, but this seems rather premature since the
method used is not yet thoroughly validated.

13. Remaining challenges

It is believed that we are close to numerically solving the whipping problem

for ships. A pragmatic method to achieve this capability has been proposed
by Kapsenberg & Thornhill [25], who presented a tunable approximate method
for the impulsive load caused by slamming that can be included in long-term
simulation software. However, they still have to demonstrate that this objective
was achieved. It might very well be that the way the waves are generated for
these predictions, by way of superposition of harmonic components, is insufficient
to correctly predict the right amount of steep waves that are so important for
the large slamming impacts. It might be necessary to use a higher order wave
description to arrive at a proper estimation of the slamming loads. When this
is realized, the problem of modelling the seamanship of the captain remains a
crucial component for a realistic long-term distribution of the bending moments.
Predicting the local response is far more complicated because then a detailed
pressure distribution is required. Phenomena like air inclusions, hydroelastic
response of the structure and compressibility effects of the fluid are important
for impacts where the surface of the fluid is close to parallel to the body.
Predicting full-scale values from scaled experiments is quite complex. Scaling laws
for impacts with a significant amount of trapped air still need to be developed.
Describing the phenomena, as done by Lugni et al. [96] and Bogaert et al. [18],
is a first step towards this goal. Possibly, the final solution is a CFD method
where all relevant physical parameters are properly modelled so that separate
calculations for the model and full scale can be made. This is then analogous to
the prediction of the wake field of a ship: separate CFD calculations are being
done for the model and at full scale.
Full-scale measurements are always necessary. Not only is this the only real
environment for which the (ship) design is ultimately intended, but real-life
details can have an important effect on impact phenomena. One of these real-
life details is the volume fraction of air bubbles in the upper layer of the sea,
especially during weather conditions where there is high probability of slams: an
increasing wind with a rising sea state with steep waves. A good validation for

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 2914 G. K. Kapsenberg

slamming calculations would be a deterministic slamming event at full scale. This

means that the impact condition, the actual wave surface in space and time, the
pressures on the hull in the impact area and the hull dynamic response need to be
fully recorded. For a small boat, such a deterministic event could be possible by
creating a steep wave with one ship and running at high speed through the wake
with the second instrumented ship. Alternatively, one could create a measurement
range where the surface is covered by radar to measure the spatial/temporal wave
elevation, but then one is dependent on the proper weather conditions.
For large ships, this does not seem feasible; a short-term statistical approach is
then the only alternative. The ship should be instrumented with a radar system to
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

measure the wave environment, accelerometers to quantify the whipping response,

a strain gauge system to measure the global loads at different sections and strain
gauges to measure local stresses in the impact area. It is difficult to get permission
to install pressure gauges; ship owners and Class societies are not too enthusiastic
about drilling holes in the hull and, unfortunately, quite a few gauges are required
in order not to miss the interesting high-pressure area. Full-scale measurements
are essential to check the statistical distribution of slamming-induced loads. For
the short-term statistics, this is a check on the proper evaluation of all physical
details; for the long term statistics, this is mainly a check on the model of the
captain applying prudent seamanship.

14. Conclusions

Published literature on ship slamming in waves has been reviewed with an

eye on the practical application of the proposed theories and the usefulness of
experiments carried out, on the problem of real ships sailing at sea. The problem
of ship slamming can be subdivided into a local problem of a small part of the
ship’s structure, which is actually hit by an impulsive load, and the problem of
the global response of the ship structure, referred to as whipping.
The local problem is quite complicated, certainly if the angle between the
impacting fluid surface and the structure is small. Unfortunately, this is the
condition in which the impulsive forces are highest. If this relative impact
angle is small, effects like air inclusions, local air bubbles present in the fluid,
compressibility effects and details in the inflow conditions play a role. If the
structure is flexible and starts vibrating, local cavitation might also occur. With
a great deal of effort, these effects might be included in model experiments,
but extrapolating such results to full scale is, as yet, a challenge unsolved. It
is suggested that only a computational method including all these effects will be
able to accurately predict such phenomena.
The situation is brighter for the global problem. Local effects are filtered
because the integrated pressure in space is relevant as an exciting mechanism.
Recent developments have shown that CFD methods are now able to calculate
the impulsive force on the ship’s hull, although such calculations in really steep
waves have not yet been published. It has been suggested that a two-stage
approach might be useful for this problem: a CFD-based method to calculate
the impulsive force owing to individual waves in specified conditions and an
approximate method, tuned on the CFD results, to be included in long-term
simulation programmes. However, a realistic long-term distribution of the bending

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 Review. Slamming of ships 2915

moments of a ship is, apart from the hydrodynamics, also quite dependent on the
actual way the ship is being used. The amount of weather routing, speed reduction
and course changes to avoid heavy slamming will have a dominant effect on the
extreme loads; research on this aspect is still in its infancy.

References
1 Daidola, J. C. & Mishkevich, V. 1995 Hydrodynamic impact on displacement ship hulls: an
assessment of the state of the art. Ship Structure Committee report SSC-385, NTIS PB96-
129101, April 1995.
2 Henry, J. R. & Bailey, F. C. 1970 Slamming of ships: a critical review of the current state of
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

knowledge. Ship Structure Committee report SSC-208. See http://www.shipstructure.org.

3 Ochi, M. K. et al. 1976 Slamming and impact. In Proc. 6th Int. Ship Structure Congress, Boston,
MIT, Cambridge, MA, 14–19 August 1976. Report of Committee. II. 3.
4 Dalzell, J. et al. 1993 Notes on ship slamming. SNAME Technology and Research Bulletin 2–30,
Panel HS-2 ‘Impact loading and response’. SNAME
5 Mizoguchi, S. & Tanizawa, K. 1996 Impact wave loads due to slamming: a review. Ship Technol.
Res. 43, 139–154.
6 Faltinsen, O. M. 1996 Slamming. In Proc. Colloquium for Ship and Offshore Hydrodynamics.
In Advances in ship and offshore hydrodynamics (ed. V. Bertram). Report no. 561, Institut fur
Schiffbau der Universität Hamburg, Germany.
7 Faltinsen, O. M. 2000 Hydroelastic slamming. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 5, 49–65. (doi:10.1007/s0077
30070011)
8 Faltinsen, O. M., Landrini, M. & Greco, M. 2004 Slamming in marine applications. J. Eng.
Math. 48, 187–217. (doi:10.1023/B:engi.0000018188.68304.ae)
9 Hirdaris, S. E. & Temarel, P. 2009 Hydroelasticity of ships: recent advances and future trends.
J. Eng. Marit. Environ. 223, 305–330. (doi:10. 1243/14750902JEME160)
10 Aertssen, G. 1968 Laboring of ship in rough seas with special emphasis on the fast ship. In
SNAME Diamond Jubilee International Meeting, pp. 10.1–10.16. New york, NY: SNAME.
11 Dallinga, R. P. 2006 Bow flare slamming of container ships and its impact on operational
reliability. In Proc. Conf. Design and Operation of Container Ships, London, 22–23 November
2006. London, UK: Royal Institution of Naval Architects (RINA).
12 Yamamato, Y., Iida, K., Fukasawa, T., Murakami, T., Arai, M. & Ando, A. 1985 Structural
damage analysis of a fast ship due to bow flare slamming. Int. Shipbuild. Progr. 32, 124–136.
13 Joint Accident Investigation Commission. 1997 Final report on the capsizing on 28 September
1994 in the Baltic sea of the ro-ro passenger vessel MV Estonia. Helsinki, Finland: Edita books.
14 Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB). 2008 Report on the investigation of the
structural failure of MSC Napoli, English Channel on 18 January 2007. MAIB Report No.
9/2008, April 2008. Southampton, UK: MAIB.
15 Tuitman, J. T. 2010 Hydro-elastic response of ship structures to slamming induced loads. PhD
thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
16 Storhaug, G. 2009 The 4400 TEU container vessel MSC Napoli broke its back, but did whipping
contribute? In Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Hydroelasticity in Marine Technology, Southampton, UK,
8–10 September 2009.
17 Lloyd, A. R. J. M. & Andrew, R. N. 1977 Criteria for ship speed in rough weather. In Proc.
18th American Towing Tank Conf., Annapolis, MA, USA, 23–25 August 1977. Annapolis, MD:
Naval Academy.
18 Bogaert, H., Leonard, S., Brosset, L. & Kaminski, M. L. 2010 Sloshing and scaling: results from
the Sloshel project. In Proc. 20th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conf. (ISOPE), Beijing,
China, 20–25 June 2010.
19 von Kármán, Th. 1929 The impact on seaplane floats during landing. NACA Technical Note
No. 321, October 1929, Washington, DC, USA.
20 Pabst, W. 1930 Theory of landing impact of seaplanes. NACA Technical Memorandum 580,
August 1930.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 2916 G. K. Kapsenberg

21 Wagner, H. 1932 Über Stoss- und Gleitvorgänge an der Oberfläche von Flüssigkeiten. Z. Angew.
Math. Mech., 12, 193–215. (doi:10.1002/zamm.19320120402)
22 Leibowitz, R. C. 1962 Comparison of theory and experiment for slamming of a Dutch destroyer.
David Taylor Model Basin Report 1511, June 1962.
23 Prohaska, C. W. 1947 Vibrations verticales du navire (in French). Bulletin de l’ Association
Technique Maritime et Aeronautique 46, 171–215.
24 Szebehely, V. G. 1952 Hydrodynamics of slamming of ships. David Taylor Model Basin Report
823, NS 715-084, July 1952.
25 Kapsenberg, G. K. & Thornhill, E. T. 2010 A practical approach to ship slamming in waves.
In Proc. 8th Symp. on Naval Hydrodynamics, Pasadena, CA, 12–17 September 2010.
26 Greenhow, M. & Lin, W.-M. 1985 Numerical simulation of non-linear free surface flows
generated by wedge entry and wavemaker motions. In Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Numerical Ship
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

Hydrodynamics, Washington, DC, 24–27 September 1985.

27 Zhao, R. & Faltinsen, O. M. 1993 Water entry of 2-dimensional bodies. J. Fluid Mech. 246,
593–612. (doi:10.1017/S002211209300028X)
28 Ogilvie, T. F. 1963 Compressibility effects in ship slamming. Schiffstechnik 10, 147–154.
29 Zhao, R., Faltinsen, O. M. & Aarsnes, J. V. 1996 Water entry of arbitrary 2-dimensional sections
with and without flow separation. In Proc. 21th Symp. on Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim,
Norway, 24–28 June 1996. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30 Kvålsvold, J., Svenson, T. & Hovem, L. 1996 Bow impact loads on ro-ro vessels. In Proc. RINA
Spring Meeting, London, UK, 24 April 1996. London, UK: RINA.
31 Sames, P. C., Kapsenberg, G. K. & Corrignan, Ph. 2001 Prediction of bow door loads in extreme
wave conditions. In RINA Conf. Design and Operation for Abnormal Conditions II, London,
UK. London, UK: RINA.
32 Hermundstad, O. A. & Moan, T. 2005 Numerical and experimental analysis of bow flare
slamming on a ro-ro vessel in regular oblique waves. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 10, 105–122.
(doi:10.1007/s00773-005-0192-3)
33 Hermundstad, O. A. & Moan, T. 2009 Practical calculation of slamming pressures in irregular
oblique seas. In Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST), Athens, October 2009.
34 Ochi, M. K. 1964 Prediction of occurrence and severity of ship slamming at sea. In Proc. 5th
Symp. on Naval Hydrodynamics, Bergen, Norway. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35 Ochi, M. K. 1964 Extreme behavior of a ship in rough seas: slamming and shipping of green
water. In SNAME Annual Meeting, New York, NY, 12–13 November 1964. SNAME.
36 Ochi, M. K. & Motter, L. E. 1971 A method to estimate slamming characteristics for ship
design. Mar. Technol. 8, 219–232.
37 Ochi, M. K. & Motter, L. E. 1973 Prediction of slamming characteristics and hull responses for
ship design. Trans. SNAME 81, 144–176.
38 Dobrovol’skaya, Z. N. 1969 On some problems of similarity flow of fluid with a free surface.
J. Fluid Mech. 36, 805–829. (doi:10.1017/S0022112069001996)
39 Korobkin, A. 2004 Analytical models of water impact. Euro. J. Appl. Math. 15, 821–838.
(doi:10.1017/S0956792504005765)
40 Scolan, Y.-M. & Korobkin, A. A. 2001 Three dimensional theory of water impact. Part 1.
Inverse Wagner problem. J. Fluid Mech. 440, 293–326. (doi:10.1017/S002211200100475X)
41 Korobkin, A. A. & Scolan, Y.-M. 2006 Three-dimensional theory of water impact. Part 2.
Linearized Wagner problem. J. Fluid Mech. 549, 343–373. (doi:10.1017/S0022112005008049)
42 Cointe, R. & Armand, J. L. 1987 Hydrodynamic impact analysis of a cylinder. J. Offshore
Mech. Arctic Eng. 109, 237–243. (doi:10.1115/1.3257015)
43 Scolan, Y.-M. 2004 Hydroelastic behaviour of a conical shell impacting on a quiescent free
surface of an incompressible liquid. J. Sound Vib. 277, 163–203. (doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2003.08.051)
44 Arai, M., Cheng, L. Y. & Inoue, Y. 1994 A computing method for the analysis of water impact
of arbitrary shaped bodies: 1st report. J. Soc. Naval Archit. Jpn. 176, 233–240.
45 Arai, M., Cheng, L. Y. & Inoue, Y. 1995 A computing method for the analysis of water impact
of arbitrary shaped bodies: 2nd report. J. Soc. Naval Archit. Jpn. 177, 91–99.
46 Sames, P. C., Schellin, T. E., Muzaferija, S. & Peric, M. 1998 Application of a two-fluid finite
volume method to ship slamming. In Proc. 17th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanical and Arctic
Engineering (OMAE), Lisbon, Portugal, 5–9 July 1998. ASME.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 Review. Slamming of ships 2917

47 Muzaferija, S., Peric, M., Sames, P. & Schellin, T. 1998 A two-fluid Navier–Stokes solver to
simulate water entry. In Proc. 22nd Symp. on Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington, DC, 9–14
August 1998, pp. 638–649. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
48 El Moctar, O., Schellin, T. E. & Priebe, T. 2006 Numerical prediction of impact-related wave
loads on ships. In Proc. 25st Int. Conf. on Offshore Mech. and Arctic Engineering (OMAE),
Hamburg, Germany, 4–9 June 2006. ASME.
49 Wilson, R. V., Ji, L., Karman, S. L., Hyams, D. G., Sreenivas, K., Taylor, L. K. & Whitfield,
D. L. 2008 Simulation of large amplitude ship motions for prediction of fluid–structure
interaction. In Proc. 27th Symp. on Naval Hydrodynamics, Seoul, Korea, 5–10 October 2008.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
50 Monaghan, J. J. 1988 An introduction to SPH. Comp. Phys. Commun. 48, 89–96. (doi:10.1016/
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

0010-4655(88)90026-4)
51 Monaghan, J. J. 1992 Smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 30,
543–574. (doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002551)
52 Monaghan, J. J. 2005 Smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Rep. Prog. Phys. 68, 1703–1759.
(doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/8/R01)
53 Molteni, D., Colagrossi, A. & Colicchio, G. 2007 On the use of an alternative water state
equation in SPH. In Proc. 2nd SPHERIC Workshop, Madrid, 23–25 May 2007.
54 Colagrossi, A. & Landrini, M. 2003 Numerical simulation of interfacial flows by smoothed
particle hydrodynamics. J. Comp. Phys. 191, 448–475. (doi:10.1016/S0021-9991(03)00324-3)
55 Marrone, S., Antuono, M., Colagrossi, A., Colicchio, G., Le Touzé, D. & Graziani, G. 2010
Violent fluid–structure impacts solved through a d-SPH model. In Proc. 5th SPHERIC
workshop, Manchester, UK, 22–25 June 2010.
56 Kvålsvold, J. & Faltinsen, O. M. 1993 Hydroelastic modeling of slamming against the wet deck
of a catamaran. In Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST), Yokohama, Japan,
13–16 December 1993, pp. 681–697.
57 Haugen, E. M. & Faltinsen, O. M. 1999 Theoretical studies of wetdeck slamming and
comparisons with full scale measurements. In Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Fast Sea Transportation
(FAST), Seattle, USA, 31 August–2 September 1999.
58 Ge, C., Faltinsen, O. M. & Moan, T. 2002 Global hydroelastic response of a catamaran due to
wetdeck slamming accounting for forward speed. In Proc. 21st Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanical
and Arctic Engineering (OMAE), Oslo, Norway, 23–28 June 2002.
59 Faltinsen, O. M. 1999 Water entry of a wedge by hydroelastic orthotropic plate theory. J. Ship
Res. 43, 180–193.
60 Bereznitski, A. 2001 Slamming: the role of hydroelasticity. Int. Shipbuild. Progr. 48, 333–351.
61 Lewis, S. G., Hudson, D. A., Turnock, S. R. & Taunton, D. J. 2010 Impact of a free-falling
wedge with water: synchronized visualization, pressure and acceleration measurements. Fluid
Dyn. Res. 42, 1–30. (doi:10.1088/0169-5983/42/3/035509)
62 Tveitnes, T., Fairlie-Clarke, A. C. & Varyani, K. 2008 An experimental investigation into
the constant velocity water entry of wedge-shaped sections. Ocean Eng. 35, 1463–1478.
(doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2008.06.012)
63 De Backer, G., Vantorre, M., Beels, C., de Pré, J., Victor, S., de Rouck, J., Blommaert, C. &
Van Paepegem, W. 2009 Experimental investigation of water impact on axisymmetric bodies.
Appl. Ocean Res. 31, 143–156. (doi:10. 1016/j.apor.2009.07.003)
64 Bisplinghoff, R. L. & Doherty, C. S. 1952 Some studies on the impact of Vee wedges on a water
surface. J. Franklin Inst. 253, 547–561. (doi:10.1016/0016-0032(52)90674-1)
65 Mayo, W. L. 1945 Analysis and modification of theory for impact of seaplanes on water. NACA
Report 1008, December 1945. Washington, DC: NACA.
66 Kvålsvold, J. & Faltinsen, O. M. 1994 Slamming loads on wetdecks of multihull vessels. In Proc.
1st Int. Conf. on Hydroelasticity in Marine Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 22–28 May 1994.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema.
67 Samuelides, M. & Katsaounis, G. 1997 Experimental modelling of wet deck slamming. In Proc.
4th Int. Conf. on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST), Sydney, 21–23 July 1997.
68 Vredeveldt, A. W., Hoogeland, M. & Janssen, G. Th. M. 2001 Hydrodynamic impact response,
a flexible view. In Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST), Southampton, UK,
4–6 September 2001.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 2918 G. K. Kapsenberg

69 Shibue, T., Ito, A. & Nakayama, E. 1994 Structural response analysis of cylinders under water
impact. In Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Hydroelasticity in Marine Technology, Trondheim, Norway,
22–28 May 1994, pp. 221–228. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema.
70 Arai, M. & Miyauchi, T. 1998 Numerical study of the impact of water on cylindrical shells,
considering fluid–structure interactions. In Proc. 7th Int. Symp. on Practical Design of Ships
and Mobile Units (PRADS), The Hague, The Netherlands, 20–25 September 1998. Elsevier.
71 Ionina, M. F. & Korobkin, A. A. 1999 Water impact on cylindrical shells. In Proc. 14th
Int Workshop on Water Waves and Floating Bodies (IWWWFB), Port Huron, MI, USA,
11–14 April 1999.
72 Watanabe, I., Ueno, M. & Sawada, H. 1989 Effects of bow flare shape to the wave loads of a
container ship. J. Soc. Naval Archit. Jpn. 166, 259–266.
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

73 Hay, B., Bourne, J., Engle, A. & Rubel, R. 1994 Characteristics of hydrodynamic loads data for
a naval combatant. In Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Hydroelasticity in Marine Technology, Trondheim,
Norway, 22–28 May 1994. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema.
74 Iijima, K., Hermundstad, O. A., Zhub, S. & Moan, T. 2009 Symmetric and antisymmetric
vibrations of a hydroelastically scaled model. In Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Hydroelasticity
in Marine Technology, Southampton, UK, 8–10 September 2009. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
75 Kapsenberg, G. K., Veer, A. P., van’t Hackett, J. P. & Levadou, M. M. D. 2002 Whipping loads
due to aft body slamming. In Proc. 24th Symp. on Naval Hydrodynamics, Fukuoka, Japan, 8–13
July 2002. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
76 Hermundstad, O. A., Aarsnes, J. V. & Moan, T. 1995 Hydroelastic analysis of a flexible
catamaran and comparison with experiments. In Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Fast Sea Transportation
(FAST), Travemunde, Germany, 25–27 September 1995. Schiffstechnische Gesellschaft.
77 Lavroff, J., Davis, M. R., Holloway, D. S. & Thomas, G. 2007 The whipping vibratory response
of a hydroelastic segmented catamaran model. In Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Fast Sea Transportation
(FAST), Shanghai, China, 23–27 September 2007. China Ship Scientific Research Center.
78 Drummen, I., Storhaug, G. & Moan, T. 2008 Experimental and numerical investigation of
fatigue damage due to wave-induced vibrations in a container ship in head seas. J. Mar. Sci.
Technol. 13, 428–445. (doi:10.1007/s00773-008-0006-5)
79 McTaggart, K., Datta, I., Stirling, A., Gibson, S. & Glen, I. 1997 Motions and loads of
a hydroelastic frigate model in severe seas. In SNAME Annual Meeting, Ottawa, Canada.
SNAME.
80 Dessi, D., Mariani, R., La Gala, F. & Benedetti, L. 2003 Experimental analysis of the wave
induced response of a fast monohull via segmented-hull model. In Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Fast
Sea Transportation (FAST), Ischia, Italy, 7–10 October 2003.
81 Warnsinck, W. H. & Saint Denis, M. 1957 Dutch destroyer trials. In Proc. Symp. on the
Behaviour of Ships in a Seaway, Wageningen, 7–10 September 1957, vol. 1, pp. 439–467.
82 Bledsoe, M. D., Bussemaker, O. & Cummins, W. E. 1961 Seakeeping trails on three Dutch
destroyers. In SNAME Spring Meeting, Washington, DC, 26–28 May 1961. SNAME.
83 Fritch, D. J., Bailey, F. C. & Wise, N. S. 1963 Preliminary analysis of bending-moment data
from ships at sea. Ship Structure Committee report SSC-153. US Department of Commerce,
Office of Services.
84 Fritch, D. J., Bailey, F. C. & Wise, N. S. 1964 Results from full-scale measurements of midship
bending stresses on two C4-S-B5 dry-cargo ships operating in North Atlantic. Ship Structure
Committee report SSC-164. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.
85 Wheaton, J. W., Kano, C. H., Diamant, P. T. & Bailey, F. C. 1970 Analysis of slamming data
from the S. S. Wolverine State. Ship Structure Committee Report SSC-210, August 1970, US
Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, DC.
86 Chuang, S.-L. 1966 Experiments on flat-bottom slamming. J. Ship Res. 10, 10–17.
87 Aertssen, G. 1969 Service performance and seakeeping trials on a large ore carrier. Trans. RINA
III, 217–236.
88 Andrew, R. N. & Lloyd, A. R. J. M. 1980 Full scale comparative measurements of the behaviour
of two frigates in severe head seas. Trans. RINA 123, 1–31.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)

 Review. Slamming of ships 2919

89 Bishop, R. E. D., Clarke, J. D. & Price, W. G. 1983 Comparison of full scale and predicted
responses of two frigates in a severe weather trial. Trans. RINA 125, 153–166.
90 Stavovy, A. B. & Chuang, S.-K. 1976 Analytical determination of slamming pressures for high-
speed vehicles in waves. J. Ship Res. 20, 190–198.
91 Aalberts, P. J. & Nieuwenhuijs, M. W. 2006 Full scale wave and whipping induced hull girder
loads. In Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Hydroelasticity in Marine Technology, Wuxi, China, 10–14
September 2006. National Defense Industry Press.
92 Borge, J. C. N., Gonzalez, R. S., Hessner, K., Reichert, K. & Guedes Soares, C. 2000 Estimation
of sea state directional spectra by using marine radar imaging of sea surface. In Proc. 19th Int.
Conf. on Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering (OMAE), New Orleans, LA, USA, 14–17
February 2000. ASME.
Downloaded from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ on 16 March 2021

93 Thornhill, E. M. & Stredulinsky, D. C. 2010 Real time local sea state measurement using wave
radar and ship motions. In Proc. SNAME Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, USA, 3–5 November
2010. SNAME.
94 Bishop, R. E. D. & Price, W. G. 1979 Hydroelasticity of ships. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
95 Pedersen, P. T. & Jensen, J. J. 2009 Estimation of hull girder vertical bending moments
including non-linear and flexibility effects using closed form expressions. J. Eng. Marit. Environ.
223, 377–390. (doi:10.1243/14750902JEME143)
96 Lugni, C., Brocchini, M. & Faltinsen, O. M. 2006 Wave impact loads: the role of the flip-through.
Phys. Fluids 18, 122101. (doi:10.1063/1.2399077)

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011)