Guidelines for Structural Analysis of Container Ships

November 2008
Guidance Note NI 532 DT R00 E

Marine Division 92571 Neuilly-sur-Seine Cedex - France Tel: + 33 (0)1 55 24 70 00 - Fax: + 33 (0)1 55 24 70 25 Marine website: http://www.veristar.com Email: veristarinfo@bureauveritas.com 2008 Bureau Veritas - All rights reserved

MARINE DIVISION GENERAL CONDITIONS

ARTICLE 1 1.1. - BUREAU VERITAS is a Society the purpose of whose Marine Division (the Society) is the classification (Classification) of any ship or vessel or structure of any type or part of it or system therein collectively hereinafter referred to as a Unit whether linked to shore, river bed or sea bed or not, whether operated or located at sea or in inland waters or partly on land, including submarines, hovercrafts, drilling rigs, offshore installations of any type and of any purpose, their related and ancillary equipment, subsea or not, such as well head and pipelines, mooring legs and mooring points or otherwise as decided by the Society. The Society: prepares and publishes Rules for classification, Guidance Notes and other documents (Rules); issues Certificates, Attestations and Reports following its interventions (Certificates); publishes Registers. 1.2. - The Society also participates in the application of National and International Regulations or Standards, in particular by delegation from different Governments. Those activities are hereafter collectively referred to as Certification. 1.3. - The Society can also provide services related to Classification and Certification such as ship and company safety management certification; ship and port security certification, training activities; all activities and duties incidental thereto such as documentation on any supporting means, software, instrumentation, measurements, tests and trials on board. 1.4. - The interventions mentioned in 1.1., 1.2. and 1.3. are referred to as Services. The party and/or its representative requesting the services is hereinafter referred to as the Client. The Services are prepared and carried out on the assumption that the Clients are aware of the International Maritime and/or Offshore Industry (the Industry) practices. 1.5. - The Society is neither and may not be considered as an Underwriter, Broker in ships sale or chartering, Expert in Units valuation, Consulting Engineer, Controller, Naval Architect, Manufacturer, Shipbuilder, Repair yard, Charterer or Shipowner who are not relieved of any of their expressed or implied obligations by the interventions of the Society. ARTICLE 2 2.1. - Classification is the appraisement given by the Society for its Client, at a certain date, following surveys by its Surveyors along the lines specified in Articles 3 and 4 hereafter on the level of compliance of a Unit to its Rules or part of them. This appraisement is represented by a class entered on the Certificates and periodically transcribed in the Societys Register. 2.2. - Certification is carried out by the Society along the same lines as set out in Articles 3 and 4 hereafter and with reference to the applicable National and International Regulations or Standards. 2.3. - It is incumbent upon the Client to maintain the condition of the Unit after surveys, to present the Unit for surveys and to inform the Society without delay of circumstances which may affect the given appraisement or cause to modify its scope. 2.4. - The Client is to give to the Society all access and information necessary for the performance of the requested Services. ARTICLE 3 3.1. - The Rules, procedures and instructions of the Society take into account at the date of their preparation the state of currently available and proven technical knowledge of the Industry. They are not a code of construction neither a guide for maintenance or a safety handbook. Committees consisting of personalities from the Industry contribute to the development of those documents. 3.2. - The Society only is qualified to apply its Rules and to interpret them. Any reference to them has no effect unless it involves the Societys intervention. 3.3. - The Services of the Society are carried out by professional Surveyors according to the Code of Ethics of the Members of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS). 3.4. - The operations of the Society in providing its Services are exclusively conducted by way of random inspections and do not in any circumstances involve monitoring or exhaustive verification. ARTICLE 4 4.1. - The Society, acting by reference to its Rules: reviews the construction arrangements of the Units as shown on the documents presented by the Client; conducts surveys at the place of their construction; classes Units and enters their class in its Register; surveys periodically the Units in service to note that the requirements for the maintenance of class are met. The Client is to inform the Society without delay of circumstances which may cause the date or the extent of the surveys to be changed. ARTICLE 5 5.1. - The Society acts as a provider of services. This cannot be construed as an obligation bearing on the Society to obtain a result or as a warranty. 5.2. - The certificates issued by the Society pursuant to 5.1. here above are a statement on the level of compliance of the Unit to its Rules or to the documents of reference for the Services provided for. In particular, the Society does not engage in any work relating to the design, building, production or repair checks, neither in the operation of the Units or in their trade, neither in any advisory services, and cannot be held liable on those accounts. Its certificates cannot be construed as an implied or express warranty of safety, fitness for the purpose, seaworthiness of the Unit or of its value for sale, insurance or chartering. 5.3. - The Society does not declare the acceptance or commissioning of a Unit, nor of its construction in conformity with its design, that being the exclusive responsibility of its owner or builder, respectively. 5.4. - The Services of the Society cannot create any obligation bearing on the Society or constitute any warranty of proper operation, beyond any representation set forth in the Rules, of any Unit, equipment or machinery, computer software of any sort or other comparable concepts that has been subject to any survey by the Society. ARTICLE 6 6.1. - The Society accepts no responsibility for the use of information related to its Services which was not provided for the purpose by the Society or with its assistance. 6.2. - If the Services of the Society cause to the Client a damage which is proved to be the direct and reasonably foreseeable consequence of an error or omission of the Society, its liability towards the Client is limited to ten times the amount of fee paid for the Service having caused the damage, provided however that this limit shall be subject to a minimum of eight thousand (8,000) Euro, and to a maximum which is the greater of eight hundred thousand (800,000) Euro and one and a half times the above mentioned fee. The Society bears no liability for indirect or consequential loss such as e.g. loss of revenue, loss of profit, loss of production, loss relative to other contracts and indemnities for termination of other agreements. 6.3. - All claims are to be presented to the Society in writing within three months of the date when the Services were supplied or (if later) the date when the events which are relied on of were first known to the Client, and any claim which is not so presented shall be deemed waived and absolutely barred. ARTICLE 7 7.1. - Requests for Services are to be in writing. 7.2. - Either the Client or the Society can terminate as of right the requested Services after giving the other party thirty days' written notice, for convenience, and without prejudice to the provisions in Article 8 hereunder. 7.3. - The class granted to the concerned Units and the previously issued certificates remain valid until the date of effect of the notice issued according to 7.2. hereabove subject to compliance with 2.3. hereabove and Article 8 hereunder. ARTICLE 8 8.1. - The Services of the Society, whether completed or not, involve the payment of fee upon receipt of the invoice and the reimbursement of the expenses incurred. 8.2. - Overdue amounts are increased as of right by interest in accordance with the applicable legislation. 8.3. - The class of a Unit may be suspended in the event of non-payment of fee after a first unfruitful notification to pay. ARTICLE 9 9.1. - The documents and data provided to or prepared by the Society for its Services, and the information available to the Society, are treated as confidential. However: Clients have access to the data they have provided to the Society and, during the period of classification of the Unit for them, to the classification file consisting of survey reports and certificates which have been prepared at any time by the Society for the classification of the Unit ; copy of the documents made available for the classification of the Unit and of available survey reports can be handed over to another Classification Society Member of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) in case of the Units transfer of class; the data relative to the evolution of the Register, to the class suspension and to the survey status of the Units are passed on to IACS according to the association working rules; the certificates, documents and information relative to the Units classed with the Society may be reviewed during IACS audits and are disclosed upon order of the concerned governmental or inter-governmental authorities or of a Court having jurisdiction. The documents and data are subject to a file management plan. ARTICLE 10 10.1. - Any delay or shortcoming in the performance of its Services by the Society arising from an event not reasonably foreseeable by or beyond the control of the Society shall be deemed not to be a breach of contract. ARTICLE 11 11.1. - In case of diverging opinions during surveys between the Client and the Societys surveyor, the Society may designate another of its surveyors at the request of the Client. 11.2. - Disagreements of a technical nature between the Client and the Society can be submitted by the Society to the advice of its Marine Advisory Committee. ARTICLE 12 12.1. - Disputes over the Services carried out by delegation of Governments are assessed within the framework of the applicable agreements with the States, international Conventions and national rules. 12.2. - Disputes arising out of the payment of the Societys invoices by the Client are submitted to the Court of Nanterre, France. 12.3. - Other disputes over the present General Conditions or over the Services of the Society are exclusively submitted to arbitration, by three arbitrators, in London according to the Arbitration Act 1996 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof. The contract between the Society and the Client shall be governed by English law. ARTICLE 13 13.1. - These General Conditions constitute the sole contractual obligations binding together the Society and the Client, to the exclusion of all other representation, statements, terms, conditions whether express or implied. They may be varied in writing by mutual agreement. 13.2. - The invalidity of one or more stipulations of the present General Conditions does not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. 13.3. - The definitions herein take precedence over any definitions serving the same purpose which may appear in other documents issued by the Society.
BV Mod. Ad. ME 545 j - 16 February 2004

GUIDANCE NOTE NI 532

NI 532 Guidelines for Structural Analysis of Container Ships

SECTION 1 SECTION 2 SECTION 3 SECTION 4 SECTION 5 SECTION 6 SECTION 7

GENERAL LOADING CONDITIONS AND LOAD CASES HULL GIRDER STRENGTH DIRECT STRENGTH ANALYSIS DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF SPECIFIC AREAS FATIGUE STRENGTH ASSESSMENT WAVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

November 2008

Guidelines for Structural Analysis of Container Ships

Section 1 General
1 General 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Introduction Application and class notations Methodology of assessment Structure design principles of container ships 5

Section 2

Loading Conditions and Load Cases

1 Design wave loads 1.1 1.2 2 Bending moments and shear forces Wave torque and still water torque induced by non symmetrical loading conditions 12 10

Loading conditions 2.1 General

Load cases 3.1 3.2 Load cases for structural analysis based on partial ship models Load cases for structural analysis based on complete ship models

12

Flooding cases 4.1 General

15

Section 3

Hull Girder Strength

1 Introduction 1.1 1.2 2 Scope Topics not covered in this section 18 18

Strength principle 2.1 Structural continuity

Strength characteristics of the hull girder tranverse sections 3.1 Hull girder transverse sections

18

Stresses 4.1 4.2 4.3 Normal stresses induced by vertical bending moments Normal stresses induced by torque and bending moments Shear stresses

18

Checking criteria 5.1 5.2 Normal stresses Shear stresses

19

Ultimate strength check 6.1 Application

20

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

Section 4

Direct Strength Analysis

1 Methodology 1.1 2 General 22 21

Warping analysis for hull girder torsional strength assessment 2.1 Thin walled beam model

3D beam model analysis 3.1 3.2 3.3 General Boundary conditions Stress calculations

24

Finite element model analysis 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 General Partial model analysis Complete ship model analysis Fine mesh and highly stressed area analysis

27

Yielding calculations and criteria 5.1 5.2 Stress components Checking criteria

40

Buckling calculation and criteria 6.1 General

42

Section 5

Detailed Assessment of Specific Areas

1 General 1.1 2 General 43 43

Critical areas 2.1 2.2 Cargo hold region Fore end structure

Section 6

Fatigue Strength Assessment

1 General 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2 Methodology Areas subject to fatigue assessment Fatigue calculation Hot spot stresses directly obtained by finite element analysis 54 49

Fatigue of side shell longitudinals 2.1 2.2 2.3

General Connections of side shell longitudinals with stiffeners of transverse members Connections of side shell longitudinals with transverse members (without stiffener on primary member) 58

Fatigue of hatch corners 3.1 3.2 Calculation through three dimensional structural model Workmanship

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

Section 7

Wave Impact Assessment

1 Dynamic hull girder loads 1.1 2 Dynamic hull girder loads due to bow flare impact 62 62

Reinforcements 2.1 2.2 Reinforcement of the bow flare area Reinforcements of the flat area of the bottom aft

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 1

SECTION 1

GENERAL

1
1.1

General
Introduction

1.1.1 The purpose of this Guidance Note is to give a methodology to assess hull strength of container ships using Bureau Veritas Rules for the Classification of Steel Ships, referred to as Rules for Steel Ships in this Guidance Note. 1.1.2 This Guidance Note does not substitute the designer's liability and does not replace Rules for Steel Ships: it is simply intended to highlight specific features of container ships as regards structural analysis. Reference is made to Part B, Part D and Part E of the Rules for Steel Ships. 1.1.3 The methodology in this Guidance Note explains the different steps of calculations and describes the tools and ways to perform 2D calculations, 3D calculations (including beam and finite element analysis) and 3D fatigue analysis. The purpose is also to identify the main features of container ships and the way to perform detailed calculations. The calculations described in this Guidance Note can be performed using Bureau Veritas softwares such as: Mars 2000: for the structural analysis of transverse 2D sections, transverse bulkheads and evaluation of hull girder torsional effects VeriSTAR-Hull: for the FEM structural analysis concerning partial model (e.g. 3 hold model) VeriSTAR CSM (Complet Ship Model): the most advanced tool for FEM analysis of whole ship model. 1.1.4 This Guidance Note applies to container ships which are constructed with a single deck, double side skin tanks, passageways and double bottom in cargo area, and intended exclusively to carry containers, in holds, on deck and on hatch covers (See Fig 1). 1.1.5 The present Guidance Note does not address possible hydro-elastic effects that may be present, particularly for larger container ship structures. Figure 1 : General view of a container ship

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

NI 532, Sec 1

1.2

Application and class notations

1.2.1 Application This Guidance Note applies to ships complying with Rules for Steel Ships under the service notation container ship as defined in Pt A, Ch 1, Sec 2, [4.2.5] of the Rules for Steel Ships. 1.2.2 Additionnal class notation VeriSTAR-HULL A ship may be assigned with the additional class notation VeriSTAR-HULL to demonstrate that her structures have been checked by means of 3D FEM structural analysis, possibly including a finite element calculation of the whole ship (VeriSTAR CSM). The requirements for this notation are given in Pt E, Ch 1, Sec 2 of the Rules for Steel Ships. 1.2.3 DFL xx years The additional class notation VeriSTAR-HULL may be completed by DFL xx years, with xx having values between 25 and 40, when a fatigue assessment has been carried out on selected structural details showing that their evaluated design fatigue life is not less than xx years. A default fatigue life of 20 years is used when the additional class notation hereabove is not assigned. This item is described in Pt E, Ch 1, Sec 2 of the Rules for Steel Ships. 1.2.4 Additional class notation LASHING The additional class notation LASHING may be assigned to ships initially fitted with mobile container lashing equipment which has been documented, tested and checked, in accordance with Rules for Steel Ships Pt E, Ch 10, Sec 5.

1.3

Methodology of assessment

1.3.1 There are two design review processes when assessing hull strength of container ships: key drawings review as described in [1.3.3] and detail drawings review as described in [1.3.4]. Requirements in ship review process of hull strength of container ships are described in Fig 2. This Guidance Note is presented with some illustrations from calculations (2D and 3D calculations) of several container ships of different sizes and dimensions without referring to a specific existing design. Figure 2 : Ship review scheme with structural models to be used regarding ship length
Ship review process

BV Software : Mars 2000 with torsion module

Hull girder & local strength assessment

3D Thin walled beam model

2D section model Warping stress

Mars 2000 + torsion module

Mars 2000

NO

Length of ship Greater than 170 m

Primary member strength assessment

BV Software : Veristar Hull & Veristar CSM

YES

Warping stress

3D FEM partial model

Veristar Hull
3D partial model : - beam - finite element Complete ship model

Veristar Hull

Veristar CSM

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 1

1.3.2 Net scantling approach and partial safety factors The structural analysis of each element according to Rules for Steel Ships is carried out considering their net strength characteristics. This means that the strength checks consider the structural scantlings without the corrosion margin, which are then to be added to the net scantlings to obtain the required gross scantlings. See Rules for Steel Ships Pt B, Ch 4, Sec 2. Partial Safety Factors (PSF) are defined by the Rules for Steel Ships to be separately applied to the wave induced hull girder and local loads on one side ("Demand PSF"), to the structural model and the material resistance ("Capacity PSF") on the other. These can be more rationally and precisely defined. The value of the PSFs depends on the associated level of uncertainty. 1.3.3 Key drawings review process The following items are to be reviewed with respect to ships length General and subdivision arrangement Hull girder strength including torsion strength Local scantlings Primary members using direct strength analysis Structural continuity Wave bow flare and stern impact Fatigue analysis for ships greater than 170 m in length. The structural analysis with FEM calculations should be performed at the very early stage in parallel to the design review process. The strength check procedure is summarized in Tab 1. The strength check criteria require that the structural elements are assessed by means of the Rule formulae, which represent the equations of the limit states considered for plating, ordinary stiffeners and primary supporting members (see Tab 2). 1.3.4 Detail drawings review process In this process, the procedure is to check structural details (collar plates, flat bars, brackets, openings etc), structural reinforcements (reinforcements under container corners, insert plates, cell guides, etc...) interface with equipment (hatch covers for example), welding details (penetration welding, semi penetration welding, edge preparation, welding length, etc) taking into account the hull girder stresses and local stresses. See detail assessment of specific areas in Sec 5 of this Guidance Note.

1.4

Structure design principles of container ships

1.4.1 The structure design principles and the specific features of the service notation container ship are described in Pt B, Ch 4, Sec 1 to Sec 7, Pt B, Ch 12, Sec 2, [2.7] and Pt D, Ch 2, Sec 2 of the Rules for Steel Ships. The following items are presented: a) Materials: Steels for hull structure b) Design loads Hull girder loads: Still water loads and wave loads. For wave loads and torsional wave loads see Sec 2 of this Guidance Note Forces due to containers c) Loading conditions for primary structure analysis. See also Sec 4 of this Guidance Note d) Hull scantlings Plating Primary supporting members e) Strength principles Local reinforcements Forces applying on the fixed cargo securing devices Structural continuity

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

NI 532, Sec 1

f) Bottom structure Floor and girder spacing Reinforcements in way of cell guides g) Side structure: Framing arrangement h) Deck structure Longitudinal girders of cross decks Cross decks Connection of face plates of deck girders and deck beams in cross decks Deck and hatch cover reinforcements i) Bulkhead structure Transverse box structure Primary supporting members Reinforcements in way of cell guides j) Other structure: Non-weathertight hatch covers above superstructure deck k) Fixed cell guide l) Fixed cargo securing device m) Construction and testing. Table 1 : Strength check procedure
Data Hull girder strength including torsion strength Design still water bending moment, still water torque and shear force at sea and harbour Local strength plating and ordinary stiffeners Hull girder bending stress, shear and warping stress Scantling draught and ballast draught All boundaries of compartments checked in full or empty conditions Air pipe Design loads (accelerations...) Design load distribution Transverse sections Transverse bulkheads Bow flare Aft and forward structures Engine room structure Superstructures Thickness of plating Shear area and section modulus of stiffeners Dimensions and scantlings of brackets Buckling Checking of section moduli at top, deck and bottom Ultimate strength of the hull girder (1) Hull girder bending stress, shear stress and warping stress Review Results

Transverse primary members, stringers, floors, girders Minimum dimension from the Rules for Steel Ships 3D beam or finite element analysis Continuity of strength and avoidance of abrupt structural changes Tapering of scantlings Fatigue analysis of longitudinal connections Fatigue analysis of primary member connections Yielding and buckling

Structural continuity Worst loads transferred through the connection Fatigue (1) Full load and ballast conditions Damage ratio or fatigue life of connections Possible modification of connection designs

(1)

To be considered for ships greater than 170m in length.

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 1

Table 2 : Limit states specified by the Rules for Steel Ships for each type of structural element
Yielding Hull Girder Plating Ordinary stiffeners Primary supporting members Structural details
(1)

Strength of plating under lateral pressure X

Buckling

Ultimate strength (1) X

Fatigue
(1)

X X X X X X

X X X

To be considered for ships greater than 170m in length

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

NI 532, Sec 2

SECTION 2

LOADING CONDITIONS AND LOAD CASES

1
1.1

Design wave loads

Bending moments and shear forces

1.1.1 See Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 2, [3] of the Rules for Steel Ships.

1.2

Wave torque and still water torque induced by non symmetrical loading conditions

1.2.1 Wave torque The wave torque at any hull transverse section is to be calculated considering the ship in two different conditions: condition 1: ship direction forming an angle of 60 with the prevailing sea direction condition 2: ship direction forming an angle of 120 with the prevailing sea direction. The values of the wave torques in these conditions, calculated with respect to the section centre of torsion, are obtained, in kN.m, from the following formula: HL - n ( F TM CM + F TQ CQ d ) M W T = ------4 where: FTM, FTQ : Distribution factors defined in Tab 1 for ship conditions 1 and 2 (see also Fig 1 and Fig 2) CM : Wave torque coefficient: CM = 0,45 B CW2 CQ : Horizontal wave shear coefficient: CQ = 5 T CB CW : Waterplane coefficient, to be taken not greater than the value obtained from the following formula: CW = 0,165 + 0,95 CB where CB is to be assumed not less than 0,6. In the absence of more precise determination, CW may be taken equal to the value provided by the above formula. d H n : Vertical distance, in m, from the centre of torsion to a point located 0,6 T above the baseline. : Wave parameter, defined in Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 2 of the Rules for Steel Ships : Navigation coefficient, defined in Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 1 of the Rules for Steel Ships

Table 1 : Distribution factors FTM and FTQ

Ship condition 1 2 Distribution factor FTM Distribution factor FTQ

2x 1 cos --------L 2(L x) 1 cos ----------------------L

2x sin --------L 2(L x) sin ----------------------L

10

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 2

Figure 1 : Ship condition 1 - Distribution factors FTM and FTQ

FTM, FTQ

2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 -0,5 -1,0 0 AE 0,25 0,50 0,75 1 FE x L
FTM FTQ

Figure 2 : Ship condition 2 - Distribution factors FTM and FTQ

FTM, FTQ

2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 0 AE -0,5 -1,0 1 0,25 0,50 0,75 FE x L
FTM FTQ

1.2.2 Still water torsional torque The design still water torsional torque induced by the non-symmetrical distribution of cargo, consumable liquids and ballast are to be considered. If no specific data are provided by the Designer, it is to be obtained at any hull transverse section, in kN.m, from the following formula: MSW, T = 31,4 FT S T B where: FT S T : Distribution factor defined in Tab 2 as a function of the x co-ordinate of the hull transverse section with respect to the reference co-ordinate system defined in Pt B, Ch 1, Sec 2, [4] of the Rules for Steel Ships : Number of container stacks over the breadth B : Number of container tiers in cargo hold amidships (excluding containers on deck or on hatch covers)

Where the value of MSW, T obtained from the above formula is greater than 49000 kN.m, the Society may require more detailed calculations of MSW, T to be carried out by the Designer.

Table 2 : Distribution factor FT

Hull transverse section location 0 x < 0,5 L 0,5 L x L Distribution factor FT x/L (1 x / L)

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

11

NI 532, Sec 2

2
2.1

Loading conditions
General

2.1.1 The following minimum loading conditions are to be considered: Full container load associated to scantling draught T Ballast condition with ballast draught Partial loading conditions at scantling draught. The condition one empty bay is to be considered even if not included in the loading manual Flooding case. Pressure on watertight bulkhead to be considered up to freeboard deck with damage draught, or scantling draught if no data available from damage stability calculation.

3
3.1

Load cases
Load cases for structural analysis based on partial ship models

3.1.1 The load cases described in this article are those to be used for the following structural element analyses (see Rules for Steel Ships Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 4): The analyses of plating (See Pt B, Ch 7, Sec 1 of the Rules for Steel Ships) The analyses of ordinary stiffeners (See Pt B, Ch 7, Sec 2 of the Rules for Steel Ships) The analyses of primary supporting members (See Pt B, Ch 7, Sec 3 of the Rules for Steel Ships) The fatigue analysis of the structural details of the above elements (See Pt B, Ch 7 Sec 4 of the Rules for Steel Ships), for ship greater than 170 m in length. These load cases are the mutually exclusive load cases "a", "b", "c" and "d" explained in Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 4 of the Rules for Steel Ships. Load cases "a" and "b" refer to the ship in upright condition i.e. at rest or having surge, heave and pitch motions ( Fig 3 and Fig 4) inducing vertical wave bending moments and shear forces. Figure 3 : Wave loads in load case a
Z Positive h1

h1

0,625Q wv
Y

0,625Mwv

T1

Y Z Negative h1

0,625Q wv

0,625Mwv

h1 T1

12

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 2

Figure 4 : Wave loads in load case b

Z

0,5h1 0,625Qwv

az

0,625Mwv T1

Load cases "c" and "d" refer to the ship in inclined conditions i.e. having sway, roll and yaw motions ( Fig 5 and Fig 6) inducing: Vertical wave bending moments and shear forces Horizontal wave bending moments Torque for the load case "c"

Figure 5 : Wave loads in load case c

Z

0,7a

0,25M WV h

0,25Q WV T

0,625MWT

Y
0,625M
WH

Figure 6 : Wave loads in load case d

Z

0,5 h 2

1,0a Y

0,25Q WV 0,25M WV 0,5 h 2

T1

0,625M WH

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

13

NI 532, Sec 2

3.2

Load cases for structural analysis based on complete ship models

3.2.1 When primary supporting members are to be analysed through complete ship models (ships greater than 170 m in length), specific load cases are to be considered. The use of such load cases should include fatigue calculations. These load cases are to be defined considering the ship as sailing in regular waves with different lengths, heights and heading angles, each wave being selected in order to maximise a design load parameter. The procedure for the determination of these load cases is specified in Rules for Steel Ships, Pt B, Ch 7, App 3 as summarized in [3.2.2]. 3.2.2 Summary of the loading procedures Applicable cargo loading conditions described in [2.1.1] are analysed through: The computation of the characteristics of the finite element model with still water loads The selection of the load cases which are critical for the strength of the resistant structural members The determination of the design wave characteristics for each load case includes the following steps: Computation of the Response Amplitude Operators and phase of the dominant load effect Selection of the wave length and heading Determination of the wave phase, so as the dominant load effect reaches its maximum Computation of the wave amplitude corresponding to the design value of the dominant load effect. 3.2.3 Dominant load effects Each critical load case maximises the value of one of the following load effects having a dominant influence on the strength of some parts of the structure or a combination of both in order to maximise the total combined stress: a) Bending moments (Head sea cases) Vertical wave bending moment in hogging condition at midship section Vertical wave bending moment in sagging condition at midship section b) Wave shear forces (Head sea cases) Vertical wave shear force on transverse bulkhead c) Horizontal bending moments (Quartering and beam sea cases) Horizontal wave bending moment at midship section d) Wave torque (Quartering and beam sea cases) Wave torque within cargo areas at aft part (maximize warping stress) Wave torque within cargo areas at fore part (maximize warping stress) Wave torque within cargo areas at mid part (maximize warping stress) e) Accelerations (Head sea and beam sea cases) Vertical acceleration in midship (especially with maximum internal loads or heavy cargo loads) and fore body section Transverse acceleration at deck at side at midship section f) Local pressure loads (Head sea and beam sea cases) Wave pressure at bottom at centreline in upright ship condition at midship section (especially in partial loading condition with maximum draught) Wave pressure at bottom at side in inclined ship condition at mid-ship section (especially in partial loading condition with maximum draught) Load cases and load effect values are described for reference in Tab 3 and Tab 4 and wave can be combined in order to maximize vertical bending, horizontal bending and torsion.

14

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 2

3.2.4 Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) The Response Amplitude Operators (RAO's) and associated phase characteristics are to be computed for wave periods between 4 and 22 seconds, using a seakeeping program, for the following motions and load effects: Heave, sway, pitch, roll and yaw motions Vertical wave bending moment at 0.5L or at the longitudinal position where the bending moment RAO is maximum Vertical wave shear force at 0.25L and 0.5L Horizontal wave bending moment at 0.5L Wave torque at 0.25L (aft part) ,0.5L (mid part) and 0.75L (fore part) The Response Amplitude Operators (RAO's) are to be calculated for wave headings ranging from following seas (0 degree) to head sea (180 degrees) by increment of 15 degrees, using a ship speed of 60% of the maximum service speed. The amplitude and phase of other dominant load effects may be computed at relevant wave periods, using the RAO's listed above. 3.2.5 Design waves For each load case, the ship is considered to encounter a regular wave, defined by its parameters (See Tab 3): Wave length Heading angle Wave height (double amplitude). The wave phase is to be selected so as to reach load effect values. The dominant load effect values are described in Tab 4. 3.2.6 Design wave amplitude The amplitude of the design wave is obtained by dividing the design value of the dominant load effect by the value of the Response Amplitude Operator of this effect computed for the relevant heading and wave length. The design values of load effect, heading and wave length are given for each load case in Tab 3 and Tab 4. The design wave phase is the phase of the dominant load effect. Application to complete ship finite element model is described in Sec 4, [4.3]: Finite element loading and lightship distribution Static calculations: hydrostatic calculations and equilibrium check Wave load calculations: value of load effects.

4
4.1

Flooding cases
General

4.1.1 Unless otherwise specified, the still water and inertial pressure to be considered as acting on plating (excluding bottom and side shell plating) which constitutes boundary of compartments not intended to carry liquids are obtained in kN/m2 from the formula in Tab 5. with: zF : Z co-ordinate, in m, of the freeboard deck at side in way of transverse section considered. Where the results of damage stability calculations are available, the deepest equilibrium waterline may be considered in lieu of the freeboard deck; in this case the Society may require transient conditions to be taken into account : Vertical acceleration defined in Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 3 [3.4.1] of the Rules for Steel Ships : Distance depending on ship length defined in Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 6, Symbols of the Rules for Steel Ships

aZ1 d0

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

15

NI 532, Sec 2

Table 3 : Load cases and load effect values

Load case 1 Wave parameters (1) Dominant load effect Vertical wave bending moment in hogging condition Vertical wave bending moment in sagging condition Vertical wave shear force Wave length Peak value of vertical wave bending moment RAO without being less than 0,9L Same as load case 1 Heading angle 180 Location(s) Midship section Notes

180

Midship section

Peak value of vertical wave shear force RAO: at 0,5L for 0,35L < x < 0,65L at 0,25L elsewhere Peak value of horizontal wave bending moment RAO or 0,5L

0 or 180 120 or 135 60 or 75 90

Each transverse bulkhead

Horizontal wave bending moment

Midship section

Select the heading such that the value of Cmax for vertical wave bending moment is not exceeded Select the heading such that the value of Cmax for vertical wave bending moment is not exceeded Wave amplitude may have to be limited such that the value of Cmax for transverse acceleration and vertical relative motion at side are not exceeded Select the heading such that the value of Cmax for vertical wave bending moment is not exceeded

Wave torque

Peak value of wave torque RAO or 0,5L

Vicinity of 0,25 L Midship section Midship section

Wave torque

Peak value of wave torque RAO within the allowable range

Wave torque

Same as load case 5

105 or 120 90 or 105

Vicinity of 0,75 L Midship section Midship section

Vertical acceleration in inclined ship condition

12 ,3 C = --------------------BLC W

where: C = 1,0 for 90 heading 1,15 for 105 heading CW : Waterplane coefficient at load waterline

Vertical acceleration in upright ship condition Transverse acceleration

= 1,6 L (0,575 + 0,8 F)2

180

From forward end of cargo area to fore end Midship section

10

= 1,35 g TR2 / (2) without being taken greater than 756 m

90

11

Wave pressure at bot- 0,7 L tom at centreline in upright ship condition Wave pressure at bottom at side in inclined ship condition = 0,35 g TR2 / (2) without being taken less than 2,0B

180 or 0 90

Midship section

may have to be increased to keep the wave steepness below wave breaking limit

12

Midship section

(1)

The forward ship speed is to be taken equal to 0,6 V.

16

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 2

Table 4 : Dominant load effect values

Dominant load effect Vertical wave bending moment in hogging condition Vertical wave bending moment in sagging condition Design value (at 10-5 probability) 0,625 W1 MWV ,H 0,625 W1 FD MWV ,S Combined load components References (1) MWV,H defined in: Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 2, [3.1.1] MWV,S defined in: Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 2, [3.1.1] FD defined in Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 2, [4.2.1] QWV defined in: Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 2, [3.4] MWH defined in: Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 2, [3.2.1] MT defined in: Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 2, [3.3] aZ1 defined in: Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 3, [3.4.1] aZ2 defined in: Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 3, [3.4.1] aY2 defined in: Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 3, [3.4.1] pW defined in: Pt B, Ch 7, App 1, Tab 3 for case a pW defined in: Pt B, Ch 7, App 1, Tab 4 for case c

Vertical wave shear force Horizontal wave bending moment

0,625 W1 QWV 0,625 W1 MWH 0,625 W1 MWT W2 aZ1 W2 aZ2 W2 aY2 W2 pW W2 pW Roll angle

Horizontal wave bending moment Vertical relative motion at side at fore end

Wave torque Vertical acceleration at centreline in upright ship condition Vertical acceleration at deck at side in inclined ship condition Transverse acceleration at deck at side Wave pressure at bottom at centreline in upright ship condition Wave pressure at bottom at side in inclined ship condition
(1)

Vertical wave bending moment at midship

References in the Rules for the Classification of Steel Ships

Table 5 : Flooding - Still water and inertial pressures

Still water pressure pSF , in kN/m2 Compartment located under freeboard deck: g (zF z) without being taken less than 0,4 g d0 Inertial pressure pWF , in kN/m2 Compartment located under freeboard deck: 0,6 aZ1 (zF z) without being taken less than 0,4 g d0

Compartment located immediately above freeboard deck: Compartment located immediately above freeboard deck: 0,32 g d0 0,32 g d0

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

17

NI 532, Sec 3

SECTION 3

HULL GIRDER STRENGTH

1
1.1

Introduction
Scope

1.1.1 The purpose of this section is to assess hull girder strength. To this end, hull girder stresses and ways to combine them are described. References are made to other sections of this Guidance Note in which explanations are made on how to get such stresses.

1.2

Topics not covered in this section

1.2.1 This section does not take into account: Minimum section moduli and moment of inertia (see Pt B, Ch 6, Sec 2 of the Rules for Steel Ships). Permissible still water bending moment and shear force during navigation or harbour navigation (see Pt B, Ch 6, Sec 2 of the Rules for Steel Ships). Ultimate strength (See Pt B, Ch 6, Sec 3 and also Pt B, Ch 7, Sec 2, [5] of the Rules for Steel Ships).

2
2.1

Strength principle
Structural continuity

2.1.1 Attention is to be paid to the structural continuity: in way of ends of superstructure / machinery space (see Pt B, Ch 9, Sec 3 and Pt B, Ch 9, Sec 4 of the Rules for Steel Ships) in way of the fore and afts parts (see Pt B, Ch 9, Sec 1 and Sec 2 of the Rules for Steel Ships) See also Pt B, Ch 4, Sec 3, [1.1] and Pt D, Ch 2, Sec 2, [3] of the Rules for Steel Ships.

3
3.1

Strength characteristics of the hull girder tranverse sections

Hull girder transverse sections

3.1.1 General Hull girder transverse sections are to be considered as being constituted by the members contributing to the hull girder longitudinal strength, i.e. all continuous longitudinal members below the strength deck defined in Rules for Steel ships, Pt B, Ch 6, Sec 1, [2]. Gross scantlings are used for yielding criteria defined in [4] and [5], net scantlings are used for ultimate strength criteria defined in [6].

4
4.1

Stresses
Normal stresses induced by vertical bending moments

4.1.1 The normal stresses induced by vertical bending moments are obtained, in N/mm2, from the following formulae: at any point of the hull transverse section:
M SW + M WV 3 - 10 1 = ---------------------------ZA

18

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 3

at bottom:
M SW + M WV 3 - 10 1 = ---------------------------Z AB

at deck:
M SW + M WV 3 - 10 1 = ---------------------------Z AD

MSW MWV ZA

: Still water bending moment, in kN.m (hogging and sagging) : Vertical wave bending moment, in kN.m (hogging and sagging) : Gross section modulus, in cm3, at any point of the hull transverse section

ZAB,ZAD : Gross section moduli, in cm3, at bottom and deck, respectively.

4.2

Normal stresses induced by torque and bending moments

4.2.1 Definition They are to be obtained, in N/mm2, from the following formula: M SW 0 ,4M WV M W H - + ------------------- + ----------- y + 1 = ---------ZA ZA IZ where: : Warping stress, in N/mm2, induced by the torque MWT and obtained through direct calculation analyses based on a structural model in accordance with Pt B, Ch 6, Sec 1, [2.6] of the Rules for Steel Ships; it includes the contribution due to the still water torque MT, SW defined in Pt D, Ch 2, Sec 2, [4.1] of the Rules for Steel Ships For warping stress assessment see [4.2.2] of this Guidance Note. y MWH IZ : Y co-ordinate, in m, of the calculation point with respect to the reference co-ordinate system defined in Pt B, Ch 1, Sec 2, [4] of the Rules for Steel Ships. : Horizontal wave bending moment, in kN.m : Moment of inertia, in m4, of the hull transverse section about its vertical neutral axis.

4.2.2 Structural models for the calculation of normal warping stresses and shear stresses The structural models that can be used for the calculation of normal warping stresses, induced by torque, and shear stresses, induced by shear forces or torque, are: three dimensional finite element models thin walled beam models. These models are described in Sec 4 of this Guidance Note.

4.3

Shear stresses

4.3.1 Refer to Pt B, Ch 6, Sec 2 [2.3.1] of the Rules for Steel Ships for shear stress calculation (direct calculation of 1).

5
5.1

Checking criteria
Normal stresses

5.1.1 It is to be checked that the normal stresses 1 are in compliance with the following formula: 1 1,ALL

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

19

NI 532, Sec 3

where: 1,ALL : Allowable normal stress, in N/mm2, obtained from the following formulae: 119 1, ALL = --------k x - 0, 1 for -L

2 175 1400 x x - ------------ < 0, 3 - -- 0, 3 for 0, 1 < - 1, ALL = -------- k L k L

175 1, ALL = --------k

x - 0, 7 for 0, 3 -L

2 175 1400 x x - ------------ < 0, 9 - -- 0, 7 for 0, 7 < - 1, ALL = -------- k L k L

119 1, ALL = --------k k x

x - 0, 9 for -L

: Material factor, as defined in Rules for Steel Ships Ch 4, Sec 1, [2.3] : X co-ordinate, in m, of the calculation point with respect to the reference co-ordinate system defined in Rules for Steel Ships Ch 1, Sec 2, [4]

5.2

Shear stresses

5.2.1 It is to be checked that the shear stresses 1 are in compliance with the following formula: 1 1,ALL where: 1,ALL : Allowable shear stress, in N/mm2: 1,ALL = 110/k

6
6.1

Ultimate strength check

Application

6.1.1 The requirements for ultimate strength apply to ship equal to or greater than 170m in length. See Pt B, Ch 6, Sec 3 and Pt B, Ch 6, App 1 of the Rules for Steel Ships.

20

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 4

SECTION 4

DIRECT STRENGTH ANALYSIS

1
1.1

Methodology
General

1.1.1 The purpose of direct strength analysis of container ship is to: calculate the stress in the primary members in the midship area and, where necessary, in other areas, used in the yielding and buckling checks calculate the warping stresses calculate the hot spot stress ranges in the structural details which are to be used in the fatigue check. The analysis procedure is shown in Fig 1. 1.1.2 Model construction and net scantling The structural model is to represent the primary supporting members with attached plating. Ordinary stiffeners are also to be represented in the model in order to reproduce the stiffness and inertia of the actual hull girder structure. All the elements are to be modelled with their net scantlings according to Pt B, Ch 4, Sec 2 [2.1.5] of the Rules for Steel Ships. Therefore, the hull girder stiffness and inertia to be reproduced by the model are those taken into account the net scantlings of the hull structures.

Figure 1 : Application procedure of the analyses based on three dimensional models

Demand Capability of the hull strucuture

Loading conditions Load cases

3D model

Boundary conditions Light weight Still water loads Wave loads Calculation of : - deformations, - stresses.

Strenght criteria : - yielding, - buckling.

Adjustment of scantlings

Yes

Calculation of hot spot stress ranges

Fatigue analysis

Adjustment of local details

Yes

END of analysis

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

21

NI 532, Sec 4

1.1.3 Yielding and buckling checks The yielding and buckling checks of primary supporting members are to be carried out according to Pt B, Ch7, Sec 3 of the Rules for Steel Ships. 1.1.4 Fatigue check The fatigue check of structural details is to be carried out according to Pt B, Ch7, Sec 4 of the Rules for Steel Ships.

2
2.1

Warping analysis for hull girder torsional strength assessment

Thin walled beam model

2.1.1 Thin walled beam models allow calculation of normal warping stresses, induced by torque, and shear stresses, induced by shear forces or torque. Those models must enable to assess the following: Warping stress is maximum at upper deck and in coaming especially at aft and fore parts Warping stress cannot be neglected in side shell especially near bilge area (which is to be taken into account for the fatigue analysis of side shell longitudinal connections with transverse members) Shear and bending stresses in the transverse box beam must also be assessed through these calculations. 2.1.2 Thin walled beam model has to represent the members which constitute the hull girder transverse sections (see Fig 2 Fig 3) and the transverse box beam (at watertight and non watertight support bulkhead insuring the torsion rigidity: see Fig 4). Extent of model: all cargo holds from engine room up to fore part must be taken into account in the model. The following examples (shown on Fig 2, Fig 3 and Fig 4) are views of input and results of Bureau Veritas Mars software. The Fig 2 shows an example of cargo hold description and the distribution of warping stresses in a hull girder transverse section at midship. Figure 2 : Example of a thin walled beam model using Mars 2000 software

22

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 4

Figure 3 : Examples of distribution of warping stresses in side shell of two hull girder transverse sections at aft and fore parts using Mars 2000 software

Figure 4 : Example of transverse box beam

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

23

NI 532, Sec 4

3
3.1

3D beam model analysis

General

3.1.1 Beam models can be adapted only for ships less than or equal to 170m in length. Provided that: primary members are not so stout that the beam theory is deemed inapplicable by the Society their behaviour is not substantially influenced by the transmission of shear stresses through the shell plating. In any case, finite element models are to be adapted, when deemed necessary by the Society, on the basis of the ship's structural arrangement. 3.1.2 The longitudinal extention of the structural model is to be such that: the hull girder stresses in the area to be analysed are properly taken into account in the structural analysis the results in the areas to be analysed are not influenced by the unavoidable inaccuracy in the modelling of the boundary conditions. The model may be limited to one cargo hold length (one half cargo hold length on either side of the transverse bulkhead; see Fig 5). However, larger models may need to be adapted, when deemed necessary by the Society, on the basis of the ships structural arrangement (case of ship with watertight and non watertight bulkheads see [3.1.3]). 3.1.3 For ships with transverse watertight bulkheads and non watertight bulkheads, it is recommended to extend the model at least up to two cargo holds as shown on the model in Fig 6.

Figure 5 : Model longitudinal extension

CL

Length of the model

Figure 6 : Example of a two holds 3D beam model of container ship with watertight bulkheads and non watertight bulkheads

24

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 4

3.2

Boundary conditions

3.2.1 Symmetry conditions are to be applied at the fore and aft ends of the model. Those conditions are different with respect to location of model ends, as specified in Tab 1 and Tab 2. In the tables, the following co-ordinate system is used: x axis : longitudinal axis, positive forwards y axis : transverse axis, positive towards portside z axis : vertical axis, positive upwards. Table 1 : Symmetry conditions at the model fore and aft ends when model ends are located between two bulkheads
x Displacements Rotations fixed free y free fixed z free fixed

Table 2 : Symmetry conditions at the model fore and aft ends when model ends are located iwo a bulkhead (not modelled)
x Displacements Rotations fixed free y fixed fixed z free fixed

3.2.2 When the hull structure is modelled over half the ship's breadth, in way of the ship's centreline longitudinal plane, symmetry or anti-symmetry boundary conditions are to be applied, depending on the loads applied to the model (symmetrical or anti-symmetrical respectively), as specified in Tab 3 and Tab 4. Table 3 : Symmetry conditions in way of the ships centerline longitudinal plane
x Displacements Rotations free fixed y fixed free z free fixed

Table 4 : Anti-symmetry conditions in way of the ships centerline longitudinal plane

x Displacements Rotations fixed free y free fixed z fixed free

3.2.3 Vertical supports Vertical supports are to be fitted at the nodes positioned in way of the connection of the transverse bulkheads with longitudinal bulkheads, if any, or with ships sides.

3.3

Stress calculations

3.3.1 General When performing beam analysis, hull girder stresses and local stresses are dissociated: The hull girder stress is obtained through the calculation of normal stress for longitudinal members taking into account vertical bending moments in case "a" and "b" and torque and bending moments in case "c" with a level of probability 10-5 ( ratio 0.625) The local stress is obtained through local wave pressure and still water pressure, container loads (including acceleration, etc) associated with the selected load case (case "a", "b","c" or "d"). The total stress is obtained by adding the hull girder stress and the local stress. Container loads must be added in such a way that the shear stresses induced by these loads are taken into account and well represented (application of loads at a certain distance of the connection of girders and transverse bulkhead for example). Examples of models and results using Bureau Veritas Steel software are shown in Fig 7 and Fig 8.

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

25

NI 532, Sec 4

Figure 7 : Example of deformation of double bottom structure with 40 feet container under maximum local pressure in head sea condition

Figure 8 : Example of Von Mises stresses distribution in double bottom structure with 40 feet container under maximum local pressure in head sea condition

26

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 4

4
4.1

Finite element model analysis

General

4.1.1 Finite element models are generally to be based on linear assumptions. The mesh is to be executed using shell elements, with or without mid-side nodes. The analysis of primary supporting members is to be carried out by applying one of the two following procedures (see Fig 9): An analysis of the whole three dimensional model based on a fine mesh An analysis of the whole three dimensional model based on a coarse mesh from which the nodal displacements or forces are obtained. This nodal displacements and forces are to be used as boundary conditions for the analysis based on fine mesh models of primary supporting members. The areas, which appear to be highly stressed from fine mesh model analysis, may be required to be further analysed using the mesh dimensions so as to enable a reliable representation of the stress gradients (see examples of stress concentrations in hatch corners, hatch coamings, connection with superstructure, etc... See Fig 24 to Fig 29). Partial FEM models are generally used for ships equal to or less than 170m in length associated with thin walled beam models. Complete ship model analysis is required for ships with length greater than 170m. However, in order to assess structure at an early stage, a partial model analysis must be performed prior to complete ship model analysis; head sea case, flooding and one bay empty conditions are to be considered. This permits to assess most of midship scantlings for yielding and buckling only, (fatigue requires complete ship model analysis). It may be requested to perform complete ship model analysis for ship less than 170m in length. For instance, small container ships are very sensible to transverse acceleration, therefore some structural arrangements mays necessitate a complete ship model analyse. See Fig 21 and Fig 22 in [4.3.5]. Figure 9 : Finite element modelling criteria
Whole three dimensional model FINE MESH Whole three dimensional model COARSE MESH

Models of primary supporting members FINE MESH

Application of boundary conditions derived from coarse mesh model analysis

Strength criteria : - yielding check, - buckling check of primary supporting members

(When necessary)

Mesh for the analysis of highly stressed areas

Boundary conditions derived from fine mesh model analysis

Strength criteria : yielding check of highly stressed areas

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

27

NI 532, Sec 4

4.1.2 Coarse mesh analysis For coarse mesh models, the number of nodes and elements are to be such that the stiffness and inertia of a model properly represents the actual hull girder structure, and the distribution of loads amongst the various load carrying members are correctly taken into account. To this end, the structural model is to be built on the basis of the following criteria: Ordinary stiffeners contributing to the hull girder longitudinal strength and which are not individually represented in the model are to be modelled by rod elements and grouped at regular intervals Webs of primary supporting members may be modelled with only one element on their height Face plates may be simulated with bars having the same cross section The plating between two primary supporting members may be modelled with one element strip Holes for the passage of ordinary stiffeners or small pipes may be disregarded Manholes (and similar discontinuities) in the webs of primary supporting members may be disregarded. However the element thickness is to be reduced in proportion to the hole height and the web height ratio. In some specific cases, some of the above simplifications may not be deemed acceptable by the Society in relation to the type of structural model and the analysis performed.

4.2

Partial model analysis

4.2.1 A partial model analysis is to be performed in the following cases: head sea case without transverse motions local loads checking (flooding case and one bay empty case). The longitudinal extention of the structural model is to be such that: The hull girder stresses in the area to be analysed are properly taken into account in the structural analysis The results in the areas to be analysed are not influenced by the unavoidable inaccuracies in the modelling of the boundary conditions. In general for multi-hold ships, these conditions are considered as being satisfied when the model is extended over at least three cargo hold lengths. For the analysis of the midship area, this model is to be such that the aft end corresponds to the first transverse bulkhead aft of the midship, as shown on Fig 10. The structure of the fore and aft transverse bulkheads located within the model including the bulkhead plating is to be modelled. For ships with transverse watertight bulkheads and non watertight bulkheads, it is recommended to extent the model up to at least three cargo holds, as shown in Fig 11. In the case of structural symmetry with respect to the ship's centreline longitudinal plane and symmetric load case, the hull structure may be modelled over half the ship's breadth. Figure 10 : Model longitudinal extension

CL

Length of the model

28

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 4

Figure 11 : Example of a coarse mesh of a typical three hold structutal model of a ship with watertight and non watertight bulkheads

4.2.2 Boundary conditions The three dimensional model is assumed to be fixed at one end, while shear forces and bending moments are applied at the other end to ensure equilibrium. At the free end section, rigid constraint conditions are to be applied to all nodes located on longitudinal members, in such a way that the transverse section remains plane after deformation. Same symmetry or anti symmetry boundary conditions used for 3D beam models are to be applied for 3D finite element models in case of hull structure modelled over half the ship breadth. See Tab 3 and Tab 4. 4.2.3 The loading conditions to be considered are: (see also Sec 2, [2.1]) Full load at scantling draught with 20 feet and especially 40 feet container loads Ballast condition with ballast draught Alternate cases even if not specified in the loading manual (one empty bay at maximum draught) Flooding case. When performing finite element analysis, the hull girder stress (at a probability level of 10-5) and the local stresses are combined directly in order to get the total stress. Examples of results of calculations are shown in Fig 12, Fig 13, Fig 14, and Fig 15. The presented results show only parts of whole partial models for clarity purpose. In the case shown in Fig 15, stresses are concentrated at the connection of vertical primary members of bulkhead with inner bottom and at the connection of stringers with longitudinal bulkhead.

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

29

NI 532, Sec 4

Figure 12 : Example of longitudinal stress distribution and deformation of a typical cargo hold of container ship in head sea condition

Figure 13 : Example of distribution of combined stresses in a watertight bulkhead (due to shear), one bay empty under maximum draught in head sea a condition

30

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 4

Figure 14 : Example of typical deformation of watertight bulkhead with one cargo hold flooded with the load height up to freeboard deck

Figure 15 : Example of distribution of stresses in a watertight bulkhead with one cargo hold flooded.

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

31

NI 532, Sec 4

4.3

Complete ship model analysis

4.3.1 This sub-article applies for ships greater than 170m in length and loading conditions and load cases for structural analysis based on complete ship model described in Sec 2. The full length of the ship is to be modelled taking also into account the superstructure (see Fig 16). Figure 16 : Examples of a complete ship model without and with containers

4.3.2 Boundary conditions In order to prevent rigid body motions of the overall model, the following constraints are to be applied: In Tab 5, the following co-ordinate system is used: x axes : longitudinal axis, positive forwards y axes : transverse axis, positive towards portside z axes : vertical axis, positive upwards. The nodes on the port and starboard side shell are to be symmetrical with respect to the ship's longitudinal plane of symmetry. Same symmetry or anti symmetry boundary conditions as the ones used for 3D beam and 3D finite element models are to be applied for complete ship finite element model in case of hull structure modelled over half the ship breadth. See Tab 3 and Tab 4. Table 5 : Nodal constraints for complete ship model analysis
x Displacement Rotation Displacement Rotation Displacement Rotation free free fixed free free free y fixed free free free fixed free z fixed free fixed free fixed free

One node on the fore end of the ship

One node on the port side shell at aft end of the ship

One node on starboard side shell at aft end of the ship

32

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 4

4.3.3 Finite element loading and lightweight distribution Still water loads include: The still water pressures defined in Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 3 of the Rules for Steel Ships The still water internal loads defined in Pt B, Ch 5, Sec 6 of the Rules for Steel Ships, for the various types of cargoes and for ballast. Wave loads, determined by means of hydrodynamic calculations according to Sec 2, [3.2] include: The wave pressure The inertial loads. The lightweight of the ship is to be distributed over the model length, in order to obtain the actual longitudinal distribution of the still water bending moment. The loads are applied to the finite element model according to the following: The liquid pressure in tanks is affected by the change of direction of the total acceleration vector defined in Pt B, Ch5, Sec 6 of the Rules for Steel Ships For dry unit cargoes (container stacks for example), the inertial forces are computed at the centre of mass, taking into account the mass moment of inertia Inertial loads for structure weight and dry uniform cargo are computed using local accelerations calculated at their location. 4.3.4 Hydrostatic calculations For each loading conditions given in Sec 2, [2.1], the longitudinal distribution of still water shear force and bending moment is to be computed and checked by reference to the approved loading manual. The convergence of the displacement, trim and vertical bending moment is deemed satisfactory if normally within the following tolerances: 2% of the displacement 0,1 degrees of the trim angle 10% of the still water bending moments. 4.3.5 Wave load calculations When the hydrostatic calculations have been performed and found satisfactory, the model is considered to be well calibrated and wave load calculations can be performed according to Sec 2, [3.2] (Load cases for structural analysis based on complete ship models). The wave length and heading which maximise each dominant load effect are specified in Sec 2, Tab 3. Where two values of heading angle are indicated in the table, the angle which corresponds to the highest peak value of the load effect's RAO is to be considered. The wave length and heading may be adjusted in order to fulfil the requirements. See Fig 17.

Figure 17 : Example of wave maximizing vertical wave bending moment in hogging condition (head sea case)

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

33

NI 532, Sec 4

The design value of dominant load effects is specified in Sec 2, Tab 4. Examples of complete ship model deformation and stresses are shown in Fig 18, Fig 19, Fig 20, Fig 21 and Fig 22.

Load case shown in Fig 18 is determinant with respect to yield for the hatch coaming, upper deck, upper part of side and inner side. The load case is also determinant for the buckling strength of bottom, inner bottom and longitudinal girders. Figure 18 : Example of deformation and hull girder stresses of a large container ship in head sea hogging condition at scantling draught

In oblique sea condition (see Fig 19, the hull girder is exposed to a combination wave load due to hogging, horizontal bending and torsion. This load case is determinant with respect to yield for the cross deck, hatch corners and aft part. The load case is also determinant for buckling in lower side, bilge, bottom, inner bottom, double bottom girders and lower stringers. Figure 19 : Example of deformation and hull girder stress of large container ship in oblique sea condition at scantling draught

34

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 4

In beam sea condition (see Fig 20), the hull girder is exposed to a maximum horizontal bending and maximum torsion at fore part. This load case is determinant with respect to yield strength of transverse frames, cross decks, hatch corners and fore part. The load case is also determinant for buckling in transverse watertight and non watertight bulkheads. Figure 20 : Example of deformation and hull girder stress of a large container ship in beam sea condition at scantling draught with large displacement at fore part

The load case described in Fig 21 is determinant with respect to yield for the transverse structure, cross deck and hatch corners. Figure 21 : Example of deformation of a small container carrier under transverse loads

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

35

NI 532, Sec 4

The load case described in Fig 22 is determinant with respect to yield for the double bottom structure and floors due to the heavy cargo loads and maximum vertical acceleration in sagging condition. Figure 22 : Example of deformation of a small container carrier under heavy cargo condition in sagging

Examples of curves of bending moments and torsional moments are shown in Fig 23. The first figure shows vertical bending moment (purple curve) and vertical shear force (green curve). The second figure shows maximum torque (blue curve) and horizontal bending moment (dark red curve) Figure 23 : Example of vertical bending moment, vertical shear force, torque and horizontal bending moment

36

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 4

4.4

Fine mesh and highly stressed area analysis

4.4.1 Areas to be analysed through fine mesh models The areas to be analysed through fine mesh models are: Typical transverse reinforced frame Hatch corners and hatch coamings of the strength deck in aft, mid and fore parts Connection of the cross-deck box beams to the longitudinal bulkheads and hatch coamings Connection of the longitudinal deck girders to the transverse bulkheads End connections of hatch coamings including connection with the fore front of superstructures if any Cut-outs in the longitudinal bulkheads, longitudinal deck girders, hatch coamings, and cross deck beams. Examples of fine meshes are shown on Fig 24, Fig 25, Fig 26, Fig 27, Fig 28 and Fig 29. The mesh must be extended sufficiently from the area under study in order to avoid boundary effects. Fine mesh analysis of other areas may be requested by the society where deemed necessary on the basis of the structural arrangement and expected loads.

Figure 24 : Example of fine mesh of connection of hatch coaming with the front wall of a superstructure and distribution of the stresses through this structure

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

37

NI 532, Sec 4

Figure 25 : Example of fine mesh of a full support bulkhead with distribution of combined stress in head sea condition

Figure 26 : Example of fine mesh of a typical transverse frame with stress concentration near openings

38

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 4

Figure 27 : Example of fine mesh of connection of double bottom girder with transverse bulkhead with stress concentration due to global girder loads and local container stack loads

Figure 28 : Example of fine mesh of connection of vertical girder with inner bottom in flooding condition.

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

39

NI 532, Sec 4

Figure 29 : Example of distribution of combined stresses in hatch corners in head sea (left) and oblique sea (right)

4.4.2 The ship's structure may be considered as finely meshed when each longitudinal secondary stiffener is modelled. As such, the standard size of elements used is based on the spacing of ordinary stiffeners. The structural model is to be built on the basis of the following criteria: Webs of primary members are to be modelled with at least three elements on their height The plating between two primary supporting members is to be modelled with at least two element strips The ratio between the longer side and the shorter side of elements is to be less than 3 in the areas expected to be highly stressed Holes for the passage of ordinary stiffeners may be disregarded. In some specific cases, some of the above simplifications may not be deemed acceptable by the Society in relation to the type of structural model used and the analysis performed. 4.4.3 Mesh for the analysis of structured details and highly stressed areas The structural modelling is to be accurate; the mesh dimensions are to be such as to enable a reliable representation of the stress gradients. The use of membrane elements are only allowed when significant bending effects are not present. In other cases, elements with bending behaviour are to be used.

5
5.1

Yielding calculations and criteria

Stress components

5.1.1 Analysis based on beam models The following stress components are to be calculated: the normal stress 1 in the direction of the beam axis the shear stress 12 in the direction of the local loads applied to the beam the Von Mises equivalent stress, obtained from the following formula: VM = 1 + 3 12
2 2

40

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 4

Stresses are to be calculated, as a minimum in the following points of each primary supporting member: in the primary supporting member span where the maximum bending moment occurs at the connection of the primary supporting member with other structures at the toe of the bracket (if any and if represented in the model). The obtained values of the stresses are to be used for carrying out the required checks. 5.1.2 Analysis based on finite element models The following stress components are to be calculated at the centroid of each element: the normal stresses 1 and 2 in the directions of the element co-ordinate system axes the shear stress 12 with respect to the element co-ordinate system axes the Von Mises equivalent stress, obtained from the following formula: VM = 1 + 2 1 2 + 3 12
2 2 2

Stresses are generally calculated for each element. The values of these stresses are to be used for carrying out the required checks.

5.2

Checking criteria

5.2.1 Yielding check of primary supporting members analysed through a three dimensional structural model is: Ry --------- VM R m Partial safety factors and resistance partial safety factors depend on the type of model (beam model, partial FEM model, complete ship model). See Pt B, Ch7, Sec 3 of the Rules for Steel Ships. 5.2.2 Additional criteria for analysis based on fine mesh models Fine mesh finite element models are defined in Pt B, Ch 7, App 1, [3.4] of the Rules for Steel Ships. For all the elements modelled in fine mesh, it is to be checked that the normal stresses 1 and 2 and the shear stress 12, calculated according to Pt B, Ch 7, App 1, [5] of the Rules for Steel Ships, are in compliance with the following formulae: Ry --------- max( 1 , 2 ) R m Ry - 12 0 ,5 --------R m The allowable stresses for coarse mesh and fine mesh, depending on the steel grade, are obtained from the following formula: Von Mises equivalent stress: VM, All = Ry /( R m) (N/mm2) Shear stress: All = 0,5Ry /( R m) (N/mm2) where: Ry : Minimum yield stress Ry = 235/k (N/mm2) Allowable stresses for coarse mesh and fine mesh depending on steel grade and partial safety factors are shown in Tab 6.

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

41

NI 532, Sec 4

Table 6 : Allowable stresses depending on material factor and partial safety factors
Von Mises equivalent stress VM,All Coarse Mesh 192,0 246,1 266,6 282,3 Fine Mesh 219,4 281,3 304,7 322,7 Shear stress All 96,0 123,1 133,3 141,2 109,7 140,6 152,4 161,3 Mild AH32 AH36 AH40 Mild AH32 AH36 AH40 Steel Material factor k 1 0,78 0,72 0,68 1 0,78 0,72 0,68 Minimum yield stress Ry 235 315 355 390 235 315 355 390 Partial safety factors R 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,05 1,05 1,05 1,05 m 1,02 1,02 1,02 1,02 1,02 1,02 1,02 1,02

6
6.1

Buckling calculation and criteria

General

6.1.1 Buckling of plate elements, which are part of primary supporting members, must be carried out according to Rules for Steel Ships Pt B, Ch 7, Sec 3. The following buckling modes are to be considered: compression and bending with or without shear shear bi-axial compression and shear.

42

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 5

SECTION 5

DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF SPECIFIC AREAS

1
1.1

General
General

1.1.1 The feed back of experience shows that some areas are very sensitives due to: Detail design Stress concentration Corrosion Impact loads, global loads and local loads. These areas require special attention. Some examples are described in this section.

2
2.1

Critical areas
Cargo hold region

2.1.1 Upper deck structure Table 1 : Upper deck structure

Upper deck structure area Main cargo hold hatch corner Risk factors Stress concentration of hatch corner
Note 1: It is possible to evaluate stress concentration factor in certain cases, see formula given below the table.

Recommendation Insert plate continued beyond the longitudinal and transverse extent of the hatch corner radius (ellipse or parabola) Butt welds to the adjacent deck plating should be located well clear of the butts in the hatch coaming Smooth grinding ensuring that the micro grooves, if any, are parallel to the plate edge

Transverse cross deck plating

In-plane shear of cross deck strip due to tor- Sufficient transverse stiffening, or sional (longitudinal) deflection of ship sides Sufficient plate thickness Transverse compression of deck due to sea load Insufficient transverse stiffening Misalignment between bracket flange and deck transverse stiffener Misalignment between bracket and under deck longitudinal Insufficient support of the extension bracket below deck Misalignment between bracket and under deck longitudinal Flange force at the end of the flange too high due to insufficient tapering Shear force in the web plate too high due to insufficient reduction of the web height at the end Significant step at bracket end Flange sniped well before bracket end Discontinuity in structure High longitudinal stress in hatch coaming Additional stiffeners under deck transverse stiffeners to be fitted in way of termination bracket toe, where the toe is clear of normal stiffener Full penetration welding Misalignment criteria: maximum misalignment: thickness/3 NDT checking

Ends of longitudinal hatch coaming Bracket flange welded to deck plating (see Fig 1) Ends of longitudinal hatch coaming Bracket sniped at deck plating (see Fig 2 and Fig 3) Connection of hatch coaming to superstructure

Soft toe bracket: Tapering of bracket flange at ends: thickness 1:3 , width 1:5 Full penetration welding Misalignment criteria maximum misalignment: thickness/3 NDT checking

Continuity of flange of hatch coaming through the superstructure as smooth as possible Local reinforcement in thickness and steel grade of superstructure area

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

43

NI 532, Sec 5

Figure 1 : Ends of longitudinal hatch coaming - Bracket welded to deck plating

Symetrical face bar

Hc

0,15Hc

0,7Hc

Full penetration

a Section a-a

Under deck transverse stiffener

Figure 2 : Ends of longitudinal hatch coaming - Bracket sniped at deck plating

a Symetrical face bar

Hc

Full penetration
0,15Hc

Soft toe

Section a-a

44

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 5

Figure 3 : Example of soft toe at end of longitudinal hatch coaming

Full penetration welding

15-20 mm

15
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

30maximum

Tappered flange

Stress concentration factor (Kt) at free edge of hatch corner of upper deck in cargo hold region (head see case) may be evaluated with the following formula (radius or elliptical type), see Fig 4. In the formula below, following symbols are used: ra : Length of major arm of the ellipse : Length of minor arm of the ellipse rb l : Length of cross deck b : Distance from the edge of hatch opening to the ship side : Coefficient taking into account of elliptic shape (fc not to be taken less than 0.8 unless proven otherwise, e.g. fc with finite element analysis) b 0, 6 l 0, 65 - ----------K t = f c 1 + -------------------------------------- 1, 68 ( l + 1, 6b ) r b with: 1 2r b - + ------f c = -3 3r a Figure 4 : Hatch corner (upper deck) description

b Elliptical (ra, rb) Rounded (rb)

Transverse bulkhead

30-40 mm
Upper deck

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

45

NI 532, Sec 5

2.1.2 Side structure including tanks Table 2 : Side structure including tanks
Side structure area Risk factors Recommendation

Cut-out for the passage of a longitu- Stress concentration in way of cut-out Add collar plate if necessary dinal through a primary member Cut-out near an opening in primary Alignment of primary member flat bar member with longitudinal Fatigue in shear mode Re-shape cut-out Connection of side shell longitudinal Stress concentration to transverse web Fatigue Check scantling of stiffeners Stiffener type Collar plate if necessary Connection detail through fatigue analysis

Container socket in way of stringer Stress concentration in the radiused Combined container socket instead of deck (see Fig 5) corner and/or stress concentration due two separate sockets recommended to the arrangement of two separate Use larger radius container sockets Additional internal stiffener structure Missing or insufficient support in the should be considered if necessary surrounding structure of container sockets

Figure 5 : Example of container socket

Stringer deck

Combined container sockets

46

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 5

2.1.3 Connection of cross deck with side structure and transverse bulkhead structure Table 3 : Connection of cross deck with side structure and transverse bulkhead structure
Transverse bulkhead structure Risk factors Recommendation

Connection of cross deck High shear force induced by the torsion of Cross deck strips between hatches to be with side transverse the ship suitably overlapped at ends Full penetration weld Important forces induced by transverse Stresses due to forces transmitted by cross recommended (see Fig 6) deck strips to be transmitted to the web deck strips to web frames calculated taking frame into account frame openings Connection of bulkhead High local stresses in flooding case in the Full or deep penetration welding vertical girder with inner connection Check welding size of associated floor bottom Connection of flange of bulkhead vertical connected with inner bottom/flange of vergirder with inner bottom tical bulkhead girder

Figure 6 : Example of connection of cross deck with side structure

Cross deck

Full penetration weld (recommended)

Side transverse

2.1.4 Bottom structure Table 4 : Bottom structure

Bottom structure Risk factors Recommendation Check scantling of stiffeners Stiffener type Connection detail through fatigue analysis Add collar plate, if necessary Re-shape cut-out

Connection of bottom Stress concentration longitudinal with floor or Fatigue bulkhead

Connection of bottom Stress concentration longitudinal with bulk- Fatigue head in way of bilge keel Forward bottom structure Heavy weather Slamming

Soft toe bracket recommended Additional bracket with soft toe at each part of bulkhead under bilge well Sufficient plate thickness Sufficient stiffening

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

47

NI 532, Sec 5

2.2
2.2.1

Fore end structure

Table 5 : Fore end structure

Fore end structure Forecastle deck Risk factors Green seas on deck Bow flare impact Recommendation Stiffeners for forecastle deck plating against buckling Collar plates, if necessary, for forecastle deck stiffeners Sufficient plate thickness Sufficient stiffening

Side shell plating in way of Heavy weather forecastle deck Wave impact

Transverse primary mem- Dynamic seaway loading in way of bow Sufficient panel strength to absorb the ber of fore end structure flare dynamic loads enhanced by bow flare shape Stress concentrations in way of cut-outs for side longitudinal

48

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 6

SECTION 6

FATIGUE STRENGTH ASSESSMENT

1
1.1

General
Methodology

1.1.1 General The fatigue methodology is explained in Pt B, Ch 7, Sec 4 of the Rules for Steel Ships. Fatigue assessment using a three dimensional structural model in complete ship model analysis is explained in this section. Specific fatigue calculation methods are described in NI 539 (Spectral Fatigue Analysis Methodology for Ships and Offshore units) and NR 515 (Fatigue of Longitudinal Connections under Shear Mode). 1.1.2 Application Fatigue calculations are mandatory for ships equal or greater than 170m in length. Fatigue calculation may be required for ship of less than 170m in length, when deemed necessary by the Society, on a case by case basis. For ships with non-conventional shapes and sizes or with restricted navigation or specific trade route, the Society may require a spectral fatigue analysis to be carried out. In this analysis, the loads and stresses are to be evaluated through long-term stochastic analysis taking into account the characteristics of the ship and the navigation notation. In any case, spectral fatigue analysis may be accepted in lieu of deterministic approach provided that load calculations and fatigue analysis are submitted to the Society for approval. 1.1.3 Categorisation of details The details for which the fatigue check is to be carried out may be grouped in two categories with respect to the method adapted to calculate the stresses: Category 1: details located at ends of ordinary stiffeners. The methodology of fatigue calculation is based on isolated structural model and, if needed, calculation through a 3D structural model Category 2: details where the stresses are to be calculated through a 3D structural model (e.g. connections between two primary supporting members: hatch corners, etc...). 1.1.4 Net scantlings All scantlings referred in this Guidance Note are net (see Pt B, Ch 4, Sec 2 of the Rules for Steel Ships) and they do not include any margin of corrosion. 1.1.5 Definitions Hot spot: Location where fatigue cracking may occur Nominal stress: stress in structural components taking into account macro-geometric effects but disregarding the stress concentration due to local structural discontinuities and presence of welds (see Fig 1) Hot spot stress: local stress at the hot spot taking into account the influence of local structural discontinuities due to the geometry of detail, but excluding the effects of welds (see Fig 1) Notch stress: peak stress in notches such as root of a weld or the edge of a cut-out. This peak stress takes into account the stress concentrations due to the presence of notches (see Fig 1) Stress range: the fatigue check is based on the stress range induced at the hot spot by the time variation of the local pressures and hull girder loads in each load case and for the loading conditions defined in "full load" and "ballast".

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

49

NI 532, Sec 6

Figure 1 : Nominal, hot spot and notch stress range

notch stress hot spot stress

nominal stress

hot spot 0,5 t 1,5 t

1.2

Areas subject to fatigue assessment

1.2.1 The areas for fatigue assessment of container ships are shown in Tab 1. a) Connection of side longitudinal stiffeners with stiffeners of transverse primary supporting members, (Category 1 and category 2 if necessary) in areas located longitudinally between aft peak bulkhead and collision bulkhead and vertically from the base line up to upper deck, are shown Fig 2, Fig 3 and Fig 4. Such connections consider: Without bracket With bracket (radiused bracket or normal bracket) With two brackets With or without collar plates. The stress concentration factors Kh (global) and Kl (local) for each detail are given in Pt B, Ch 12, App 2 of the Rules for Steel Ships. Figure 2 : Connection without bracket

Hot spots

Figure 3 : Connection with bracket

hw Hot spots
h

hw

50

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 6

Figure 4 : Connection with two brackets (radiused)

hw
h

Hot spots
R2 R1
hw

hw

b) Hatch corners (Category 2) At aft part in front of engine room At midship (0,5L) At fore part (0,75L) In intermediate areas where necessary, i.e. thickness changes of insert plates In upper deck and coaming top In intermediate stringer at fore part where there is high hot spot stress. For hatch corners, the hot spot is located on the free edge of the radius, no welding factor is to be taken into account. c) Other areas which can be required to be assessed with fatigue calculation Other areas for fatigue assessment can be required by the Society if deemed necessary on a case by case basis because of a particular design subject to fatigue. Some examples are given here: Connection of longitudinal stiffeners with transverse primary supporting members (without stiffener on transverse primary member). See NR 515 Fatigue of Longitudinal Connections under Shear Mode End of hatch coaming at fore part (see Fig 5) etc...

Table 1 : Summary of typical details with associated model and method

Isolated structural model (Category 1) 3D partial model (Category 2) 3D complete ship model (Category 2) x x x x x x x Methodology 1
(1)

Detail Hatch corners Hatch coaming end Longitudinal with stiffener Longitudial without stiffener
(1)

Methodology 2
(1)

x x x

For detail of methodology, see [1.3.2]

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

51

NI 532, Sec 6

Figure 5 : Example of stress distribution at end of hatch coaming with soft toe

1.3

Fatigue calculation

1.3.1 Assumptions for fatigue calculation The assumptions considered for fatigue calculations are the following: North Atlantic Navigation (unless specified otherwise) Sailing factor: 0,85 Ship 75% in full load and 25% in ballast (unless specified otherwise) Corrosion factor: Kcor = 1,1 for tanks having coating protection (1,5 otherwise). 1.3.2 Cumulative damage ratio formula The fatigue damage is obtained through the calculation of: Elementary fatigue damage ratio Dij obtained through elementary notch stress ranges Cumulative damage ratio D from "full load" and "ballast" calculated through the elementary fatigue damage ratios. D = Kcor [0,75 DF + 0,25 DB] DF DB : Cumulative damage ratio in Full load condition : Cumulative damage in ratio Ballast condition.

Cumulative damage ratios are calculated depending on model used for stress range calculations (seeTab 1): a) Methodology 1: For isolated structural model and 3D FEM partial model 1 1 1 1 - D + -- D + --D - D + -D F = -6 aF 6 bF 3 cF 3 dF 1 1 1 - D + -- D + --D D B = -3 aB 3 bB 3 cB where each elementary damage ratio for cases a, b, c and d is calculated in full load or ballast conditions by the formulae in Pt B, Ch 7, Sec 4, [3] of the Rules for Steel Ships.

52

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 6

b) Methodology 2: For complete ship model The purpose is to maximise the stress range at hot spot location for three characteristic situations of the ship (head sea, quartering sea and beam sea cases) by combining different wave headings (See Fig 6): For head sea case: maximum stress range induced by vertical bending moment (difference between hogging and sagging) For quartering sea (oblique sea): maximum stress range induced by torsional moment obtained through the combination of headings selected from 60 degrees to 120 degrees For beam sea: maximum stress range between port side and starboard induced by difference in local pressure, horizontal bending moment and torsional moment. 1 1 1 - D + -- D + --D D F = -3 HF 3 Q F 3 B F 1 1 1 - D + -- D + --D D B = -3 HB 3 Q B 3 B B where: DHF DQF DBF DHB DQB DBB : Damage for head sea in full load (0 degree - 180 degrees) : Damage for quartering sea in full load (60 degrees - 75 degrees - 105 degrees - 120 degrees) : Damage for beam sea in full load (90 degrees) : Damage for head sea in ballast (0 degree - 180 degrees) : Damage for quartering sea in ballast (60 degrees - 75 degrees - 105 degrees - 120 degrees) : Damage for beam sea in ballast (90 degrees) Figure 6 : Deformation and hull girder stresses in head sea, oblique sea and beam sea

1.3.3 Checking criteria The cumulative damage ratio D is to comply with the following formula: 1 D --R The damage ratio can also be expressed as a fatigue life defined as: T Fatigue life = --------RD with: T : Design fatigue life, to be taken equal to 20 years or to a greater value TFL when the class notation DFL xx years is assigned to the ship with TFL the increased design fatigue life.

1.4

Hot spot stresses directly obtained by finite element analysis

1.4.1 Where the structural detail is analysed through a finite element analysis based on a very fine mesh, the elementary hot spot stress range may be obtained as the difference between the maximum and minimum stresses induced by the wave loads in the hot spot considered.

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

53

NI 532, Sec 6

1.4.2 Finite element model In general, the determination of hot spot stresses necessitates carrying out a finite element analysis with a very fine mesh model further to a coarser mesh model (partial or complete ship model). The boundary nodal displacements or forces obtained from the coarser mesh model are applied to the very fine mesh model as boundary conditions. The model extention is to be such as to enable a faithful representation of the stress gradient in the vicinity of the hot spot and to avoid it being incorrectly affected by the application of the boundary conditions. 1.4.3 Finite element modelling criteria The finite element model is to be built according to the following requirements: Both starboard and portside have to be represented The detail may be considered to be realised with no misalignments The size of the mesh located in the vicinity of the hot spot is to be about once or twice the thickness of the structural member. Where the detail is the connection between two or more members of different thicknesses, the thickness to be considered is that of the thinner member The centre of the first element adjacent to a weld toe is to be located between the weld toe and 0.4 times the thickness of the thinner structural member connected by the weld Plating, webs and face plates of primary and secondary members are to be modelled by 4-node thin shell or 8-node solid elements. In the case of a steep stress gradient, 8-node thin shell elements or 20-node solid elements are recommended When thin shell elements are used, the structure is to be modelled at mid-face of the plates The aspect ratio of elements is not to be greater than 2.

2
2.1

Fatigue of side shell longitudinals

General

2.1.1 This article describes fatigue calculations of connections of side shell longitudinals to transverse primary supporting members, with and without stiffeners. Fatigue life depends on several factors: Scantlings of the stiffeners Angles or T sections (symmetrical sections always favour better for fatigue) Types of connections and details Workmanship.

2.2

Connections of side shell longitudinals with stiffeners of transverse members

2.2.1 Calculation through an isolated structural model Fatigue is due to local stress and hull girder stresses (especially warping stress near the bilge area where the warping stress is maximum). The elementary stress range is calculated for load cases "a" , " b" ,"c" and "d" for the two loading conditions : full load (scantling draught) and ballast (minimum draught). See Pt B, Ch 7, Sec 4 [4.2.1] of the Rules for Steel Ships. Lateral pressure is constituted by still water pressure and wave pressure for the following load cases: Load case a-max and a-min in upright condition Load case b-max and b-min in upright condition Load case c-max and c-min in inclined condition Load case d-max and d-min in inclined condition The nominal hull girder normal stress is taken into account (see Tab 2 and Tab 3): h = S1 SW + W1 ( CFV WV + C FH WH + C F ) where: : Still water hull girder normal stresses, in N/mm2, taken equal to: SW M SW - ( z N ) 10 3 SW = ---------IY

54

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 6

MSW : Still water bending moment for the loading condition considered, in kN.m WV, WV, WH: Hull girder normal stresses, in N/mm2, defined in Tab 2 : Warping stresses, in N/mm2, induced by the torque 0,625MWT and obtained through direct calculation based on a structural model (see Sec 4 in accordance with Pt B, Ch 6, Sec 1, [2.6] of the Rules for Steel Ships CFV, CFH, CF: Combination factors defined in Tab 3. Table 2 : Nominal hull girder normal stresses
Load case a-max a-min b-max b-min c-max d-max c-min d-min WV, in N/mm2 WH, in N/mm2 0 0 0

0 ,625M WV ,H ------------------------------ ( z N ) 10 3 IY 0 ,625M WV ,S ----------------------------- ( z N ) 10 3 IY

0 0 0

0 ,625M WH - y10 3 -------------------------IZ 0 ,625M WH -------------------------- y10 3 IZ

Table 3 : Combination factors CFV, CFH and CF

Load case a b c d CFV 1,0 1,0 0,4 0,4 CFH 0 0 1,0 1,0 CF 0 0 1,0 0

The cumulative damage ratio is to be obtained according to [1.3.2]. An example of fatigue life calculation result is given in Fig 7. Figure 7 : Example of fatigue lifes obtained through MARS software

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

55

NI 532, Sec 6

2.2.2 Calculation through a 3D model (complete ship model) Requirements defined in [1.4.1] to [1.4.3] are to be followed to get hot spot stress ranges. Examples of very fine mesh models are shown in Fig 8 to Fig 10. Figure 8 : Example of a very fine mesh of the connection of a side shell longitudinal angle stiffener with transverse web frame

Figure 9 : Example of a hot spot at the connection of flat bar with side shell longitudinal in way of a scallop

56

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 6

The bracket represented in Fig 10 reduces the hot spot at the connection of stiffener of transverse web frame with the side shell longitudinal. Cumulative damage ratio is to be calculated according to item b) of [1.3.2]. Figure 10 : Example of stress distribution with radiused bracket

2.3

Connections of side shell longitudinals with transverse members (without stiffener on primary member)

2.3.1 General Calculation can be performed as described in this sub-article provided that fatigue originates from shear stresses. 2.3.2 Calculation through an isolated structural model Cracks under shear mode are mainly due to both global and local phenomena. A simplified approach based on separated nominal stress range calulations (global and local, see Fig 11) is described in NR 515 Fatigue of Longitudinal Connections under Shear Mode. This method highlights the most critical longitudinals, it is then necessary to perform a FEM calculation. Figure 11 : Phenomenon of fatigue under shear mode

Hull girder

Local

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

57

NI 532, Sec 6

2.3.3 Calculation through a 3D partial FEM model Partial FEM models and very fine mesh models are used in methodology 1. Misalignment of collar plate with transverse primary member is to be modelled. An example of modelisation is shown in Fig 12. Cumulative damage ratio is to be calculated according to item a) of [1.3.2]. Figure 12 : Example of a very fine mesh model of connection of side shell longitudinal with misalignment

3
3.1

Fatigue of hatch corners

Calculation through three dimensional structural model

3.1.1 For hatch corners, the hot spot stress is obtained at the free edge of the hatch corner (see Fig 17 and Fig 18) through the use of specific beams located at the edge of the corner where axial stresses are extracted. Beam or rod elements which sections are equal to 0,1mm x 0,1mm are used. Examples of models and results of calculations are shown from Fig 13 to Fig 18. Figure 13 : Example of a very fine mesh of hatch corners in upper deck and hatch coaming top in midship section

58

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 6

Figure 14 : Example of very fine mesh of a hatch corner in upper deck with appropriate beam at free edge

Figure 15 : Example of a very fine mesh of hatch corners in upper deck and hatch coaming top at fore part

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

59

NI 532, Sec 6

Figure 16 : Example of a very fine mesh of hatch corner in aft part (elliptical shape)

3.1.2 The cumulative damage ratio is to be obtained according to item b) of [1.3.2]. The major contribution to the maximum stress range for hatch corners at upper deck level is the torsional moment. The maximum stress in the hatch corner occurs close to the middle of the curvature (see Fig 17). Nevertheless, the hatch coaming is flexible with respect to warping deformations. Hence the major contribution to the stresses at the hatch coaming corner is the longitudinal stress. The maximum stress on this case occurs at the side coaming. Figure 17 : Example of axial stresses in beam at the edge of a hatch corner

60

Bureau Veritas

November 2008

NI 532, Sec 6

Figure 18 : Example of an axial stress in beam at the edge of a hatch corner (elliptical shape)

The maximum stress range must be calculated for each beam element along the edge of the hatch corner. It is recommanded that the hatch corner is smoothly grinded and kept free from corrosive environments. Under such conditions, fatigue life is increased (see workmanship in [3.2]. Additionally, the hatch corner must be free from welded attachments. Any attachment will cause the predicted fatigue life to decrease significantly.

3.2

Workmanship

3.2.1 All hatch corners must be free of notch effects at edges. Hatch corners, due to significant variations in fatigue life must be ground smoothly. Smooth grinding is considered in fatigue life calculations as described in Rules for Steel Ship, Pt B, Ch 7, Sec 4, Tab 8. The hatch corner must be machine cut or material sheared with subsequent dressing, no cracks by inspection and no visible imperfections must be present. All visible signs of edge imperfection must be removed and full burr grinding made. No repair by welding refill is allowed. In these particular conditions, the shipyard must propose the cutting and grinding processes in order to meet standards procedures and, such proposals must be approved by the Society.

November 2008

Bureau Veritas

61

NI 532, Sec 7

SECTION 7

WAVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

1
1.1

Dynamic hull girder loads

Dynamic hull girder loads due to bow flare impact

1.1.1 See Pt B, Ch5, Sec 2 [4] of the Rules for Steel Ships. When the effects of bow flare impact are to be considered according to Rules for Steel Ships, the sagging wave bending moment is to be increased as specified in the Rules for Steel Ships, Pt B, Ch5, Sec 2 [4]. As an alternative, the Society may accept the evaluation of the bow flare impact from direct calculations, when justified on the basis of the ship's characteristics and intended service. The calculations are to be submitted to the Society for approval.

2
2.1

Reinforcements
Reinforcement of the bow flare area

2.1.1 See Pt B, Ch 9, Sec 1 [4] of the Rules for Steel Ships: The following items have to be checked: areas to be reinforced bow impact pressure partial safety factors scantlings of plating and ordinary stiffeners primary supporting members (checked by direct calculations, using the pressure of bow impact).

2.2

Reinforcements of the flat area of the bottom aft

2.2.1 In the flat area of the bottom aft, if any, increased bottom plating thickness as well as additional bottom stiffeners may be considered by the Society on a case by case basis.

62

Bureau Veritas

November 2008