P. 1
ABS American Bureau of Shipping Profile

ABS American Bureau of Shipping Profile

|Views: 210|Likes:
Published by amin_corporation

More info:

Published by: amin_corporation on Dec 28, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/20/2015

pdf

text

original

our M

I S S I O N
The mission of the American Bureau of Shipping is to serve the public interest as well as the needs of our clients by promoting the security of life, property and the natural environment primarily through the development and verification of standards for the design, construction and operational maintenance of marinerelated facilities.

qualityL& environmental P O I C Y
It is the policy of the American Bureau of Shipping to be responsive to the individual and collective needs of our clients as well as those of the public at large, to provide quality services in support of our mission, and to provide our services consistent with international standards developed to avoid, reduce or control pollution to the environment. All of our client commitments, supporting actions, and services delivered must be recognized as expressions of Quality. We pledge to monitor our performance as an on-going activity and to strive for continuous improvement. We commit to operate consistent with applicable environmental legislation and regulations and to provide a framework for establishing and reviewing environmental objectives and targets.

Executive Summary
ABS has worked with the container transportation market since its inception and has a history that is closely linked to the innovations of the industry. ABS remains a market leader and currently maintains class on the largest percentage of post-Panamax vessels. Recent newbuilding activity includes the classing of the largest vessels in service and of new construction of 7,000 teu and above. In the development of Ultra Large Containerships (ULCS), several economic and operational considerations must be addressed to obtain a working design. The service speed, size and speed of container cranes, port draft restrictions and container stack height limitations influence the dimensions and design. Additional consideration must be paid to container configurations. ABS SafeHull is the starting point for an ABS approved design. Application of the principles found in ABS SafeHull provide the keystone to a structurally sound vessel. Employing the dynamic loading approach (DLA) program of SH-DLA provides a more complete analysis of the vessel. For further design verification, several analytical tools exist to address unique considerations for the ULCS. By simulating actual loads, analysis programs at ABS for dynamic stress, nonlinear factors, propeller cavitation, and wave impact, among others, give a better understanding of how the next-generation of ULCS will perform once in service. In the design of the ULCS, extra consideration should be given to deck structure, hatch corners, the location of the deckhouse and engine room, the bow and stern regions and to transverse strength. These critical areas are all addressed through programs offered by ABS. Operators must also address several issues affecting the vessel during service. The operational issues of ballast water, green water, lashing arrangements, parametric roll, location of bunker tanks, voltage systems, and vibration are of particular importance. The ABS SafeShip program follows a vessel from inception through its life service. This information management system allows owners the best method for maintaining their vessels. ABS is the classification society of choice for large containerships. With practical experiences and unmatched technical capability, ABS offers shipowners and shipbuilders of these vessels absolutely the most comprehensive classification services available.

Executive Summary

i

Giants in the Container Industry
Introduction................................................................................................................................................v ABS’ Current Position ...............................................................................................................................1 Market Share ........................................................................................................................................1 Recent Activity ......................................................................................................................................1 History of ABS’ Role .................................................................................................................................3 Economic and Operational Considerations............................................................................................5 Design Considerations ..........................................................................................................................5 Service speed ....................................................................................................................................5 Container cranes ...............................................................................................................................5 Port draft restrictions..........................................................................................................................6 Container stack height limitations ......................................................................................................6 Container Configurations ......................................................................................................................6 ABS SafeHull..............................................................................................................................................7 Technology for ULCS ............................................................................................................................8 Load defines strength ........................................................................................................................8 Loading cases ....................................................................................................................................8 Structure modeling.............................................................................................................................9 Strength assessment .........................................................................................................................9 SH-DLA (Dynamic Loading Approach)..................................................................................................11 Analytical Tools........................................................................................................................................13 DYSOS (Dynamic Stress Analysis of Open Ships) ............................................................................13 Nonlinear Analysis by LAMP-NASTRAN System...............................................................................13 Propeller Analysis ...............................................................................................................................15 Effective wake calculations ..............................................................................................................15 Propeller cavitation analysis ............................................................................................................15 Propeller induced hull pressure .......................................................................................................16 Wave Impact Analysis (Slamming) .....................................................................................................16 Structural Considerations ......................................................................................................................17 Deck Structure ....................................................................................................................................17 Hatch Corners.....................................................................................................................................17 Location of Deckhouse and Engine Room.........................................................................................18 Bow Region.........................................................................................................................................18 Transverse Strength ............................................................................................................................18

Table of Contents

iii

Operational Issues ..................................................................................................................................19 Ballast Water .......................................................................................................................................19 Green Water........................................................................................................................................19 Lashing Arrangement ..........................................................................................................................19 Vessel Motions (Parametric Roll)........................................................................................................20 Location of Bunker Tanks ....................................................................................................................21 Voltage Systems .................................................................................................................................21 Vibration ..............................................................................................................................................22 ABS SafeShip...........................................................................................................................................23 Case Study ...............................................................................................................................................25 SHI Develops 9,000 TEU Container Vessel ........................................................................................25 Services Provided by ABS to Samsung .............................................................................................25 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................27 Appendix 1 ...............................................................................................................................................29 Fleet Information and Market Share ...................................................................................................29 Appendix 2 ...............................................................................................................................................30 Sampling of ABS-Classed Post-Panamax Vessels .............................................................................30 Appendix 3 ...............................................................................................................................................33 Listing of ABS-Classed Container Vessels .........................................................................................33 Appendix 4 ...............................................................................................................................................35 Shipyards with ABS-Approved Designs ..............................................................................................35

iv

Giants in the Container Industry

Introduction
In selecting the most appropriate classification society for a new construction project, ABS requests that the client consider the following: ABS’ current position as the leader in post-Panamax classification comes from years of experience with containerships, backed by advanced technical programs that address the needs of both shipowners and shipbuilders. ABS has been classifying container vessels since their inception and remains at the forefront of the technology necessitated by the design considerations of the Ultra Large Containership (ULCS). ABS is also a leader in research and development of appropriate Rules and Regulations governing the design parameters and vessel life. ABS surveyors’ experience is enhanced by a commitment to technology and the analytical programs offered by the engineering department. By responding to clients’ needs through a worldwide network of offices, clients receive the necessary attention to ensure project success. ABS has programs already in place, and personnel with the needed experience, to aid in the design and construction of the next generation of ULCS. ABS currently has projects that are in the 7,000 teu to 9,000 teu (twenty foot equivalent units) range, and as the mega-containerships are being built, ABS has developed the technology and can demonstrate the practical experience necessary to meet the design challenges posed by these vessels.

Classification with ABS includes:
• • • The most authoritative and appropriate Rules for the classification of containerships. Design review to verify the design complies with the ABS Rule requirements. Surveys during construction to assure compliance with classification requirements, as given in the Rules and on the ABS approved plans, and attendance on board during official sea trials. Governmental authorizations to issue certificates and/or conduct surveys pertaining to the Load Line, MARPOL, SOLAS, tonnage conventions, and ISM Code. Acceptance by the ABS Classification Committee and award of the appropriate notation. Performance of periodic surveys to assure that the vessel is maintained to Class standards.

• • •

The benefits of classing with ABS include:
• • • • • • • • Knowledge that the vessel is appropriate for the intended service. Backing of years of relevant knowledge and experience. Single source for all technical needs. Compliance with governmental requirements. Indication of due diligence of owner/operator. Maintenance of schedules during design/construction. Indication of performance of proper maintenance. Assurance of protection of capital investment.

Based on a long and varied experience, ABS provides comprehensive, efficient practical classification services fulfilling client needs for any ULCS project.

Introduction

v

ABS’ Current Position
Market Share
At the end of 2000, ABS was the leading classification society within the post-Panamax sector with a 35 percent market share.1 A B S already has the experience and technical tools necessary to meet today’s market demand and provide for future project success.
Post-Panamax Existing Vessels ABS’ existing fleet contains 387 containerships, aggregating more than 11m gt and representing a 20 percent share of the market. With 90 postPanamax vessels in class, ABS is the classification society of choice for owners of the largest container vessels, as demonstrated by the chart.2 Recent contracts include the construction of two new ultra-large vessels, designed to carry 7,400 teu. Additionally, ABS has 32 post-Panamax vessels on its orderbook. Of these, seven will have a capacity of 6,600 to over 7,000 teu.

By year-end 2000, ABS had a total of 75 containerships on its orderbook, ranging in size from 4,300 gt to 92,000 gt from owners worldwide. Experienced operators recognize ABS’ technical excellence and choose us for their classification needs.

Recent Activity
In the two years prior to 2001, ABS demonstrated its market dominance for the classification of post-Panamax vessels. During this time period, ABS set the pace for the largest vessels yet to be constructed. 1999 confirmed ABS’ position as the preferred society for the largest containerships. Five vessels, each of 92,000 gt, were delivered into ABS class during the year. Another five vessels, each of 69,000 gt were classed in 1999. In total during the year, ABS classed 24 containerships of 1.0m gross tons. Also in 1999, ABS received contracts to class 21 new containerships of 1.07m gross tons — including four vessels of 92,000 gt, and eight others of more than 60,000 gt. At the end of 2000, a total of 54 containerships, aggregating 2.18m gt, were contracted to be built or building to ABS class. Three of the four 92,000 gt vessels, each with a 6,600 teu capacity, were delivered in 2000. In total, 14 post-Panamax containerships were delivered in 2000. During the year, ABS also paired with Samsung Heavy Industries to review their plans for a 9,100 teu vessel.

______________________ 1 Source: Seaway, December 2000. Refer to Appendix One for market comparisons 2 Source: Seaway, December 2000.

ABS’ Current Position

1

This chart shows a flat ordering trend for smaller container vessels over the period relative to the total fleet, while orders for the larger size vessels continues to grow. The percentages represent the past year’s (monthly) ordering of containerships in the two categories, relative Source: Clarkson’s Container Intelligence Monthly, Oct. 2000 to its fleet size. For example, in October 2000, ordering for the smaller carriers represents 20 percent of the total <3,000 teu fleet, while ordering for larger carriers represents 54 percent of the total >3,000 teu fleet. The total ordering as of October 2000 represents 31 percent of the total fleet (by teu). This information on the containership orderbook demonstrates that over a one-year time period, there is increasing momentum for ordering larger vessels, while the total orders for smaller vessels remains constant. ABS anticipates that the scrapping of older vessels, which affects the smaller ship sizes, and the increased demand for container transportation will drive the demand for new containership orders in the short to medium term. Operators will accelerate the process of upsizing as they combine replacement and additional requirements for capacity.

2

Giants in the Container Industry

History of ABS’ Role
The ABS history with the container market is filled with many firsts. The maritime industry is constantly pushing the boundaries with innovative, larger, safer, more efficient, and more technically sophisticated vessels. The increase in containership size mirrors earlier advancements, in that technological developments can help shipowners gain operational and cost advantages. The concept of carrying cargo in containers was developed in the United States in the mid1950s to reduce ship time at dockside, cut the cost of cargo handling and prevent petty pilferage. ABS classed the first vessel to carry containers, the IDEAL X, and the first full containership with the conversion of the C2 vessel GATEWAY CITY for Sea-Land Service. In 1966 the first transatlantic crossing of a containership signaled the transportation industry’s acceptance of containerization. During the 1960s, owners turned to purpose designed and built ships culminating in a unique series of eight containerships, capable of carrying 1,900 teu, built to ABS classification for Sea-Land Service, Inc. in 1969. The vessels, traveling at up to 33 knots, remain the fastest containerships ever built. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the demand for the new, more efficient, specialized containerships became increasingly international. ABS was at the forefront of this innovative method of handling a wide range of commodities. Programs developed by the ABS Research and Development department examined ship structural behavior and were used to analyze the design of the world’s then 12 largest containerships. The American New York and 11 sisterships, built by Daewoo in South Korea to ABS class for U.S. Lines in 1984, were 58,000 dwt ships, each with a capacity of 4,238 twenty-foot-equivalent-units. ABS was the first to class post-Panamax vessels in 1988. Two German shipyards, HDW and Bremer Vulkan delivered five new American President Lines (APL) C-10 containerships all under ABS class. Their 39.4-meter beam made them too large to transit the Panama Canal, and provided a radical breakthrough in containership operation that began to redefine containership routes. When shipyards subsequently lengthened the structure of these 4,340 TEU vessels, they relied on the finite element (FEM) analyses performed by ABS as an aid to design and ensure ship stability. These types of analyses are included as part of the ABS SafeHull-Dynamic Loading Approach (SH-DLA) — a “design-by-analysis” procedure for more accurate modeling of expected shiploads and dynamic stresses than with traditional methods. SHDLA allows a more rational distribution of material in the hull structure and results in conservatively biased scantlings. The detailed analysis performed by SHDLA was streamlined and tailored for specific ship types modified to be more designer-focused and released as ABS SafeHull in 1993.

History of ABS’ Role

3

In 1996, SafeHull was expanded to the containership structures. In applying SafeHull, the loads and stresses imposed on a hull structure, for the first time, could be quantified in an integrated and realistic manner early in the design stages. ABS SafeHull is an integral part of the ABS SafeShip program — an integrated through life-management program. ABS’ success in the structural evaluation of containerships of the post-Panamax segment can be largely attributed to the success of these two programs: SH-DLA and ABS SafeHull. This advanced technology has guided designers as they seek to minimize potential structural risks. As owners order even larger container vessels, ongoing research at ABS has addressed all technical issues that a 10,000 teu, or larger, vessel may pose.

4

Giants in the Container Industry

Economic and Operational Considerations
The size range for the largest containerships is expected to increase significantly in the near future, as economies of scale remain the dominant operational factor driving efficient transport. Numerous, commercial studies have underscored the significant reductions in slot costs offered by the largest vessels on the world’s principal trading routes. The largest containerships currently in service are in the 6,000 teu range. Many leading shipyards, however, have developed designs for vessels with additional container rows, tiers and holds that increase the main dimensions of the vessels and increase the capacity to as much as 10,000 teu. In the future, the carrying capacity of containerships is expected to increase to 12,000 teu and above. The trend towards increased size of containerships presents unique challenges for the structural designer and operational managers. At ABS, rational structural criteria analysis is applied to large containership designs through its dynamic-based ABS SafeHull system and SH-DLA analysis. These evaluate a vessel’s strength and identify the most critical structural elements within a design.

Design Considerations
There are several significant issues that must be addressed by designers as they develop the next generation of ULCS. Reaching beyond purely technical considerations associated with the vessel’s construction, these challenges extend into machinery limitations, port capabilities, onland transportation infrastructure, and hub/spoke operation. The most significant issues to be addressed are:

Service speed
To maximize the return on investment in the new ULCS, operators are demanding higher service speeds to increase vessel utilization and improve service to their clients. Service speeds in excess of 25 knots are now commonplace. Engine manufacturers and propeller designers are rapidly developing new concepts that will obviate the need for dual plant, twin screw configurations by offering 14-cylinder and larger engines.

Container cranes
Port container cranes are constantly being enlarged to overcome limitations of speed, height and reach that restrict the handling of containers stowed across the vessel.

Economic and Operational Considerations

5

Port draft restrictions
Draft limitations at many ports, such as on the US East Coast, place particular emphasis on limiting design draft on ULCS. Similarly, as vessel size increases further, draft limitations in the Strait of Malacca will shape vessel dimensions once ULCS break the 15,000 teu barrier.

Container stack height limitations
A typical ISO rated container is capable of handling eight fully loaded containers on top of it, giving a fully loaded container stack a limit of nine tiers. If the strength of typical container corner posts is increased, more tiers of fully loaded containers can be stacked in the holds of container vessels (vessel depth). Additionally, designers’ efforts to minimize a vessel’s registered gross tonnage to limit port and other operational charges, have posed new challenges regarding stack heights, bridge visibility and cargo protection. Each of these issues influences the main characteristics of vessels being placed into service today. Some of these issues are not related to vessel design and are already being addressed by the more sophisticated ports as they increase the size of their cranes and ease draft restrictions.

Container Configurations
Even before some of the infrastructure issues were addressed, designers studied container storage configurations to increase vessel carrying capacity. This represents a balancing act between form and function. Designers seek to maximize the open spaces available for loading/unloading the box cargo within the confines of the vessel’s form and structural configurations.
18 x 15

As the carrying capacity of containerships increase, the task requires a sure knowledge of how to best achieve vessel stability. The cost associated with lost cargo or downtime for repair is too great to ignore, emphasizing the challenges that the ULCS present.

13 x 13

17 x 14

Panamax 4000 teu 24 x 16

Post Panamax 7000 teu

Post Panamax 9000 teu

24 x 18

Ultra 13000 teu

Ultra 18000 teu

Container Stack Arrangement

6

Giants in the Container Industry

ABS SafeHull
A ULCS designed and built to ABS class will meet the Rule requirements contained within ABS SafeHull. SafeHull provides a dynamic load based approach that considers corrosion as well as the dominant failure modes — yielding, buckling and fatigue. Shipowners recognize that ships designed to meet SafeHull criteria are demonstrably stronger and therefore safer, more durable ships and that these vessels are less susceptible to in-service structural failure and require fewer repairs. The ABS SafeHull System was conceived as a complete technical resource comprising two criteria — the Guide for Dynamic-Based Design and Structural Evaluation and Guide for Fatigue Assessment, as well as a comprehensive suite of software applications programs, technical support services, and related technical documentation and guidance. ABS and SafeHull have achieved significant market share, with particular successes in the tanker and very large containership markets. Containership owners have recognized the importance of a rational approach to design and the strength criteria outlined by ABS SafeHull. Large containership structural performance has, in general, been very positive. However, the trends of ever increasing size, capacity, speed and innovative design require detailed design criteria that are not available using traditional rules.

SafeHull Design Cycle

ABS SafeHull

7

Technology for ULCS
ABS SafeHull for containerships incorporates a number of elements for design and evaluation by analysis. This system is divided into two parts. During the design process, or Phase A, the general arrangement passes through a refining process beginning with an automated generation of the Hull Configuration. Next, calculations determining the dynamic loads assess the reaction of the designed vessel against specific criteria. This is followed by a determination of the structural components, compliance with strength criteria and fatigue assessment. Evaluation of the design is the next step in the process. Commonly referred to as Phase B, this stage generates a Finite Element Model (FEM) that again runs through a calculation of dynamic loads. Following 3-D global Finite Element Analysis, the design runs through an assessment of Failure Modes. Such an evaluation of the design confirms its structural integrity. This process verifies a design with a lifetime performance able to withstand all relevant failure modes. SafeHull criteria provide guidelines for specific structural considerations that must be addressed as containerships become larger. For example, since a containership hold structure is designed to carry loads at specific points, whereas other areas may carry little or no direct load, design considerations require direct calculations.

Load defines strength
A knowledge of all the loads acting on a ship is fundamental to achieving safety, where safety is defined as having an excess of capability (strength) compared with the demand (loads). The loads that a ship experiences are dependent on the environmental conditions and are mainly dynamic in nature. It is essential that relevant global and local loads are considered in an explicit manner, and that their combination and phasing be representative of their time-dependent nature. For ULCS, the torsional strength of the hull and high stress concentrations at the hatch corners are of paramount concern. Four oblique sea conditions are applied to impose maximum torsional loads at the forward and aft ends of the mid-ship cargo hold and to check the fatigue strength of the structures immediately forward of the engine room where there is an abrupt change in torsional rigidity. Loads are calculated to determine the proper scantlings in a rational manner for the forebody.

8

Giants in the Container Industry

Loading cases
The magnitude of each of the previously discussed load components is defined as the “nominal design load.” To obtain the combined load effects, a comprehensive set of design load cases has been developed to ensure that the maximum response has been considered by analyzing the Hydrodynamic Loads, Impact Loads, Ballast Loads, Container Loads, and Operational Loads. Loading cases are used to determine the effect of green water on deck and on hatch covers. This is especially relevant for containers as they produce static and dynamic concentrated loads rather than the distributed loads associated with liquid and bulk cargo.

Structure modeling
ABS SafeHull places an emphasis on both hull girder strength and local strength established in conjunction with specified load and failure criteria to address the use of higher tensile steels commonly found in current designs. Because of this, the failure modes of buckling and fatigue receive appropriate close attention, and in some cases they are the governing failure modes that determine the design. This distinction is a valuable feature of the SafeHull approach. ABS SafeHull embodies the “net ship” concept by taking into account, at the design stage, the future effects of deterioration. SafeHull vessels are designed to meet requirements after 20 years of assumed wastage. During Structure Modeling, SafeHull uses a partial FEM to determine structure interaction and whether the area is a high or low stress area. This is needed for determining plate thickness, stiffeners and the local structure.

3D FEM Partial Length Model

Although the SafeHull strength criteria primarily address global and local strength, the overall safety of the hull girder is also considered. In this connection, SafeHull implicitly addresses the elasto-plastic behavior, reserve strength, and residual strength, among other factors that are influential in decision making regarding the material redistribution. Initial scantling requirements have been developed for plating, longitudinals and other stiffeners, and the main supporting members. Extensive parametric studies and examination of survey records, together with other research findings, form the basis for calibration of the relevant parameters employed in the strength formulations.

Strength assessment
ABS SafeHull encompasses a strength assessment to verify the suitability of the initial design against the specified failure criteria. A series of tests are used to determine yielding strength, buckling and ultimate strength, fatigue strength, strength deck, hatch openings, and fatigue. Of particular importance to containerships is the design of hatch openings concerning associated loads, stresses and distortions. The large deck openings, the strong warping restraint of the engine room, and the non-prismatic hull structure of containerships cause significant torsion-induced longitudinal warping stresses along the strength deck.

ABS SafeHull

9

Certain structural details have been identified as particularly vulnerable to fatigue. Special attention in the development of the SafeHull criteria has been given to the following fatigue sensitive areas: • Hatch corners on the main and second decks, and top of continuous hatchside coamings • • • Connections of longitudinal deck girders to the transverse bulkheads End connections for the hatch side coaming, including coaming stays and hatch end coamings Cutouts in the longitudinal bulkheads, longitudinal deck girders, hatch end coamings and cross deck beams

Transverse structures, hatch openings and hatch corners must be considered together as any distortion and stress to one point influences the entire structure. As the size of containerships continue to increase, the transverse structures become more critical with increasing ship breadth or decreasing width of the double side structures.

Hatch Corner Fatigue Assessment

The result of these analyses is a vessel that meets load requirements, while avoiding sometimes overly conservative safety factors. SafeHull provides the exact knowledge of what areas need more or less consideration and answers the question of where reinforcement with filler plates best strengthens the structure and prevents cracking.

10

Giants in the Container Industry

SH-DLA (Dynamic Loading Approach)
The ABS SafeHull program relies on the engineering principles established in the SH-DLA program. SH-DLA was first introduced in 1991 as an engineering approach to determine the expected dynamic loads and permissible stresses acting on a vessel in a seaway, replacing the traditional semi-empirical approach. While SafeHull looks at a portion of the vessel and then makes a global comparison, SH-DLA enhances the analysis provided by SafeHull by examining the entire ship’s surface in a variety of loading cases to determine where any additional reinforcements or scantlings are needed. For containerships, SH-DLA is not a requirement for class; however, many existing ABS-classed post-Panamax vessels use both SafeHull and SH-DLA to identify critical areas. SafeHull for containerships is a comprehensive approach to design verification, but as ABS’ clients order larger vessels, they increasingly turn to SH-DLA to focus on all areas of critical importance, such as torsional strength analysis, to ensure vessel structural strength.

Dynamic Load in Waves

As the loads acting on a vessel come from a variety of sources, both internal and external, the motions experienced by the vessel at sea are simulated by SH-DLA to determine bending moments, sheer forces and external wave pressure acting on the hull. The SH-DLA procedure investigates a vessel’s movements through a series of dynamic evaluations. SH-DLA considers the structure of the vessel and its intended environment to consider the appropriate wave environment and the dynamic response of the vessel. Taking these two things into account, SH-DLA then applies the combined dynamic and static loads in the structural analysis, along with the distribution of the external hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressures over the hull. Structural response of the vessel is examined through a FEM. The results of the 3D FEM analysis generate the hull girder’s overall response and are used as input for the subsequent fine mesh FEM analysis (zooming analysis). The fine mesh FEM analysis is then used to determine the more detailed local stresses, including transverse web frames, longitudinal girders, and all horizontal stringers. These FEM results are then used to examine the stresses and deflections in the structure to ensure they fall within the

Analysis Procedure

SH-DLA (Dynamic Loading Approach)

11

prescribed limits of the failure modes of yield and buckling, as specified in the SH-DLA Guidance. The greater detail of SH-DLA provides further assurance to a robust design with a long service life. SH-DLA represents a consistent and rational approach that employs a direct linear analysis of the containership. This reduces the “modeling uncertainties” that may be introduced when using rule scantling equations. Rule equations have necessarily relied on simplifications to account for the applied loads, structural response and strength. The comprehensive SH-DLA analysis does not rely on these modeling simplifications and produces more reliable answers for structural components. Just as SH-DLA can be used to further verify specific load cases, ABS employs a variety of other analyses to refine designs against known influences.

12

Giants in the Container Industry

Analytical Tools
As containerships increase in size, designers must find a balance between function and design. Owners need a vessel that has a large capacity and the ability to move at a rapid speed. These two considerations create complex design considerations and require enhanced technical evaluations to verify structural integrity. In addition to ABS SafeHull and SH-DLA, ABS offers several analyses to guide the structural design.

DYSOS (Dynamic Stress Analysis of Open Ships)
As an early design stage screening tool for evaluating many different designs and identifying critical cases for detailed FEM analysis, DYSOS (Dynamic Stress Analysis of Open Ships) uses a simplified non-prismatic beam model to obtain a full length torsional analysis. This system relies on the ABS/SHIPMOTION program and structural beam theory to provide an assessment of the torsional responses of the containership and the impact of some design alterations. These assessments are then used as guidance for the shipyard’s structural design. As the width of hatch openings increase with the ULCS, undesirable stresses (at the transition from the torsionally weak open sections to the relatively stiff closed sections) due to twist and warping occur and become one of the major design concerns. Calculations are performed to screen proposed designs for deck stress and hatch opening distortion caused by global load of vertical, horizontal and torsional moments. SHIPMOTION is used to calculate the vertical bending moment, horizontal bending moment, vertical shear force and horizontal shear force, which are due to the wave pressure, vessel’s motions and the inertial loads for a range of wave headings and periods. These loads are applied to the containership using beam theory. By using a non-prismatic beam model for a containership, this analysis is more efficient requiring limited modeling time but provides Beam Model for DYSOS Analysis abundance of information of structural response. Critical wave conditions for FEM analysis can be more accurately determined based on the structural response rather than a traditional load based approach. DYSOS can easily consider over 20 to 30 design variations in determining the global effects of torsion in a short time period. The simplified but very efficient modeling makes it well suited to perform comparative studies — resulting in an ideal preliminary design tool.

Nonlinear Analysis by LAMP-NASTRAN System
Compared to traditional linear theory, the nonlinear theory is needed to accurately calculate the dynamic loads for modern, ultra-large containerships. The nonlinear analysis consists of two main parts: nonlinear motion and loads by LAMP (Large Amplitude Motion Program) and structure analysis by NASTRAN for the critical load cases determined from the linear seakeeping analysis or DYSOS analysis. LAMP incorporates nonlinear motion and load theories to calculate the pressure distribution over the instantaneous actual wetted surface of the vessel in waves. The nonlinear load structural FEM analysis is performed using NASTRAN. This advanced direct calculation approach provides more realistic load and structural responses than traditional linear SH-DLA in that it accounts for

Analytical Tools

13

nonlinear motion and loads. Nonlinear analysis results in improved design and optimized scantling for extreme sea conditions that govern the design. Where higher uncertainties exist in the dynamic loads, such as relative bow motion, hull girder loads of bending moments, and torsional moments, hydrodynamic pressure, and green water on deck, a consistent analysis of nonlinear motion, loads, and hydrodynamic pressure is needed. The dynamic loads such as bending moment and wave pressure are, in general, more nonlinear than the ship motion responses. For example, hogging and sagging bending moment amidships are not equal in Sagging Condition magnitude and are not linearly proportional to the wave height. Realistic behavior of the pressure time history is important for accurately predicting the fatigue life of the side longitudinal stiffeners located near the waterline. Conventional linear theory does not accurately predict relative motion and velocity that are the bases for calculating bow flare impact, bottom slamming pressure and the corresponding whipping responses. Other areas of concern for containerships include the prediction of green water on deck and ingress water into open hatches or open-top ships.

Vertical bending moment-time history

To achieve a full nonlinear analysis, LAMP has been developed to be a complete analysis system starting from model generation, motions, and impact and structural loads for FEM analysis. Realistic random wave environment or a specific nonlinear wave can be modeled. An integral part of the nonlinear analysis system is the mapping of hull pressure to the structural finite element NASTRAN model for structural analysis. A 3D FEM global model representing the hull girder structure and finer mesh models for local structures are used to examine the adequacy of the hull structure.

Pressure distribution in hogging wave condtion

14

Giants in the Container Industry

The nonlinear analysis by LAMP-NASTRAN considers failure modes of yielding, and buckling. The evaluation for yielding and buckling of the primary supporting structure of the vessel is based on the results of the fine mesh models where more accurate determination of local stresses is made.
Full Ship LAMP-NASTRAN Analysis

Propeller Analysis
Available engines are capable of propelling 8,000 - 10,000 teu containership at the required speed with larger 14-cylinder engines providing the necessary horsepower. As containerships continue to grow in size, comparable developments in engine design will be required. Designers may opt for a twin screw design to meet propulsion and speed requirements. With the addition of a larger engine and the possibility of twin screw design, propeller analysis should be performed to address cavitation and hull pressure. ABS has computer programs available to predict the performance of propellers. These programs are capable of predicting hydrodynamic pressures on the propeller blades, including cavitation, as well as hydrodynamic pressures on the vessel’s structure.

Effective wake calculations
Effective wake is the interaction between nominal wake and the propeller and is one of the most important issues that affect the accuracy of the prediction of propeller cavitation and propeller blade hydrodynamic pressure. Programs are used for calculating the effective wake. Three programs are available to calculate simple axisymmetric flow, steady non-uniform 3-dimensional flow, and unsteady non-uniform 3-dimensional flow.
Calculated effective wake

Propeller cavitation analysis
An all-purpose propeller analysis program predicts the performance of a propeller, including its cavitation. The program is capable of mapping hydrodynamic pressure distributions and cavitation patterns, where they occur, on the propeller blades. The pressure distribution can be interfaced with a finite element program for propeller blade stress analyses. A subroutine is also available for integrating the pressure distributions to obtain steady and unsteady forces and moments acting on the shafting system.

Propeller cavitation pattern

Analytical Tools

15

Propeller induced hull pressure
Cavitation is the main source of fluctuation pressures acting on a ship’s hull, which in turn causes propeller-induced hull vibrations. Based on propeller cavitation predictions, the diffraction fluctuation pressures on the ship’s hull can be calculated. The MPUF3A series of programs is used in the propeller analyses described above.
Propeller induced hull pressure

Wave Impact Analysis (Slamming)
Historically, bottom slamming has not been a major concern with containerships. However, speed requirements, hull form and increased vessel size are all factors that make large containerships susceptible to bow and stern slamming impact. Wave impact typically occurs in the bow portion of the ship, at flat-bottom sections, and at the upper bow flare. However, for modern containerships, slamming may also occur at the stern sections of the ship, which may have a very flat bottom. The impact loads are highly concentrated in a very short time duration.

Stern slamming pressure

The impact forces may result in damage of local structure, and accentuate structural vibration throughout the hull, often referred to as whipping. Complete analysis of the hull girder requires predictions of combined wave and whipping response. At any cross section of the vessel, the whipping induced bending moment should be combined with low frequency wave induced loads with the proper phase relations to produce the total hull girder loads. At ABS, the LAMP system is effectively applied to predict the slamming pressures on the flat stern of containerships to carry out impact load analyses. Boundary element methods or the analytic axymtotic approach can be applied. Using the calculated Impact forces due to slamming slamming pressures local structures can be analyzed. Furthermore, a full ship vibration analysis can be performed. More detailed vibration analysis using these impact forces is further described under the section for vibration.

16

Giants in the Container Industry

Structural Considerations
The increase in container vessel size presents structural challenges for designers. Operational demands are pushing the designs into areas where there is little direct service experience. This means that a scientific approach, based on general hydrodynamics and engineering first principles, pioneered by ABS through innovative programs like ABS SafeHull, is required to develop the vessel strength parameters if the risk of structural failure is to be minimized. Fortunately, as described in the previous sections, advances in load determination and structural evaluation techniques available to designers and builders have opened the door to almost unlimited increases in the size of the next generation of these vessels. For large high-speed containerships, the load prediction is especially important. Rational criteria as applied through the dynamic-based ABS SafeHull system, or as assessed through the more comprehensive SH-DLA, and risk-based analysis will become essential tools in shaping future safety parameters. For ULCS, the most significant structural design aspects to be addressed are:

Deck Structure
Large hatches in the deck and large open areas of the holds leave very little deck area to accommodate the main hull girder strength of the vessel. In the latest ultra large containership designs this feature is particularly pronounced. The combination of vertical and horizontal hull girder bending, and the torsional twisting of the hull, are critical issues to be addressed during the structural development of a successful design. The large containership designs incorporate a combination of structural arrangements such as hull thickness, continuous hatch coamings, inboard longitudinal girders and high strength steel material in order to resist these loads.

Hatch Corners
To accommodate stowage of the containers, large hatch openings are provided with the smallest corner radius as possible. However, it is at these corners, where the longitudinal and transverse structure meet, that the combination of the bending and torsionally induced longitudinal warping stresses is critical. Adding to the issue is the distortion of hatch openings, which also influences the stress distribution within this critical location. The distortion of hatch openings at the hatch coaming top is also critical to the design of the hatch

Hatch Corner FEM Stress Plot

Structural Considerations

17

covers upon which the above deck containers will be loaded. Since the majority of hatch corner stresses are wave-induced and dynamic in nature, they will fluctuate and the corresponding fatigue strength of the hatch corners is a prime design consideration. Many aspects of the design, such as: the relative strength of the transverse box beam structure at the top of transverse bulkheads, whether inboard longitudinal girders are provided, whether thick insert plates in the deck are fitted, etc., can be used to control the stresses in this area. ABS programs analyze the vessel’s structure to identify where design features can be modified to increase its strength.

Location of Deckhouse and Engine Room
As containerships become larger and the open area of the deck is expanded, the deckhouse can be relocated to a position on the ship that can help control the hatch opening distortions and stresses. This is done by separating the deckhouse and engine rooms that are typically co-located in most recent containership designs. An added benefit of separating these two spaces is that the Navigation Bridge can be brought forward to improve visibility.

Panamax 4000 teu

Post Panamax 7000 teu

Post Panamax 9000 teu

Ultra 18000 teu

Ultra 18000 teu

Container and Deckhouse Arrangement

Bow Region
Dynamic loads resulting from bow flare impact, bottom slamming and green water loads on the fore end of a containership can be substantial. These impact loads will be more pronounced for large containerships and need to be considered in the design of the local bow structure, including the breakwater protecting the forward rows of deck containers. ABS studies on bow flare impact loads also show that, for the full load condition, increases in dynamic bending moment can be as much as 25 percent for ships with large bow flare.

Bow Region FEM Plot

Transverse Strength
The vessel beam of ULCS will increase; however, the hold lengths have remained constant since hold length is governed by the standard length of cargo containers. As a result, the aspect ratio of the cargo hold double bottom is becoming skewed toward a wide section with few floors and many longitudinal girders that intersect the vertical girders of the transverse bulkheads. Designers must ensure that the end connections and interactions of these major structural members are properly accounted for and that all relevant failure modes such as material yielding, buckling and fatigue are assessed.

18

Giants in the Container Industry

Operational Issues
Ballast Water
ABS released the Advisory Notes on Ballast Water Exchange Procedures in October 1999. The study investigated Ballast Water Management for three different sizes of container vessels, feeder, panamax and post-Panamax, taking into account the strength and stability limitations of the vessels. Of the three vessels studied, it was noted that the post-Panamax vessels have ample excess ballast, deadweight capacity, and stability margin to bring additional ballast onboard before initiating the exchange process. The ultra-large containership’s ballast water management would most likely mirror the post-Panamax vessel ballast characteristics. Ballast water management is a prerequisite for the ES (Environmental Safety) notation offered by ABS. The requirement for ES notation is that every vessel able to carry ballast water is to have a ballast water management plan. This plan provides guidance to the operators for the proper handling and treatment of ballast water and sediment to minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens in the ballast water and sediment.

Green Water
Special design consideration must be paid to reduce the amount of green water taken on board by a containership. Green water on deck is considered in the design of the freeboard height, forecastle deck, and local bow structure, including the breakwater. ABS studies the green water on deck to determine its effect on the structural integrity of the deck and bow structures. Green water on deck is also important for ship owners/ operators from safety and operational viewpoints to protect the crew, cargo and equipment on deck during heavy weather. For the hatch-coverless containership, the amount of ingress water into cargo holds is analyzed. Often model tests are conducted or motion simulation is also used for ingress analysis once it is carefully correlated with the experimental data. The effect of green water on deck and ingress water for an open top containership can be mitigated through prudent design.

Lashing Arrangement
As container vessel size increases, an operational concern affecting the overall structure of the vessel deals with the lashing arrangement. This is due to the increased structural deformations due to vessel reaction to the wave environment on a larger vessel. To offset the deformation, the hatch covers are designed to slide. Also, the container stacks themselves have a certain amount of slack in them due to necessary corner fitting/twist lock tolerances for operation. Based on the vessel motions, accelerations and structural response, the displacements of these two systems could very well be at odds with each other. Therefore, when the lashings are secured at one end to the vessel structure (or lashing bridges) and at the other end to the container stack, the lashings become the interface for these two systems. One way of addressing this is to have the containers lashed to the hatches, but then the hatch cover securing becomes the interface. It should also be noted that the open truss arrangements of the lashing bridges are also flexible. Therefore, while the base of the lashing bridges will displace with the vessel structure,

Operational Issues

19

depending on the flexibility of the lashing bridge and the reaction of the adjacent longitudinal container stack, the upper portions of the lashing bridge will displace due to the reactions of the lashing forces from the container stack. ABS certifies the initial installation of container securing systems aboard vessels. The CSC (Container Securing Certificate) notation is issued to vessels that meet with ABS’ requirements, as stated in the ABS Guide for Certification of Container Securing Systems. A vessel’s container securing system must pass a satisfactory completion of plan review, testing of the securing devices, approval of the Container Securing Manual and installation of the fixed securing devices.

Vessel Motions (Parametric Roll)
Operators of modern containerships are aware of the costly damages incurred by lost containers. This was recently demonstrated when a vessel lost many deck containers in November 1999 while in the North Pacific. A $50 million (USD) cargo damage suit was subsequently filed. In light of this situation, many owners are concerned about parametric roll. Parametric roll is an unusually large non-linear roll in excess of 30 to 40 degrees resulting from the wave interaction with large overhanging vessel shape of the bow flare and/or stern flare areas. The nonlinear phenomenon of parametric roll uniquely affects the modern containership with its sleek design below the waterline. The modern containerships, with hulls designed for higher speed, more cargo capacity, larger bow flares, and Gondola stern are uniquely susceptible to the problems associated with parametric roll. When a large containership is in seas with a wave height of 7 to 8 meters and a specific wave frequency band, it may experience roll motion of 30 to 40 degrees. When the vessel rolls over 40 degrees, transverse diagonal lashings will loosen or fail and consequently containers will be lost, no matter how much pretension is given. Even in high, head or following seas, the excessive heave and pitch motions associated with large bow flare and flat stern can trigger the strong nonlinear coupling with the roll motion, eventually causing large parametric rolling. This is an instability phenomenon and it can be dangerous. It can occur at the wave encounter period approximately equal to half of the roll natural period. For instance, even a containership with a 20-second roll natural period can experience parametric roll at certain head seas. Owners are now considering many ways to prevent or mitigate this unstable roll. One solution to avoid or reduce the parametric roll, often used by naval ships and offshore supply vessels, is to fit the vessel with anti-roll tanks. Other options also exist to minimize the effects of parametric roll. Some owners elect to install active fin stabilizers, similar to those installed on naval ships and cruise ships.

Anti-roll tank images courtesey of: http://www.intering.com

20

Giants in the Container Industry

Location of Bunker Tanks
Recent events involving environmental damage as a result of oil spills and leaks have raised the question of fuel oil tank location on large vessels. Although there are, as yet, no formal requirements on the carriage of fuel oil in protected bunker tanks, there are new designs with protectively located fuel oil tanks. Owners wishing to guarantee the long-term operation of their vessels recognize the value of their inclusion. A reasonable segregation distance for fuel oil tanks could be that of the requirements of MARPOL.

Voltage Systems
As containership capacity increases, so will the capacity for reefer containers. Conventional low voltage (LV) systems are no longer technically optimal in handling large electrical loads demanded by ULCS. High voltage (HV) power systems provide the needed solution. Typically, LV generators and motors are limited in size to about 2,500kW to 4,000kW. This does not mean that more generators could simply be installed to satisfy the electrical load demand. Economy of space utilization and maintenance and operating costs would tend to discourage this. More importantly, there are engineering limitations to the total capacity of a LV system. For example, the larger the installed capacity the higher the short circuit current, and in this respect, available LV switchgears are only capable of withstanding short circuit currents up to about 150 kA, thus limiting installed capacity. Moreover the cost and size of these generators and switchgears, and cables tend to increase disproportionately as they get larger; this makes the HV equipment attractive. While HV systems present other problems: e.g. heightened electrical hazards, retraining of crew, etc., experience has shown that these have been overcome without great difficulties. Not to forget, however, is the intrinsic flexibility of HV systems to system designers, chief among which is the choice of system earthing. By choosing either not to earth the system or to earth the system directly or through impedance, the system designers have an array of choices for system performance and equipment costs, which can be optimized to suit the needs of the operation. Computer tools are commonly available to conduct simulation studies. Classification rules for HV systems have been in place for many years. They provide for the many safety features needed of HV systems. They include requirements such as specific location for HV switchgears, detection of internal short circuit fault detection for generators, segregation of LV and HV cable routing, etc. While these rules are applicable to HV systems in general, in addition to class rules, it is necessary for system designers to consider specific application of HV system to containership operations. For example, it is highly recommended that system designers choose to have dedicated step-down transformers for supplying power to reefer containers as shown in the accompanying illustration. The use of shipboard LV distribution system, including ship services other than reefer containers, should be avoided.

Operational Issues

21

The important consideration here is earth fault. Where segregated from the main power system by transformers, earth fault in the reefer power system can be detected with ease without interfering with the main power system. Such an arrangement would also provide system designers with options for transformer earthing design to optimize power supply continuity to the reefer containers in case of an earth fault.

Vibration
Vibration in the structure of large vessels, such as the ULCS, can arise from several sources. Wave action, particularly slamming, can result in high vibratory response. Propeller induced pressure fluctuations on the hull and the propulsion system can also be responsible for significant dynamic response. Larger ship structures tend to be more flexible than smaller ones. This flexibility translates into lower hull girder natural frequencies and, depending on the nature of dynamic loading, large vessels, such as ultra-large containerships, may be more responsive and exhibit high vibratory levels in service. Substructures, such as the deckhouse, and local structure such as decks and bulkheads can also exhibit high response levels. The degree of responsiveness depends on, among other things, how close the natural frequencies of the ship structure match those of the dynamic loading. Vibration characteristics of a vessel should be examined early in the design, as modifications to the structure after the vessel has been constructed can be very costly. In certain circumstances, regular wave loading may result in a steady state response known as “springing”; long flexible ships are the most vulnerable. Slamming, both at the bow and at the stern, can induce uncomfortable response levels. At a more local level it is prudent to investigate vibration response induced by propellers and machinery. In more extreme cases the energy from these sources can induce fatigue failures in local structure. Modern analytical tools are able to model the dynamic forces and the response such that any deficiencies can be addressed early in the design cycle. Wave loading, whether steady state or transient phenomena such as slamming, can be simulated using advanced tools at the disposal of ABS. While model tests are one source of information on pressure fluctuations caused by propellers, ABS has up-to-date software tools for predicting such forces. The response of ship structures to these forces is estimated using, after suitable modification, the finite element models described earlier. ABS has been performing vibration analyses of commercial vessels since the early 1970s and has amassed considerable experience in analyzing the vibratory response of a wide range of vessel types. The latter include tankers, passenger vessels, roro vessels, as well as containerships. In these tasks experienced ABS engineers and analysts apply modern software tools to model vibration-causing forces and to predict vibration response. The vibration levels are then compared with criteria contained in standards, or the customer’s specification. The primary objectives are to avoid vibration levels that interfere with crew operations and comfort, and to ensure structural integrity is not compromised. Where high levels of vibration are predicted ABS engineers and analysts can work with those responsible for the design in seeking solutions.

22

Giants in the Container Industry

ABS SafeShip
ABS SafeShip integrates existing programs to provide a complete life cycle management program to follow the life cycle of a SafeHull ship from design and construction to service and surveys. This program provides owners with the highest level of information available for operational efficiency and ship safety. All large containerships built to ABS class meet the initial requirement of a SafeHull designed vessel, as the ABS Rules dictate that all containerships over 130 meters in length are to be built to SafeHull specifications. This is the qualifying feature for enrollment in the ABS SafeShip program. Once enrolled in the program, owners are empowered to better manage the entire life cycle of their vessels. Combining the expertise of ABS SafeHull, ABS SafeNet and ABS SafeHull Construction Monitoring, ABS SafeShip provides: • SafeHull engineering analysis techniques • • • • • • Construction monitoring Hull Maintenance Survey Status Maintenance & Repair Marine Information Vessel Drawing Storage

ABS provides the SafeShip program to clients to limit risk through comprehensive life cycle care. This is accomplished through the application of advanced technology to reduce risk in the design, construction and maintenance. Successful management of this information is the key through all stages of a vessel’s performance. The importance of information technology will continue to increase in the role of successful ship operations and maintenance.

ABS SafeShip

23

Case Study
Samsung Heavy Industries: 9,000 teu

ABS is proud to have contributed technically to Samsung Heavy Industry’s (SHI) development of a 9,000 teu container vessel design. Following are excerpts from the Samsung press release of 31 October 2000 detailing the project.

SHI Develops 9,000 TEU Container Vessel
“Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) (President Hai-Kyoo Lee) has started its efforts for the sales [sic] of the 9,000 teu-class jumbo container vessels, completing development of a new vessel prototype recently. “The Company has endeavored to develop an optimum vessel prototype in consideration of the present status of the facilities and cargo-handling equipment at major ports of the world and their plans for expansion of the facilities. It also revealed that the new vessels have been designed in such a way as will make the speed as high as 26 knots, equipping the most powerful existing engine for a vessel with the maximum capacity of 93,000 hp. The new prototype can be loaded with 9,000 containers in its 10 cargo sections, being sized 330m (L) x 45.6m (W) x 14.5m (Draft), whose total weight comes to close to 0.15 million ton when loaded with cargo. It is also featured with the environment-friendly consideration given with the double-hull of the oil tank which is located at the bottom to prevent a chance of oil spill at the time of entry to a port or an accident. “SHI has been conducting the performance evaluation, such as analysis of resistance associated with fluid mechanics and vessel prototype interpretation etc. of the new jumbo vessel in the shipbuilder’s towing tank, which is one of the largest of its kind in the world (400m x 14m x 7msized) in the Research InstituteDaeduk and the vessel successfully underwent the inspection on vessel structure interpretation and safety at ABS (American Bureau of Shipping).”

Case Study

25

Services provided by ABS to Samsung
ABS teamed with Samsung to review the concept designs for a new large post-Panamax vessel. Using the initial scantling criteria (Phase A) and the FEM total strength assessment (Phase B) of the Rules specifications from SafeHull, the initial design was developed. Torsional analysis of 22 design variations using DYSOS was then performed to determine the effects of hull design parameters such as wing tank breadth, ship depth, double bottom height, scantling of coaming top flange on torsional response of the proposed structural designs. Based on the structural responses on deck stress and distorsion of hatch openings calculated by DYSOS, Samsung refined the structure design. SHI and ABS verified the final hull design with the nonlinear hydrodynamic load using LAMP and full length FEM analysis, using NASTRAN, to further refine the detailed design. Technical review and analysis of the proposed vessel design has been achieved through one of the most advanced computer simulation tools that account for dynamic load distribution and structural response. This analysis is invaluable to the shipyard as they proceed with the final designs of the 9,000 teu containership.

26

Giants in the Container Industry

Conclusions
ABS continues to provide the tools necessary to develop new generation ULCS, just as it did or the first containership almost 50 years ago. Building on its history of firsts, ABS remains an industry leader. ABS’ current market share demonstrates market dominance in the postPanamax size and positions ABS to continue its leadership as market factors make the expansion of containership size more profitable. Extending beyond ABS SafeHull and SH-DLA, services offered by ABS provide the technical expertise necessary to differentiate your vessel. ABS’ programs are technically rational and scientific. These programs combine to provide the most comprehensive review. From MPUF3A propeller analysis to the nonlinear LAMP-NASTRAN analysis, ABS’ experience extends beyond basic structural considerations and is available as a reference for every feature of a vessel. ABS’ experience extends to include operational considerations, from effective ballast water management to lashing arrangements and strives to provide up-to-date information for the modern container operators. ABS-classed ULCS vessels are also eligible for enrollment in the ABS SafeShip program. Information from this program provides a tool for the total life cycle management of the ship. Using ABS as your classification society for the next generation of ULCS brings a rational, scientific approach backed by decades of containership classification.

Conclusions

27

Appendix 1
Fleet Information and Market Share
Class Society Market Comparison Post-Panamax Market Share Source: Seaway, December 2000 ABS the classification society of choice for post-Panamax vessels with a 35% market share. It also has significant shares of the Panamax, medium and feeder sectors.

Existing Post-Panamax Containerships

For Vessels >4000 teu

Countries of Build DEU (Germany) DNK (Denmark) JPN (Japan) KOR (Korea) TWN (Taiwan) Total

ABS 8 11 35 23 2 79

BV 0 0 0 2 0 2

GL 1 0 0 51 0 52

KR 0 0 0 32 0 32

LR 9 0 25 10 0 44

NK 0 0 27 2 0 29

Total 18 11 87 120 2

ABS containership classification activity is divided between all countries with newbuilding activity. These numbers represent that ABS’ experience is recognized in prominent countries of containership building. This diversity of experience is unparalleled (Seaway, November 2000).

Appendix 1

29

Appendix 2
Sampling of ABS-classed Post-Panamax Vessels
APL Agate, APL Cyprine, APL Pearl Neptune Shipmanagement Services 5,000 teu Builder: Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 1997 - 1998

APL Agate
APL Korea, APL Philippines, APL Singapore American Ship Management LLC 4,800 teu Builder: Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering 1995 - 1996 DLA

APL Phillipines
APL China, APL Japan, APL Thailand American Ship Management LLC 4,800 teu Builder: Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG 1995 DLA

APL Thailand
A. P. Moller, Caroline Maersk, Carsten Maersk, Clifford Maersk, Cornelius Maersk, Sine Maersk, Skagen Maersk, Sofie Maersk, Soro Maersk, Svend Maersk, Svendborg Maersk Rederiet A. P. Moeller 6,600 teu Builder: Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 1998 - 2000 DLA and SafeHull

S Class Maersk

30

Giants in the Container Industry

Ever Ultra, Ever Union, Ever Unique, Ever Unison, LT United Evergreen International Corp. 5,300 teu Builder: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 1996 - 1997

U Type Vessel
Ever Uberty, Ever Unific, Ever Uranus, Ever Useful, LT Unicorn, LT Unity, LT Urban, LT Ursula, LT Usodimare, LT Utile, LT Ulysses Evergreen International Corp. 5,600 teu Builder: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 1999 - 2000 SafeHull Ming Plum YangMing Marine Transport Corp. 5,500 teu Builder: Hyundai Heavy Ind. Co., Ltd. September 2000 SafeHull

U Type Vessel

Ming Plum
OOCL America, OOCL Britain, OOCL California, OOCL Japan Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 4,900 teu Builder: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 1995 - 1996

OOCL Japan

Appendix 2

31

OOCL China, OOCL Hong Kong Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 4,900 teu Builder: Samsung Heavy Industries 1995 - 1996

OOCL China
President Adams, President Polk American Ship Management LLC 4,300 teu Builder: Bremer Vulkan A.G. July 1988

President Polk
President Jackson, President Kennedy, President Truman American Ship Management LLC 4,300 teu Builder: Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG 1988

President Truman

32

Giants in the Container Industry

Appendix 3
Listing of ABS-classed container vessels
>4000 teu
Vessel Name A. P. Moller*** APL Agate APL China** APL Cyprine APL France APL Garnet** APL Germany APL Indonesia APL Ivory APL Jade APL Japan** APL Korea** APL Pearl APL Philippines** APL Sardonyx** APL Singapore** APL Spinel** APL Thailand** APL Tourmaline** APL Turquoise** Caroline Maersk*** Carsten Maersk*** Clifford Maersk*** Cornelius Maersk*** CSCL Shanghai* Ever Dainty*** Ever Decent*** Ever Deluxe*** Ever Devote*** Ever Diadem*** Ever Divine*** Ever Uberty* Ever Ultra Ever Unific* Ever Union Ever Unique Ever Unison Ever Uranus* Ever Useful* LT Unicorn* LT United LT Unity* LT Urban* LT Ursula* LT Usodimare* LT Utile* Owner Name TEU Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Neptune Shipmanagement Services 5020 Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4832 Neptune Shipmanagement Services 5020 P & O Nedlloyd B.V. 4158 Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4391 P & O Nedlloyd B.V. 4158 P & O Nedlloyd B.V. 4158 Zodiac Maritime Agencies 4100 Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4391 Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4832 American Ship Management LLC 4826 Neptune Shipmanagement Services 5020 American Ship Management LLC 4826 Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4391 American Ship Management LLC 4826 Neptune Orient Lines Ltd. 4391 American Ship Management LLC 4832 Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4434 Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4434 Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Costamare Shipping Co., SA 5551 Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Evergreen International Corp. 5652 Greencompass Marine S.A. 5364 Evergreen International Corp. 5652 Greencompass Marine S.A. 5364 Evergreen International Corp. 5364 Evergreen International Corp. 5364 Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Evergreen International Corp. 5652 Evergreen International Corp. 5364 Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Lloyd Triestino Di Navigazione S. 5652 Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Builder Name Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin Samsung Heavy Industries Co.Ltd. Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag Koyo Dockyard Co., Ltd. Koyo Dockyard Co., Ltd. Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. Hyundai Heavy Ind. Co., Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Build Date 08-Jun-00 08-Sep-97 19-May-95 01-Dec-97 01-Mar-96 12-Aug-95 01-Mar-96 21-Jun-96 01-Jul-80 21-Oct-95 01-Sep-95 27-Sep-95 27-Feb-98 04-Jan-96 08-Jun-95 10-Nov-95 22-Jan-96 29-Nov-95 02-Jan-96 26-Mar-96 04-Sep-00 17-Nov-00 19-Nov-99 19-Mar-00 30-Nov-00 25-Jul-97 06-Nov-97 20-Jan-98 14-May-98 03-Jul-98 04-Sep-98 26-Jan-99 31-May-96 18-Mar-99 07-May-97 31-Jan-97 29-Nov-96 10-Jun-99 15-Dec-99 13-Sep-00 30-Aug-96 05-Aug-99 13-Jan-00 07-Oct-99 29-Nov-00 30-Mar-00

*ABS SafeHull Vessel **ABS SH-DLA Vessel ***ABS SH-DLA and SafeHull Vessel Post-Panamax Vessel Source: ABS Record, December 2000

Appendix 3

33

LT Ulysses* Ming Plum* Ming Orchid* NOL Coral OOCL America OOCL Britain OOCL California OOCL Chicago*** OOCL China OOCL Hong Kong OOCL Japan OOCL Netherlands OOCL San Francisco*** OOCL Singapore President Adams President Jackson President Kennedy President Polk President Truman Sea-Land Achiever Sea-Land Atlantic Sea-Land Champion Sea-Land Charger Sea-Land Comet Sea-Land Commitment Sea-Land Eagle Sea-Land Florida Sea-Land Integrity Sea-Land Intrepid Sea-Land Lightning Sea-Land Mercury Sea-Land Meteor Sea-Land Oregon Sea-Land Performance Sea-Land Quality Sea-Land Racer Sine Maersk*** Skagen Maersk*** Sofie Maersk*** Soro Maersk*** Svend Maersk*** Svendborg Maersk***

Evergreen International Corp. Yangming Marine Transport Corp. Yangming Marine Transport Corp. Neptune Shipmanagement Services Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. American Ship Management LLC American Ship Management LLC American Ship Management LLC American Ship Management LLC American Ship Management LLC U.S. Ship Management, Inc. U.S. Ship Management, Inc. Chesham Containerships Ltd. Chesham Containerships Ltd. Chesham Containerships Ltd. U.S. Ship Management, Inc. Chesham Containerships Ltd. U.S. Ship Management, Inc. U.S. Ship Management, Inc. Rederiet A. P. Moller Rederiet A. P. Moller Chesham Containerships Ltd. Chesham Containerships Ltd. U.S. Ship Management,Inc. U.S. Ship Management, Inc. U.S. Ship Management, Inc. Chesham Containerships Ltd. Rederiet A. P. Moller Rederiet A. P. Moller Rederiet A. P. Moller Rederiet A. P. Moller Rederiet A. P. Moller Rederiet A. P. Moller

5652 5551 5551 5020 4960 4960 4960 5714 4960 4960 4960 5006 5714 5006 4340 4332 4332 4340 4332 4238 4238 4062 4062 4062 4238 4062 4238 4238 4062 4062 4062 4062 4238 4238 4238 4062 6600 6600 6600 6600 6600 6600

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Hyundai Heavy Ind. Co., Ltd. Hyundai Heavy Ind. Co., Ltd. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. China Shipbuilding Corp. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. China Shipbuilding Corp. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Bremer Vulkan A.G. Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag Bremer Vulkan A.G. Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machine Co. Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machinery Ltd. Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machinery Ltd. Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machine Co. Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machine Co. Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machine Co. Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machinery Ltd. Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machinery Ltd. Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd.

21-Jun-00 08-Sep-00 29-Dec-00 08-May-98 28-Nov-95 15-Mar-96 29-Aug-95 21-Dec-00 19-Mar-96 08-Dec-95 23-Feb-96 05-Dec-97 15-Sep-00 28-Aug-97 01-Sep-88 01-Sep-88 01-Jul-88 01-Jul-88 01-Apr-88 01-Oct-84 01-May-85 23-Jun-95 31-Mar-97 30-Oct-95 01-Jul-85 27-Jun-97 01-Jun-84 01-Dec-84 29-Aug-97 25-Sep-97 30-Nov-95 30-Jan-96 01-Apr-85 01-Sep-85 01-Jun-85 28-Feb-96 29-Jun-98 10-Sep-99 15-Dec-98 04-Jun-99 15-Mar-99 25-Sep-98

*ABS SafeHull Vessel **ABS SH-DLA Vessel ***ABS SH-DLA and SafeHull Vessel Post Panamax Vessel Source: ABS Record, December 2000

34

Giants in the Container Industry

Appendix 4
Shipyards with ABS approved designs
(To either SH or SH-DLA criteria) over 4000 teu China Shipbuilding Corporation Taiwan Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd. Korea Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG Germany Hyundai Heavy Industries Korea Kawasaki Heavy Industries Japan Koyo Dockyard Japan Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Japan Nantong Ocean Engineering China Odense Steel Shipyard Denmark Samsung Heavy Industries Korea

Appendix 4

35

Produced by ABS Marketing Development & Corporate Communications 16855 Northchase Drive Houston, TX 77060-6008 USA

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->