Fatigue Assessment of Ship Structures

© All Rights Reserved

20 views

Fatigue Assessment of Ship Structures

© All Rights Reserved

- Syllabus- Strength of Materials
- Fatigue
- Cumulative Fatigue Damage and Life Prediction Theories
- Fatigue of Aircraft Structures
- Piping-Code-Paradoxes-B31-3-P
- 25-11 Machine Design & CAD-I (ME)
- IPC2012-90236
- Otc17221 - Premium and Semi-Premium Connections Design Optimization for Varied Drilling-With-Casing Applications
- 032501_1
- Fatigue Connection Riser
- chung_thesis
- Fatigue Life Prediction of Pultruded E-glassPolyur
- Fracture Mechanics of Through-Crack Cylindrical Pressure Vessels
- DNV-OS-J102 (Draft October 2004) Design and Manufacturing of Wind Turbine Blades (Offshore)
- 254
- M#1
- New Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation
- D02
- no 1 fatigue
- Fatemi 1988

You are on page 1of 151

No. 30.7

APRIL 2014

The electronic pdf version of this document found through http://www.dnv.com is the officially binding version

The content of this service document is the subject of intellectual property rights reserved by Det Norske Veritas AS (DNV). The user

accepts that it is prohibited by anyone else but DNV and/or its licensees to offer and/or perform classification, certification and/or

verification services, including the issuance of certificates and/or declarations of conformity, wholly or partly, on the basis of and/or

pursuant to this document whether free of charge or chargeable, without DNV's prior written consent. DNV is not responsible for the

consequences arising from any use of this document by others.

FOREWORD

DNV is a global provider of knowledge for managing risk. Today, safe and responsible business conduct is both a license

to operate and a competitive advantage. Our core competence is to identify, assess, and advise on risk management. From

our leading position in certification, classification, verification, and training, we develop and apply standards and best

practices. This helps our customers safely and responsibly improve their business performance. DNV is an independent

organisation with dedicated risk professionals in more than 100 countries, with the purpose of safeguarding life, property

and the environment.

Classification Notes

Classification Notes are publications that give practical information on classification of ships and other objects. Examples

of design solutions, calculation methods, specifications of test procedures, as well as acceptable repair methods for some

components are given as interpretations of the more general rule requirements.

If any person suffers loss or damage which is proved to have been caused by any negligent act or omission of Det Norske Veritas, then Det Norske Veritas shall pay compensation to

such person for his proved direct loss or damage. However, the compensation shall not exceed an amount equal to ten times the fee charged for the service in question, provided that

the maximum compensation shall never exceed USD 2 million.

In this provision "Det Norske Veritas" shall mean the Foundation Det Norske Veritas as well as all its subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, agents and any other acting on behalf

of Det Norske Veritas.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

CHANGES CURRENT

General

This document supersedes Classification Notes No. 30.7, June 2010.

Text affected by the main changes in this edition is highlighted in red colour. However, if the changes involve

a whole chapter, section or sub-section, normally only the title will be in red colour.

Det Norske Veritas AS, company registration number 945 748 931, has on 27th November 2013 changed its

name to DNV GL AS. For further information, see www.dnvgl.com. Any reference in this document to

Det Norske Veritas AS or DNV shall therefore also be a reference to DNV GL AS.

Main changes

General

The update has been done based on:

Customer feedback, reported bugs, improved formulations and less conservative approaches for details

with limited damage experience.

Alignment with DNV Ship rules and IACS CSR-H rules for specific details.

Sec.2 Analysis of fatigue capacity

[2.3.6]: The utilization of high tensile steel for base material in fatigue calculations has been included to be

in line with the IACS CSR-H rules.

[2.4.3]: Prerequisite regarding workmanship and reference to DNV-RP-C203 have been inserted

[2.4.5]: The thickness effect has been clarified for base material and welded joints with parallel stress.

Sec.4 Simplified fatigue calculations

[4.3.1]: Removed last paragraph regarding open type vessels - dynamic torsional stresses.

Sec.5 Simplified stress analysis

Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 have been updated.

Sec.6 Simplified wave load calculations

[6.3.1]: Formula for sea pressure (below red-marked text) has been corrected.

[6.4.1]: Allowing lower densities than 1.025 t/m3 for bunkers or liquid cargo. Formula for internal pressure

due to ullage has been corrected (below red-marked text).

[6.5.1]: The kr and GM values has been aligned with the DNV 1A1 ship rules.

Sec.10 Calculation of Hot Spot Stress by Finite Element Analysis

[10.7.3]: Use of Kg factors of 1.2-1.67 according to table A-7 for other type hot spots in cruciform joints,

has been updated.

[10.8.2] Use of Kg factors has been updated.

Sec.11 Improvement of fatigue life by fabrication

[11.5]: Section is new. Grinding factor for ship details made in compliance with the DNV 1A1 ship rules.

Sec.12 References

3 references have been moved from previous Appendix J.

App.A Stress concentration factors

Table A-1: Possible cracks have been inserted in the figures.

[A.2.14]: The equation of combined stress for holes with edge reinforcement has been corrected.

Table A-7: No. 2, 3 and 4 have been amended.

App.E Simplified Calculation of the Combined Longitudinal Stress in Ships With Large Hatch

Openings

Previous Appendix E Simplified Calculation of the Combined Longitudinal Stress in Ships With Large

Hatch Openings has been removed and the consecutive appendices have been renumbered accordingly.

App.H Low cycle fatigue

[H.6] on pressure loads for low cycle fatigue strength has been added.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Previous Appendix J Wave induced hull girder vibrations has been totally revised and given a new title.

Editorial corrections

In addition to the above stated main changes, editorial corrections may have been made.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Contents Page 5

CONTENTS

1 General ....................................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Validity of classification note ....................................................................................................................... 8

1.3 Methods for fatigue analysis ......................................................................................................................... 8

1.4 Guidance to when a detailed fatigue analysis can be omitted ................................................................... 9

1.5 Definitions..................................................................................................................................................... 10

1.6 Symbols and abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... 12

2 Analysis of fatigue capacity ................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 15

2.2 Fatigue damage accumulation .................................................................................................................... 16

2.3 Fatigue analysis methodology and calculation of stresses ....................................................................... 17

2.4 S-N curves..................................................................................................................................................... 19

2.5 Effect of corrosive environment ................................................................................................................. 21

2.6 Fatigue damage from multiple loading conditions ................................................................................... 22

3 Fatigue analysis of ships.......................................................................................................... 24

3.1 General.......................................................................................................................................................... 24

3.2 Oil tankers .................................................................................................................................................... 24

3.3 Gas carriers .................................................................................................................................................. 24

3.4 Bulk carriers................................................................................................................................................. 25

3.5 Container ships ........................................................................................................................................... 26

3.6 Roll on / roll off- and car carriers .............................................................................................................. 27

4 Simplified fatigue calculations ............................................................................................... 28

4.1 General.......................................................................................................................................................... 28

4.2 Calculation procedure ................................................................................................................................. 28

4.3 Long term distribution of stresses ............................................................................................................. 28

4.4 Definition of stress components .................................................................................................................. 29

4.5 Calculation of stress components ............................................................................................................... 30

4.6 Combination of stresses............................................................................................................................... 30

4.7 Cumulative damage ..................................................................................................................................... 32

5 Simplified stress analysis ........................................................................................................ 33

5.1 General.......................................................................................................................................................... 33

5.2 Hull girder bending ..................................................................................................................................... 33

5.3 Bending of girder systems ........................................................................................................................... 33

5.4 Local stiffener bending................................................................................................................................ 34

5.5 Local plate bending...................................................................................................................................... 37

6 Simplified wave load calculations .......................................................................................... 38

6.1 General.......................................................................................................................................................... 38

6.2 Wave induced hull girder bending moments ............................................................................................ 38

6.3 External pressure loads ............................................................................................................................... 39

6.4 Internal pressure loads due to ship motions.............................................................................................. 40

6.5 Ship accelerations and motions .................................................................................................................. 42

7 Spectral fatigue calculations................................................................................................... 45

7.1 General.......................................................................................................................................................... 45

7.2 Cumulative damage ..................................................................................................................................... 45

7.3 Component stochastic analysis ................................................................................................................... 45

7.4 Full stochastic analysis ................................................................................................................................ 47

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Contents Page 6

8.1 General ......................................................................................................................................................... 49

8.2 Hydrodynamic modelling............................................................................................................................ 49

8.3 Transfer functions........................................................................................................................................ 49

8.4 The long-term distribution ......................................................................................................................... 50

9 Finite element analysis ............................................................................................................ 53

9.1 Finite element models .................................................................................................................................. 53

9.2 Load cases..................................................................................................................................................... 54

9.3 Global hull analysis...................................................................................................................................... 55

9.4 Cargo hold analysis...................................................................................................................................... 56

9.5 Frame and girder models ............................................................................................................................ 58

9.6 Local structure models ................................................................................................................................ 60

9.7 Stress concentration models........................................................................................................................ 61

10 Calculation of hot spot stress by finite element analysis...................................................... 62

10.1 Stress field at a welded detail...................................................................................................................... 62

10.2 FE modelling ................................................................................................................................................ 62

10.3 Derivation of hot spot stress........................................................................................................................ 64

10.4 Derivation of stress at read out points 0.5t and 1.5t ................................................................................. 65

10.5 Hot spot S-N curve....................................................................................................................................... 66

10.6 Derivation of effective hot spot stress from FE analysis .......................................................................... 69

10.7 Procedure for analysis of web stiffened cruciform connections ............................................................. 69

10.8 Hot spot stress concept for simple connections ......................................................................................... 72

10.9 Verification of analysis methodology ......................................................................................................... 73

11 Improvement of fatigue life by fabrication ........................................................................... 74

11.1 General.......................................................................................................................................................... 74

11.2 Weld toe grinding ........................................................................................................................................ 74

11.3 TIG dressing................................................................................................................................................. 74

11.4 Hammer peening.......................................................................................................................................... 74

11.5 Improvement of fatigue life by different methods .................................................................................... 75

12 References ................................................................................................................................ 76

App. A Stress concentration factors .......................................................................................... 78

A.1 General ............................................................................................................................................ 78

A.2 Examples of K-factors for typical details in ships .......................................................................... 78

App. B Fatigue design tables.................................................................................................... 108

B.1 Maximum allowable stress range.................................................................................................. 108

App. C Example of application - Simplified calculation method.......................................... 111

C.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 111

C.2 Load conditions ............................................................................................................................ 111

C.3 Geometry of longitudinal and bracket termination ....................................................................... 112

C.4 K-factors........................................................................................................................................ 113

C.5 Calculation of stresses due to lateral pressure............................................................................... 113

C.6 Calculation for loading condition - fully loaded (FL)................................................................... 114

C.7 Calculation for loading condition - ballast (BL) ........................................................................... 119

C.8 Total fatigue damage .................................................................................................................... 123

App. D Simplified loads for direct strength analysis ............................................................. 124

D.1 General .......................................................................................................................................... 124

D.2 Vertical hull girder bending moment ............................................................................................ 124

App. E Workmanship and link to analysis procedures......................................................... 125

App. F S-N Curve fatigue damage expressions...................................................................... 126

F.1 Weibull distributed stress range .................................................................................................... 126

F.2 Short term Rayleigh distribution ................................................................................................... 127

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Contents Page 7

G.1 General .......................................................................................................................................... 128

G.2 Calculation of stress ...................................................................................................................... 128

G.3 S-N curves ..................................................................................................................................... 128

G.4 Stress concentration factors........................................................................................................... 128

G.5 Probability of fatigue failure ......................................................................................................... 128

App. H Low cycle fatigue.......................................................................................................... 131

H.1 General .......................................................................................................................................... 131

H.2 Critical locations for low cycle fatigue ......................................................................................... 131

H.3 Limitations and assumptions of the procedure.............................................................................. 131

H.4 Simplified assessment procedure for low cycle fatigue ............................................................... 131

H.5 Load conditions for assessment of low cycle fatigue strength...................................................... 132

H.6 Pressure loads for low cycle fatigue strength................................................................................ 137

H.7 Simplified calculations of stresses ................................................................................................ 137

H.8 Fatigue damage calculations for LCF ........................................................................................... 140

H.9 Corrosion....................................................................................................................................... 141

H.10 Thickness effect ............................................................................................................................ 141

H.11 Mean stress effect for base metal and welded joints..................................................................... 141

H.12 Environmental reduction factor..................................................................................................... 141

H.13 Weld Improvement........................................................................................................................ 141

H.14 Fabrication tolerance ..................................................................................................................... 141

H.15 Combined fatigue damage due to HCF and LCF.......................................................................... 141

H.16 Example of application ................................................................................................................. 142

App. I Wave induced vibrations for blunt vessels ................................................................ 145

I.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 145

I.2 How to include the effect of vibration ...................................................................................... 145

I.3 Vibration factor for blunt vessels .................................................................................................. 146

I.4 Application of the vibration factor vib ........................................................................................ 147

I.5 Effect of the trade.......................................................................................................................... 147

I.6 Model tests procedure ................................................................................................................... 148

I.7 Numerical calculation procedure ................................................................................................. 148

I.8 Full scale measurements. ............................................................................................................. 148

App. J Derivation of effective hot spot stress ........................................................................ 149

CHANGES HISTORIC ............................................................................................................... 151

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

1 General

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1

Fatigue cracks and fatigue damages have been known to ship designers for several decades. Initially the

obvious remedy was to improve detail design. With the introduction of higher tensile steels (HTS-steels) in hull

structures, at first in deck and bottom to increase hull girder strength, and later on in local structures, the fatigue

problem became more imminent.

1.1.2

In the DNV Rules for Classification of Ships (referred to as Rules), the material factor f1, which gives the ratio

of increase in allowable stresses as a function of the material yield point was initially introduced in 1966. The

factor is varying with the yield point at a lower than linear rate in order to give some (but insufficient)

contribution to the general safety against fatigue fracture of higher tensile steels. However, during recent years

a growing number of fatigue crack incidents in local tank structures made from HTS steels have demonstrated

that a more direct control of fatigue is needed.

1.1.3

This Classification Note is intended to give a general background for the rule requirements for fatigue control

of ship structures, and to provide detailed recommendations for such control. The aim of the fatigue control is

to ensure that all parts of the hull structure subjected to fatigue (dynamic) loading have adequate fatigue life.

Calculated fatigue lives, calibrated with the relevant fatigue damage data, may give the basis for the structural

design (steel selection, scantlings and local details). Furthermore, they can form the basis for efficient

inspection programs during fabrication and throughout the servicelife of the structure.

1.1.4

To ensure that the structure will fulfil its intended function, fatigue assessment, supported where appropriate

by a detailed fatigue analysis, should be carried out for each individual type of structural detail subjected to

extensive dynamic loading. It should be noted that every welded joint and attachment or other form of stress

concentration is potentially a source of fatigue cracking and should be individually considered.

1.2 Validity of classification note

1.2.1

This Classification Note includes procedures for evaluation of fatigue strength, but not limited to, for the

following:

steel ship structures excluding high speed light crafts

foundations welded to hull structures

any other areas designated primary structures on the drawings of ship structures

attachment by welding to primary ship structures, such as double plates, etc.

The procedures do not include provisions for taking directly into account effect on the fatigue strength by wave

induced hull vibrations. Guidance on how to take into account the fatigue effect of wave induced vibrations for

full body vessels under North Atlantic and world wide wave conditions based on full scale measurements is

however presented in App.I. The same fatigue effect by wave induced vibrations is suggested to be considered

also for other ships types, in lieu of relevant available data. The additional fatigue effect of wave induced

vibrations on specific routes of operation may be predicted based on weather data for the route, as available.

Guidance on how to take into account the effect on fatigue strength by low cycle fatigue (repeated yielding),

e.g. as occurring during the cargo ballast loading cycles is presented in App.H.

This Classification Note may be adapted for modification to existing ship structures, subject to the limitations

imposed by the original material and fabrication techniques.

This Classification Note is valid for C-Mn steels, duplex and super duplex steels and austenitic steels with yield

stress less than 500 MPa.

1.3 Methods for fatigue analysis

1.3.1

Fatigue design may be carried out by methods based on fatigue tests (S-N data) and estimation of cumulative

damage (Palmgren - Miners rule).

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

1.3.2

The long term stress range distribution is a fundamental requirement for fatigue analysis. This may be

determined in various ways. This Classification Note outlines two methods for stress range calculation:

1) A postulated form of the long-term stress range distribution with a stress range based on dynamic loading

as specified in the rules.

2) Spectral method for the estimation of long-term stress range.

In the first method a Weibull distribution is assumed for the long term stress ranges, leading to a simple formula

for calculation of fatigue damage. The load effects can be derived directly from the ship rules. The nominal

stresses have to be multiplied by relevant stress concentration factors for calculation of local hotspot stresses

before entering the S-N curve.

The second method implies that the long-term stress range distribution is calculated from a given (or assumed)

wave climate. This can be combined with different levels of refinement of structural analysis.

Thus a fatigue analysis can be performed based on simplified analytical expressions for fatigue lives or on a

more refined analysis where the loading and the load effects are calculated by numerical analysis. The fatigue

analysis may also be performed based on a combination of simplified and refined techniques as indicated by

the diagonal arrows in Figure 1-3.

1.3.3

The requirement to analysis refinement should be agreed upon based on:

experience with similar methods on existing ships and structural details with respect to fatigue

consequences of a fatigue damage in terms of service problems and possible repairs.

In general, the simplified method for fatigue life calculation is assumed to give a good indication as to whether

fatigue is a significant criterion for design or not. The reliability of the calculated fatigue lives is, however,

assumed to be improved by refinement in the design analysis.

1.3.4

It should further be kept in mind that real fatigue lives are a function of workmanship related to fabrication and

corrosion protection. Therefore, to achieve the necessary link between the calculated and the actual fatigue

lives for ships, the fabrication has to be performed according to good shipbuilding practice with acceptance

criteria as assumed in the calculation.

1.4.1

A detailed fatigue analysis can be omitted if the largest hot spot stress range for actual details in air or cathodic

protected environment is less than the fatigue limit at 107 cycles.

The use of the fatigue limit is illustrated in Figure 1-1. A detailed fatigue assessment can be omitted if the

largest stress cycle is below the fatigue limit. However, in the example in Figure 1-2, there is one stress cycle

1 above the fatigue limit. This means that a further fatigue assessment is required. This also means that the

fatigue damage from the stress cycle 2 has to be included in the fatigue assessment and the summation of

fatigue damage presented in this document should be used.

Stress cycling

1

Fatigue limit

Figure 1-1

Stress cycling where further fatigue assessment can be omitted

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Stress cycling

1

Fatigue limit

N

Figure 1-2

Stress cycling where a detailed fatigue assessment is required

1.5 Definitions

1.5.1

Classified structural detail: A structural detail containing a structural discontinuity including a weld or welds,

for which the nominal stress approach is applicable, and which appear in tables of many fatigue design

standards such as CSR for Tanker Structures and DNV-RP-C203 /7/, also referred to as a standard structural

detail. Each classified detail is defined to belong to one S-N curve. This means that the K-factor for this detail

is included in the S-N curve.

Constant amplitude loading: A type of loading causing a regular stress fluctuation with constant magnitudes

of stress maxima and minima.

Crack propagation rate: Amount of crack propagation during one stress cycle.

Crack propagation threshold: Limiting value of stress intensity factor range below which the stress cycles are

considered to be non-damaging.

Eccentricity: Misalignment of plates at welded connections measured transverse to the plates.

Effective notch stress: Notch stress calculated for a notch with a certain effective notch radius.

Fatigue: Deterioration of a component caused by crack initiation and/or by the growth of cracks.

Fatigue action: Load effect causing fatigue.

Fatigue damage ratio: Ratio of fatigue damage at considered number of cycles and the corresponding fatigue

life at constant amplitude loading.

Fatigue life: Number of stress cycles at a particular stress range magnitude required to cause fatigue failure of the

component.

Fatigue limit: Fatigue strength under constant amplitude loading corresponding to a high number of cycles

large enough to be considered as infinite by a design code.

Fatigue resistance: Structural details resistance against fatigue actions in terms of S-N curve or crack

propagation properties.

Fatigue strength: Magnitude of stress range leading to particular fatigue life.

Fracture mechanics: A branch of mechanics dealing with the behaviour and strength of components containing

cracks.

Geometric stress: See hot spot stress.

Hot spot: A point in structure where a fatigue crack may initiate due to the combined effect of structural stress

fluctuation and the weld geometry or a similar notch.

Hot spot stress: The value of structural stress on the surface at the hot spot (also known as geometric stress or

structural stress).

Local nominal stress: Nominal stress including macro-geometric effects, concentrated load effects and

misalignments, disregarding the stress raising effects of the welded joint itself.

Local notch: A notch such as the local geometry of the weld toe, including the toe radius and the angle between

the base plate surface and weld reinforcement. The local notch does not alter the structural stress but generates

non-linear stress peaks.

Macro-geometric discontinuity: A global discontinuity, the effect of which is usually not taken into account in

the collection of standard structural details, such as large opening, a curved part in a beam, a bend in flange not

supported by diaphragms or stiffeners, discontinuities in pressure containing shells, eccentricity in lap joints.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Macro-geometric effect: A stress raising effect due to macro-geometry in the vicinity of the welded joint, but

not due to the welded joint itself.

Membrane stress: Average normal stress across the thickness of a plate or shell.

Miner sum: Summation of individual fatigue damage ratios caused by each stress cycle or stress range block

according to Palmgren-Miner rule.

Misalignment: Axial and angular misalignments caused either by detail design or by fabrication.

Nominal stress: A stress in a component, resolved, using general theories such as beam theory.

Nonlinear stress peak: The stress component of a notch stress which exceeds the linearly distributed structural

stress at a local notch.

Notch stress: Total stress at the root of a notch taking into account the stress concentration caused by the local

notch. Thus the notch stress consists of the sum of structural stress and non-linear stress peak.

Notch stress concentration factor: The ratio of notch stress to structural stress.

Paris law: An experimentally determined relation between crack growth rate and stress intensity factor range

(Fracture mechanics).

Palmgren-Miner rule: Fatigue failure is expected when the Miner sum reaches unity.

Rainflow counting: A standardised procedure for stress range counting.

Shell bending stress: Bending stress in a shell or plate like part of a component, linearly distributed across the

thickness as assumed in the theory of shells.

S-N curve: Graphical presentation of the dependence of fatigue life (N) on fatigue strength (S).

Stress cycle: A part of a stress history containing a stress maximum and a stress minimum.

Stress intensity factor: Factor used in fracture mechanics to characterise the stress at the vicinity of a crack tip.

Stress range: The difference between stress maximum and stress minimum in a stress cycle.

Stress range block: A part of a total spectrum of stress ranges which is discreet in a certain number of blocks.

Stress range exceedance: A tabular or graphical presentation of the cumulative frequency of stress range

exceedance, i.e. the number of ranges exceeding a particular magnitude of stress range in stress history. Here

frequency is the number of occurrences.

Stress ratio: Ratio of minimum to maximum value of the stress in a cycle.

Structural discontinuity: A geometric discontinuity due to the type of welded joint, usually found in tables of

classified structural details. The effects of a structural discontinuity are (i) concentration of the membrane stress

and (ii) formation of secondary bending stress.

Structural stress: A stress in a component, resolved taking into account the effects of a structural discontinuity,

and consisting of membrane and shell bending stress components. Also referred to as geometric stress or hot

spot stress.

Structural stress concentration factor: The ratio of hot spot (structural) stress to local nominal stress. In this

classification note the shorter notation: Stress concentration factor due to geometry (Kg) is used.

Variable amplitude loading: A type of loading causing irregular stress fluctuation with stress ranges (and

amplitudes) of variable magnitude.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

1.6.1

The following general symbols are used in this Classification Note:

A Cross sectional area

B Greatest moulded breadth of ship measured at the summer waterline

CB Block coefficient = 1.025LBTRULE

Cw Wave coefficient as given in DNV Rules for Ships Pt.3 Ch.1 /1/.

D Moulded depth of ship, confer DNV Rules for Ships Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.1

D Fatigue damage

F() Weibull distribution

H() Transfer function

Hs Significant wave height

I Moment of inertia

K Stress concentration factor

Kg Geometric stress concentration factor

Kn Un-symmetrical stiffeners with lateral loading stress concentration factor

Kte Eccentric tolerance stress concentration factor (normally plate connections)

Kt Angular mismatch stress concentration factor (normally plate connections)

L Rule length of ship in m, confer Rules Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.1.

Lpp Length between perpendiculars

M Moment

Mwo Wave induced vertical moment

MH Wave induced horizontal moment

Q () Probability level for exceedance of stress range

S ( ) Wave spectrum

S ( ) Stress response spectrum

Td Design life

Tact Draught actual

T Vessel mean moulded summer draught

Tz Zero crossing period

Z Section modulus

a S-N fatigue parameter

a Local / global load combination factor

b Local / global load combination factor

bf Flange width

ai Acceleration in direction I

f1 Material factor as specified in the Rules Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.1

fe Environmental reduction factor

fm Mean stress reduction factor

fr Factor for calculation of load effects at 10-4 probability level of exceedance

g Acceleration of gravity (=9.81 m/s2)

h Weibull shape parameter

ho Basic Weibull shape parameter

hw Web height

l Stiffener length

log( ) 10th logarithm

ln( ) Natural logarithm

m S-N fatigue parameter

mn Spectral moment of order n

p Lateral pressure

pij Occurrence probability of sea condition i and heading j

ps Sailing rate = fraction of design life at sea

q Weibull scale parameter

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

s Stiffener spacing

t Plate thickness

tp Plate thickness

tf Flange thickness

tw Web thickness

tn Net plate thickness

d Deformation

vij Zero crossing frequency in short-term condition i, j

Wave frequency

vo Long-term average zero up-crossing frequency

Correlation coefficient

Stress amplitude

2 Secondary stress amplitude

3 Tertiary stress amplitude produced by bending of plate elements between longitudinal and transverse frames/

stiffeners

nominal Nominal stress amplitude, e.g. stress derived from beam element or finite element analysis

yield Yield stress level of the base material

Fatigue usage factor

Moulded displacement in tonnes in salt water (density 1.025 [t/m3] on draught T

Stress range

g Global stress range

l Local stress range

h Nominal stress range due to horizontal bending

v Nominal stress range due to vertical bending

( ) Gamma function [-]

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Simplified Direct

Analysis Analysis

Rule Loads Load Functions

Ch. 6 Distribution Sec. 8.3

Ch. 5 Interchangeable Sec. 9.3-9.4

Results

Interchangeable FE Model of

SCF: K-factors

Results detail

App. A

Sec. 9.5-9.6

Combination of Functions for stress

Stresses components

Sec. 4.6 Sec. 7.3

Distribution based Stochastic Fatigue Analysis

Sec. 4.3 Fatigue Analysis Sec. 7.4

Sec. 7.3

Stress Distribution Calculation of

(Weibull param.) hotspot stress

Sec. 5.2 Ch. 10

Fatigue Damage

Fatigue Damage

Calculation

Calculation

App. G

Sec. 4.7

Figure 1-3

Flow diagram over possible fatigue analysis procedures

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1

The main principles for fatigue analysis based on fatigue tests are described in this section.

The fatigue analysis may be based on hot spot stress S-N curves for welded plated structures.

The hot spot stress at a weld toe is defined as the geometric stress that includes stress rising effects due to

structural discontinuities and presence of attachments, but excluding the localised stress due to the presence of

the weld itself.

Guidance on finite element modelling and hot spot stress derivation is presented in Sec.6. The calculated hot

spot stress is then entered a hot spot stress S-N curve for derivation of cycles to failure. Additional stresses

resulting from fabrication tolerances for butt welds and cruciform joints should be considered when the

fabrication tolerances exceed that inherent the S-N data. Reference is made to section for stress concentration

factors in App.A.

Results from performed fatigue analyses are presented in App.B in terms of allowable stress ranges as function

of the Weibull shape parameter. The basis for the allowable stress ranges is that long term stress ranges can be

described by a two parameter Weibull distribution.

The following fatigue cracking failure modes are considered in this document (see also Figure 2-1):

Fatigue crack growth from the weld toe into the base material

In welded structures fatigue cracking from weld toes into the base material is a frequent failure mode. The

fatigue crack is initiated at small defects or undercuts at the weld toe where the stress is highest due to the

weld notch geometry. A large amount of the content in this classification note is made with the purpose of

achieving a reliable design with respect to this failure mode.

Fatigue crack growth from the weld root through the fillet weld

Fatigue cracking from root of fillet welds with crack growth through the weld is a failure mode that can

lead to significant consequences. Use of fillet welds should be avoided in connections where the failure

consequences are large due to less reliable NDE of this type of connection compared with a full penetration

weld. However, in many welded connections use of fillet welds can hardly be avoided and it is also efficient

for fabrication. The specified design procedure in this document is considered to provide reliable

connections also for fillet welds.

Fatigue crack growth from the weld root into the section under the weld

Fatigue crack growth from the weld root into the section under the weld is observed during service life of

structures and is also observed in laboratory fatigue testing. The number of cycles until failure for this

failure mode is of similar magnitude as fatigue cracking from the weld toe. There is no methodology

recommended used to avoid this failure mode except from using alternative types of welds locally. This

means that if fatigue life improvement of the weld toe is required the connection will become more highly

utilised and it is also required to make improvement for the root. This can be performed using full

penetration weld along some distance of the stiffener nose.

Fatigue crack growth from a surface irregularity or notch into the base material

Fatigue cracking in the base material is a failure mode that is of concern in components with high stress

cycles. Then the fatigue cracks often initiate from notches or grooves in the components or from small

surface defects/irregularities. The specified design procedure in this document is considered to provide

reliable connections also with respect to this failure mode.

a) Fatigue crack growth from the weld toe into the base material

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

b) Fatigue crack growth from the weld root through the fillet weld

c) Fatigue crack growth from the weld root into the section under the weld

d) Fatigue crack growth from a surface irregularity or notch into the base material

Figure 2-1

Explanation of different fatigue failure modes

2.2.1

The fatigue life under varying loading is calculated based on the S-N fatigue approach under the assumption

of linear cumulative damage (Palmgren-Miners rule). The total damage the structure is experiencing may be

expressed as the accumulated damage from each load cycle at different stress levels, independent of the

sequence in which the stress cycles occur.

The design life assumed in the fatigue assessment of ships is normally not to be taken less than 20 years. The

accumulated fatigue damage is not to exceed a usage factor of 1.0. The acceptance criterion is related to design

S-N curves based on mean- minus-two-standard-deviations curves for relevant experimental data.

2.2.2

When the long-term stress range distribution is expressed by a stress histogram, consisting of a convenient

number of constant amplitude stress range blocks i each with a number of stress repetitions ni the fatigue

criterion reads

k k

ni

n ( i )m

1

D= = i

i =1

Ni a i =1

where

a,m = S-N fatigue parameters

k = number of stress blocks

ni = number of stress cycles in stress block i

Ni = number of cycles to failure at constant stress range i

= usage factor. Accepted usage factor is defined as = 1.0

Applying a histogram to express the stress distribution, the number of stress blocks, k, is to be large enough to

ensure reasonable numerical accuracy, and should not be less than 20. Due consideration should be given to

selection of integration method as the position of the integration points may have a significant influence on the

calculated fatigue life dependent on integration method.

2.2.3

Expressions for fatigue damage based on long term stress distributions defined through Weibull distributions

and short term Rayleigh distribution within each sea state are given in App.F.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

2.3.1

The procedure for fatigue analysis is based on the assumption that it is only necessary to consider the ranges

of cyclic stresses in determining the fatigue endurance. However, some reduction in the fatigue damage

accumulation can be credited when parts of the stress cycle range are in compression.

It should be noted that in welded joints, there may be several locations at which fatigue cracks can develop, e.g.

at the weld toe in each of the two parts joined, at the weld ends, and in the weld itself. Each potential location

should be considered separately.

2.3.2

When the potential fatigue crack is located in the parent material at the weld toe, the relevant local hot spot

stress is the range of maximum principal stress adjacent to the potential crack location with stress

concentrations being taken into account.

This stress concentration is due to the gross shape of the structure. As an example, for the welded connection

shown in Figure 2-2 a), the relevant local hot spot stress for fatigue design would be the tensile stress, . For

the weld shown in Figure 2-2 b), the stress concentration factor for the local geometry must in addition be

accounted for, giving the relevant hot spot stress equal to Kg, where Kg is the stress concentration factor due

to the hole.

The maximum principal stress range within 45 of the normal to the weld toe should be used for the analysis.

Figure 2-2

Explanation of local hot spot stresses

2.3.3

The maximum principal stress is considered a significant parameter for analysis of fatigue crack growth. When

the principal stress direction is different from that of the normal to the weld toe, it becomes conservative to use

the principle stress range together with a classification of the connection for stress range normal to the weld toe

as shown in Figure 2-3. As the angle between the principal stress direction and the normal to the weld, , is

increased further, fatigue cracking may no longer initiate along the weld toe, but may initiate in the weld and

grow normal to the principal stress direction as shown in Figure 2-4. This means that the notch at the weld toe

does no longer significantly influence the fatigue capacity and a higher allowable hot spot stress applies for this

stress direction. More guidance on this effect of stress direction relative to the weld toe as shown in Figure 2-

3 and Figure 2-4 when using finite element analysis and hot spot stress S-N curves is presented in App.J.

Principal stress

// direction

//

Weld

toe

Fatigue crack

Fatigue cracking along weld toe

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

//

// Principal stress

direction Weld

toe

Fatigue crack

Section

Figure 2-4

Fatigue cracking when principal stress direction more parallel with weld toe

2.3.4

For fatigue analysis of regions in the base material not significantly affected by residual stress due to welding,

the stress range may be reduced dependent on whether the cycling stress is tension or compression. Mean stress

means the static hot spot stress including relevant stress concentration factors. The calculated stress range may

be multiplied with the reduction factor fm before entering the S-N curve, see also Figure 2-5:

t + 0.6 c

fm =

t + c

where

t = tension stress

= max static + 2

0

c = compression stress

= min static 2

0

For variable amplitude stresses can be taken as the stress range at 10-4 probability level of exceedance.

Reduction

factor fm

1.0

0.6

Tension

Compression

- m = /2 m = 0 m = /2

Figure 2-5

Stress range reduction factor that may be used with S-N curve for base material

2.3.5

Residual stresses due to welding and construction are reduced over time as the ship is subjected to external

loading. If it is likely that a hot spot region is subjected to a tension force implying local yielding at the

considered region, the effective stress range for fatigue analysis can therefore be reduced due to the mean stress

effect also for regions affected by residual stresses from welding. The following reduction factor on the derived

stress range may be applied for welded joints:

t + 0.7 c

fm =

t + c

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

2.3.6

Steel material with increased yield stress level will have increased resistance towards cracking in the base

material. The following reduction factor on the derived stress range may be applied for base material:

2.4 S-N curves

2.4.1

The fatigue design is based on use of S-N curves which are obtained from fatigue tests. The design S-N curves

which follow are based on the mean-minus-two-standard-deviation curves for relevant experimental data. The

S-N curves are thus associated with a 97.6% probability of survival.

2.4.2

The S-N curves are applicable for normal and high strength steels used in construction of hull structures.

The S-N curves for welded joints include the effect of the local weld notch. They are also defined as hot spot

S-N curves. Thus these S-N curves are compatible with calculated stress that does not include the notch stress

due to the weld.

This also means that if a butt weld is machined or grind flush without weld overfill a better S-N curve can be

used. Reference is made to DNV-RP-C203/7/.

2.4.3

The basic design S-N curve is given as

log N = log a m log

with S-N curve parameters given in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2.

= stress range

m = negative inverse slope of S-N curve

log a = intercept of log N-axis by S-N curve

log a = log a 2s

where

s = standard deviation of log N;

= 0.20

Table 2-1 S-N parameters for air or with cathodic protection

S-N Curve Material N 107 N > 107

log a m log a m

I Welded joint 12.164 3.0 15.606 5.0

III Base Material 15.117 4.0 17.146 5.0

For unprotected joints in sea water the S-N curve I presented in Table 2-1 shall be reduced by a factor of 2 on

fatigue life.

S-N Curve Material log a m

IV Base material 12.436 3.0

The S-N curves for base material in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 are only applicable for rolled or extruded plates

and flats. It may also be used for grinded details. For base materials, which are machine gas cut or manually

gas cut, reference is made to DNV-RP-C203 /7/. The SN-Curve for base material is based on good

workmanship which implies edge treatment of fatigue critical areas.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

2.4.4

Most of the S-N data are derived by fatigue testing of small specimens in test laboratories. For simple test

specimens the testing is performed until the specimens have failed. In these specimens there is no possibility

for redistribution of stresses during crack growth. This means that most of the fatigue life is associated with

growth of a small crack that grows faster as the crack size increases until fracture.

The initiation of a fatigue crack takes longer time for a notch in base material than at a weld toe or weld root.

This also means that with a higher fatigue resistance of the base material as compared with welded details, the

crack growth will be faster in base material when fatigue cracks are growing.

For practical purpose one defines the failures in test data as being crack growth though the thickness.

When this failure criterion is transferred into a crack size in a real structure where some redistribution of stress

is more likely, this means that this failure criterion corresponds to a crack size that is somewhat less than the

plate thickness.

2.4.5

The fatigue strength of welded joints is to some extent dependent on plate thickness and on the stress gradient

over the thickness. Thus for a thickness larger than 25 mm, the S-N curve in air reads

m t

log N = log a log m log

4 25

where t is thickness (mm) through which the potential fatigue crack will grow. This S-N curve in general

applies to all types of welds except butt-welds with the weld surface dressed flush and small local bending

stress across the plate thickness. The thickness effect is less for butt welds that are dressed flush by grinding or

machining. Also a less severe S-N curve can be used if the weld notch is removed by machining. Reference is

made to DNV-RP-C203 /7/ if needed.

For stresses parallel to the weld the thickness exponent of m/4 in the S-N curve above shall be replaced by m/10.

The thickness effect is only applicable for welded joints.

2.4.6

The S-N curves given in Table 2-1-Table 2-2 are developed for principal stresses acting normal to the weld and

should be used together with the maximum stress range within 45 of the normal to the weld as explained in

Section [2.3.2].

If the governing stress direction is parallel with the weld direction a stress reduction factor KP should be used

on the principal stress range before entering stress into the S-N curve. The stress reduction factor will depend

on the quality of the weld, Table 2-3.

Alternatively the procedure of effective hot spot stress described in Section [2.3.3] and App.J may be used.

1000

I

III

IV

Stress range (MPa)

100

10

10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000 1000000000

Number of cycles

Figure 2-6

S-N curves

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Stress Figure Description Requirement

reduction

factor KP

0.72 1. 1.

Automatic welds carried out from both No start-stop position is permitted

sides. except when the repair is performed

by a specialist and inspection car-

ried out to verify the proper execu-

tion of the repair.

0.80 2.

Automatic fillet or butt welds carried out

from both sides but containing stop-start

positions.

3. 3.

Automatic butt welds made from one side When the detail contains

only, with a backing bar, but without start- start-stop positions use

stop positions. Kp = 0.90

0.90 4.

Manual fillet or butt welds.

5. 5.

Manual or automatic butt welds carried out A very good fit between the

from one side only, particularly for box flange and web plates is essential.

girders Prepare the web edge such that the

root face is adequate for the

achievement of regular root pene-

tration with out brake-out.

6. 6.

Repaired automatic or manual fillet or butt Improvement methods that are ade-

welds quately verified may restore the

original category.

2.4.7

For Duplex and Super Duplex steel one may use the same S-N curve as for C-Mn steels. Also for austenitic

steel one may use the same S-N curve as for C-MN steels.

2.5 Effect of corrosive environment

2.5.1

It is recognised that the fatigue life of steel structures is considerably shorter in freely corroding condition

submerged in sea water than in air, i.e. in dry indoor atmosphere such as common laboratory air. For steel

submerged in sea water and fully cathodically protected, approximately the same fatigue life as in dry air is

obtained.

An intact coating system will also protect the steel surface from the corrosive environment, so that the steel can

be considered to be as in dry air condition.

The basic S-N curve for welded regions in air is only to be applied for joints situated in dry spaces, for joints

in cargo oil tanks or joints in ballast tanks effectively protected against corrosion. For joints efficiently

protected only a part of the design life and exposed to corrosive environment the remaining part, the fatigue

damage may be calculated as a sum of partial damages according to Section [2.5.2].

For joints in freely corroding conditions submerged in sea water the basic S-N curve for welded joints in air

are to be reduced by a factor 2 on fatigue life.

2.5.2

For coated ballast tanks the fatigue strength may be assessed with the S-N curve in air for the effective

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

corrosion protection period. The effective corrosion protection period is taken to be the specified design life of

the vessel minus five years (TD-5). Corrosive environment is to be used for the remaining five years of the

specified design life.

For cargo oil tanks (coated and uncoated), dry cargo holds, fuel oil tanks, void spaces and cofferdam, the S-N

curve in air can be used for the specified design life unless these tanks can be used for ballast water or corrosive

cargo.

For hull external surfaces, the S-N curve in air can be used for the specified design life.

2.5.3

Global stress components may be calculated based on gross scantlings. Local stress components should be

calculated based on reduced scantlings, i.e. gross scantlings minus corrosion addition tk as given in Table 2-4.

(The corrosion addition specified below is similar to that specified in the Rules /1/).

Table 2-4 Corrosion addition tk in mm

Tank/hold region Location

Internal members and plate boundary between spaces of Within 1.5 m below weather Elsewhere

the given category deck tank or hold top

Ballast tank1) 3.0 1.5

Cargo oil tank only 2.0 1.0 (0)2)

Hold of dry bulk cargo carriers 4) 1.0 1.0 (3)5)

Plate boundary between given space categories Within 1.5 m below weather Elsewhere

deck tank or hold top

Ballast tank 1) / Cargo oil tank only 2.5 1.5 (1.0) 2)

1)

Ballast tank / Hold of dry bulk cargo carrier 4) 2.0 1.5

Ballast tank 1) / Other category space 3) 2.0 1.0

Cargo oil tank only / Other category space 3) 1.0 0.5 (0) 2)

Hold of dry bulk carrier 4) / Other category space 3) 0.5 0.5

1) The term ballast tank includes also combined ballast and cargo oil tanks, but not cargo oil tanks which may carry

water ballast according to Regulation 13 (3), of MARPOL 73/78, see Rules

2) The figure in bracket refers to non-horizontal surfaces.

3) Other category space denotes the hull exterior and all spaces other than water ballast and cargo oil tanks and holds

of dry bulk cargo carriers.

4) Hold of dry bulk cargo carriers refers to the cargo holds of vessels with class notations Bulk Carrier and Ore Carrier

5) The figure in bracket refers to lower part of main frames in bulk carrier holds.

2.6.1

Depending on the required accuracy of the fatigue evaluation it may be necessary to divide the design life into

a number of time intervals due to different loading conditions and limitations of the corrosion protection. For

example, the design life may be divided into one interval with good corrosion protection and one interval where

the corrosion protection is more questionable for which different S-N data should be used. Each of these

intervals should be divided into that of loaded and ballast conditions.

2.6.2

The combined fatigue damage, D, and the corresponding fatigue life, T, in multiple loading conditions and non-

corrosive and corrosive environment can be calculated as follows:

1) Calculate the fatigue damage for non-corrosive environment equal to the design life, Tdesign, of the vessel,

DInAir:

n

D InAir = p i D InAir,i

i =1

where

i = loading condition no. i = 1 to n

pi = fraction of the lifetime operating under loading condition i

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

2) Calculate the fatigue damage for corrosive environment equal to the design life, Tdesign, of the vessel,

DCorrosive:

n n

DCorrosive = pi DCorrosive ,i = 2 pi DAir , i

i =1 i =1

3) The combined fatigue damage for the design life of the vessel is calculated as:

Tdesign 5 5

D = DInAir + DCorrosive

Tdesign Tdesign

The corresponding fatigue life is calculated as:

Tdesign

T=

DInAir

if

Tdesign

(Tdesign 5)

DInAir

else

T D

T = Tdesign 5 + design Tdesign + 5 InAir

D

InAir DCorrosive

where Tdesign-5 is the effective corrosion protection period.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

3.1 General

3.1.1

Fatigue damages are known to occur more frequently for some ship types and categories of hull structure

elements. The fatigue life is in particular related to the magnitude of the dynamic stress level, the corrosiveness

of the environment and the magnitude of notch- and stress concentration factors of the structural details, which

all vary depending on ship type and structure considered. The importance of possible fatigue damage is related

to the number of potential damage points of the considered type for the ship or structure in question and to its

consequences.

3.1.2

A major fraction of the total number of fatigue damages on ship structures occurs in panel stiffeners on the ship

side and bottom and on the tank boundaries of ballast- and cargo tanks. However, the calculated fatigue life

depends on the type of stiffeners used, and the detail design of the connection to supporting girder webs and

bulkheads. In general un-symmetrical profiles will have a reduced fatigue life compared to symmetrical

profiles unless the reduced effectiveness of the un-symmetrical profile is compensated by an improved design

for the attachment to transverse girder webs and bulkhead structures.

3.1.3

The dynamic wave loading on the hull varies with the draught and load distribution and it is therefore necessary

to consider more than one loading condition in the fatigue evaluation. Depending on the ship type 2-3 loading

conditions representing the most frequently used loaded and ballast conditions are normally sufficient. The

fraction of the lifetime operating under each loading conditions should reflect the operational trading pattern

of the ship.

3.2 Oil tankers

3.2.1

Structural elements in oil tankers being of possible interest for fatigue evaluation are listed in Table 3-1.

For vessels intended for normal, world wide trading the fraction of design life in the fully loaded cargo and

ballast conditions, pn, may be taken from Table 3-2.

Structure member Structural detail Load type

Side-, bottom- and Butt joints, deck openings and attachment to Hull girder bending, stiffener lateral pressure

deck plating and transverse webs, transverse bulkheads, hop- load and support deformation

longitudinals per knuckles and intermediate longitudinal

girders

Transverse girder and Bracket toes, girder flange butt joints, curved Sea pressure load combined with cargo or ballast

stringer structures girder flanges, knuckle of inner bottom and pressure load

sloped hopper side and other panel knuckles

including intersection with transverse girder

webs. Single lug slots for panel stiffeners,

access and lightening holes

Longitudinal girders Bracket termination's of abutting transverse Hull girder bending, and bending / deformation

of deck and bottom members (girders, stiffeners) of longitudinal girder and considered abutting

structure member

Vessel type Tankers

Loaded condition 0.425

Ballast condition 0.425

3.3.1

Structural elements being of possible interest for fatigue evaluation of gas carriers are listed in Table 3-3.

For vessels intended for normal, world wide trading the fraction of design life in the fully loaded cargo and

ballast conditions, pn, may be taken from Table 3-4.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Structure member Structural detail Load type

Side-, bottom- and Butt joints, deck openings and attachment to Hull girder bending, stiffener lateral pressure

deck plating and transverse webs, transverse bulkheads, hop- load and support deformation

longitudinals per knuckles and intermediate longitudinal

girders

Transverse girder and Inner hull knuckles including intersection Sea pressure load combined with cargo or ballast

stringer structures with transverse girder webs. Single lug slots pressure load

for panel stiffeners, access and lightening

holes

Longitudinal girders Inner hull knuckles at intersection with Hull girder bending, and bending / deformation of

of deck, side and transverse BHDs. longitudinal girder and considered abutting

bottom structure member

Tank supports Tank supporting structure in general Hull girder bending, cargo and sea pressure loads

Vessel type Gas carriers (*)

Loaded condition 0.45

Ballast condition 0.40

(*) Fraction of time values should be according to latest version of DNV Ship Rules.

3.4.1

Structural elements in the bulk carriers being of possible interest for fatigue evaluation are listed in Table 3-6

and Table 3-7

For vessels intended for normal trading the fraction of the fraction of the design life in loaded and ballast

conditions, pn, may be taken from Table 3-5.

Vessel type Bulk carriers larger Panamax bulk carriers Vessels intend to carry

Ore carrier

than Panamax (*) and smaller (*) ore cargoes mostly

Alternate condition 0.25 0 0.5 0

Homogenous condition 0.25 0.5 0 0.5

Ballast condition 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35

(*) Panamax vessel as defined in Classification Note 31.1 /4/ Section 1.2.1.

Structure member Structural detail Load type

Hatch corners Hatch corner Hull girder bending, hull girder torsional

deformation

Hatch side coaming Termination of end bracket Hull girder bending

Main frames End bracket terminations, weld of main External pressure load, ballast pressure load as

frame web to shell for un-symmetrical main applicable

frame profiles

Longitudinals of Connection to transverse webs and bulk- Hull girder bending, sea- and ballast pressure

hopper tank and top heads load

wing tank

Double bottom Connection to transverse webs and bulk- Hull girder bending stress, double bottom bending

longitudinals1) heads stress and sea-, cargo- and ballast pressure load

Transverse webs of Slots for panel stiffener including stiffener Girder shear force, and bending moment, support

double bottom, hopper connection members, knuckle of inner bottom force from panel stiffener due to sea-,cargo- and

and top wing tank and sloped hopper side including intersection ballast pressure load

with girder webs (floors). Single lug slots for

panel stiffeners, access and lightening holes

1) The fatigue life of bottom and inner bottom longitudinals of bulk carriers is related to the combined effect of axial

stress due to hull girder- and double bottom bending, and due to lateral pressure load from sea or cargo.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Structure member Structural detail Load type

Upper deck plating Hatch corners and side coaming terminations Hull girder bending

Side-, bottom- and Butt joints and attachment to transverse webs, transverse Hull girder bending, stiffener lateral

deck longitudinals bulkheads, hatch opening corners and intermediate pressure load and support deformation

longitudinal girders

Transverse girder and Bracket toes, girder flange butt joints, curved girder Sea pressure load combined with cargo

stringer structures flanges, panel knuckles at intersection with transverse or ballast pressure load

girder webs etc. Single lug slots for panel stiffeners,

access and lightening holes

Transverse girders of Single lug slots for panel stiffeners Sea pressure load (in particular in ore

wing tank1) loading condition)

1) The transverse deck-, side- and bottom girders of the wing tanks in the ore loading condition are generally subjected

to considerable dynamic shear force- and bending moment loads due to large dynamic sea pressure (in rolling) and

an increased vertical racking deflection of the transverse bulkheads of the wing tank. The rolling induced sea pressure

loads in the ore loading condition will normally exceed the level in the ballast (and a possible oil cargo) condition due

to the combined effect of a large GM-value and a small rolling period. The fatigue life evaluation must be considered

with respect to the category of the wing tank considered (cargo oil tank, ballast tank or void). For ore-oil carriers, the

cargo oil loading condition should be considered as for tankers.

3.4.2

For bulk and ore cargoes only pressures due to vertical accelerations need to be considered, see [6.4.1]. The

appropriate density and pressure height for bulk cargoes should specially be considered to give a hold mass

according to Table 3-8. If masses specified in the submitted loading conditions are greater than those in Table

3-8, the maximum masses shall be used for fatigue strength calculations.

Table 3-8 Hold mass

Ore holds Empty holds

Alternate condition MHD or MFull according to Rules Pt.5 Ch.2 Sec.5 Zero

Homogenous condition MH according to Rules Pt.5 Ch.2 Sec.5 /2/ MH according to Rules Pt.5 Ch.2 Sec.5

3.4.3

The draught for the loaded conditions shall be taken as the scantling draught. The draught for the ballast

condition shall be taken as the ballast draught given in the loading manual, or 0.35T if the loading manual is

not available (where T is scantling draught).

3.4.4

For bottom and inner bottom longitudinals the effect of relative deflections and double hull bending shall be

taken into account at locations where this effect is significant. The relative deformations are to be obtained by

a direct strength analysis.

3.5.1

Structural elements in the cargo area being of possible interest for fatigue evaluation of container ships are

listed in Table 3-9.

Hull member Structural detail Load type

Side-and bottom Butt joints and attachment to transverse webs, Hull girder bending, torsion1), stiffener

longitudinals transverse bulkheads and intermediate longitudinal lateral pressure load and support

girders deformation

Upper deck Plate and stiffener butt joints, hatch corner Hull girder bending- and torsional

curvatures and support details welded on upper warping stress2).

deck for container pedestals etc.

1) Torsion induced warping stresses in the bilge region may be of significance from the forward machinery bulkhead

to the forward quarter length.

2) The fatigue assessment of upper deck structures must include the combined effect of vertical and horizontal hull

girder bending and the torsional warping response. For hatch corners, additional stresses introduced by the bending

of transverse (and longitudinal) deck structures induced by the torsional hull girder deformation must be included in

the fatigue assessment.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Vessel type Container vessels

Loaded conditions 0.65

Ballast conditions 0.20

3.6 Roll on / roll off- and car carriers

3.6.1

Structural elements in the cargo area being of possible interest for fatigue evaluation of Roll on/ Roll off- and

Car carriers are listed in Table 3-11.

Structure member Structural detail Load type

Side- and bottom Butt joints and attachment to transverse webs, Hull girder bending, stiffener lateral

longitudinals transverse bulkheads and intermediate longitudinal pressure load and support deformation

girders

Racking constraining Stress concentration points at girder supports and at Transverse acceleration load1)

girders, bulkheads etc. bulkhead openings

1) It should be noted that the racking constraining girders and bulkheads are in many cases largely unstressed when the

ship is in the upright condition. Thus the racking induced stresses may be entirely dynamic, which implies that

fatigue is likely to be the primary design criterion. For designs which incorporate racking bulkheads, the racking

deformations are normally reduced such that the fatigue assessment may be limited to stress concentration areas at

openings of the racking bulkheads only. If sufficient racking bulkheads are not fitted, racking deformations will be

greatly increased, and the fatigue assessment of racking induced stresses should be carried out for primary racking

constraining members and vertical girder structures over the ship length as applicable.

For vessels intended for normal, world wide trading, the fraction of design life in the homogeneous design load

and ballast conditions, pn , may be taken from Table 3-12.

Vessel type Car carriers

Loaded conditions 0.65

Ballast conditions 0.20

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

4.1 General

4.1.1

This section outlines a simplified approach to determine the distributions of long-term stress ranges expressed

as Weibull distributions. Simple formats for combination of global and local stress components are given to

calculate the total stress response.

4.2 Calculation procedure

4.2.1

A flow chart of the calculation procedure is given in Figure 4-1.

Hydrodynamic loads

Simplified calculations Sec. 8

Stress response

Simplified calculations: Sec. 5

Finite element analysis Sec. 9

4.6

4.3

4.7

Figure 4-1

Flow diagram for simplified fatigue calculations

4.3.1

The long term distribution of stress ranges at local details may be described by the Weibull distribution

h

Q( ) = exp

q

where:

h = Weibull shape parameter

q = Weibull scale parameter, defined as

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

0

q=

(ln n 0 )1 h

The stress range distribution may also be expressed as

1h

ln n

= 0

ln n 0

where

o = reference stress range value at the local detail exceeded once out of no cycles

no = total number of cycles associated with the stress range level o

The Weibull shape parameter may be established from long-term wave load analysis. In lieu of more accurate

calculations, the shape parameter may be taken as:

h = h0 + h a (D z ) / (D Tact ) For ship side above the waterline Tact <z <D

h = h0 + ha For ship side at the waterline z = Tact

h = h0 + h a z Tact 0.005(Tact z ) For ship side below the waterline z < Tact

h = h0 0.005Tact For bottom longitudinals

h = h0 + ha For longitudinal and transverse bulkheads

where:

= 2.21 0.54 log 10 (L )

ha = additional factor depending on motion response period

= 0.05 in general

= 0.00 for plating where roll motion related forces are governing and vessel roll period TR > 14 sec.

z = vertical distance from baseline to considered longitudinal (m)

The above Weibull shape parameters are based on results from the study in /9/.

For hopper knuckle connections, the Weibull shape parameter for ship side at the waterline may be used.

4.4 Definition of stress components

4.4.1

A schematic illustration of the different load components to be considered in fatigue analysis of ship structures

are given in Figure 4-2.

4.4.2

The global dynamic stress components (primary stresses) which should be considered in fatigue analysis are

v = wave induced vertical hull girder bending stress

hg = wave induced horizontal hull girder bending stress

For ships with large hatch openings also the stress due to torsional wave bending moments should be

considered.

4.4.3

The local dynamic stress amplitudes which should be considered are defined as follows:

i = total local stress amplitude due to dynamic internal pressure loads or forces.

4.4.4

The total local stress amplitudes due to external or internal pressure loads are the sum of individual local stress

components as follows

e ,i = 2 + 2 A + 3

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

2A = stress amplitude due to local stiffener bending between supports

3 = tertiary stress amplitude due to bending local plate bending between supports.

Figure 4-2

Definition of Stress Components

4.5.1

The stress response in stiffeners and plating mainly subjected to axial loading due to hull girder bending and

local bending due to lateral pressures can be calculated based on beam theory combined with tabulated values

of stress concentration factors. Simplified formulas are given in Sec.5.

4.5.2

For details with a more complex stress response and/or where tabulated values of stress concentration factors

are not available, the stress response should be calculated by finite element analyses as described in Sec.9.

4.6.1

For each loading condition, combined local stress components due to simultaneous internal and external

pressure loads are to be combined with global stress components induced by hull girder wave bending. The

procedures described in the following are applicable for ships with closed or semi-closed cross sections only.

For open type vessels (e.g. container vessels), torsional stresses may have to be included.

4.6.2

The stress components to be combined are the hot spot stresses, i.e. stresses including stress concentration

factors, K. The resulting stress concentration factor of a structural detail depends on the structural geometry

and type of loading.

4.6.3

Dynamic stress variations are referred to as either stress range () or stress amplitude (). For linear

responses, the following relation applies

= 2

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

4.6.4

The combined global and local stress range may be taken as

fHT = Reduction factor on derived combined stress range accounting for the high tensile steel quality for base

material fatigue.

= 1.0 for welded joints

fe = Reduction factor on derived combined stress range accounting for the long- term sailing routes of the

ship considering the average wave climate the vessel will be exposed to during the lifetime. Assuming

world wide operation the factor may be taken as 0.8. For shuttle tankers and vessels that frequently

operates in the North Atlantic or in other harsh environments, fe = 1.0 should be used.

fm = Reduction factor on derived combined stress range accounting for the effect of mean stresses, see

Sections [2.3.4] and [2.3.5].

a,b = Load combination factors, accounting for the correlation between the wave induced local and global

stress ranges. (The below factors are based on /9/).

a = 0.6.

b = 0.6.

l = combined local stress range due to lateral pressure loads.

g = combined global stress range.

4.6.5

The combined global stress range may in general be taken as

g = v2 + hg

2

+ 2 vh v hg

except for ships with large hatch openings (i.e. container carriers and open hatch type bulk carriers) for which

torsional stresses must be included.

hg = stress range due to wave induced horizontal hull girder bending.

= 2h in general (for tankers and vessels without large hatch openings).

vh = 0.10, average correlation between vertical and horizontal wave induced bending stress (from /9/).

4.6.6

The combined local stress range, l, due to external and internal pressure loads may be taken as

l = 2 e 2 + i 2 + 2 p e i

where

e = total local stress amplitude due to the dynamic sea pressure loads (tension = positive)

i = total local stress amplitude due to internal pressure loads (tension = positive)

p = average correlation between sea pressure loads and internal pressure loads (from /9/)

1 z x y x z

= + +

2 10 Tact 4 L 4 B 5 L Tact

where: z Tact

The Origin of the coordinate system has co-ordinates (midship, centre line, base line), see Figure 4-3. x, y and

z are longitudinal, transverse and vertical distance from origin to load point of considered structural member.

It should be noted that the combined local stress range is based on combination stress amplitudes and the sign

of stress has to be considered. I.e. for each stress component it has to be evaluated if the applied load causes

tension (positive) or compressive (negative) stress at the hot spot.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Figure 4-3

Coordinate system

4.7.1

When the long-term stress range distribution is defined applying Weibull distributions for the different load

conditions and a one-slope S-N curve is used, the fatigue damage is given by:

0 Td N load

m

D=

a

p q

n =1

n

m

n (1 +

hn

)

where

pn = fraction of design life in load condition n, pn 1, but normally not less than 0.85

Td = design life of ship in seconds (20 years = 6.3108 secs.)

hn = Weibull stress range shape distribution parameter for load condition n, see [4.3]

qn = Weibull stress range scale distribution parameter for load condition n

o = long-term average response zero-crossing frequency

m

(1 + ) = gamma function

hn

The Weibull scale parameter is defined from the stress range level, 0, as

0

qn =

(ln n 0 )1 / h n

where n0 is the number of cycles over the time period for which the stress range level 0 is defined.

In simplified fatigue calculations the zero-crossing-frequency may be taken as

1

0 =

4 log 10 ( L)

where L is the ship Rule length in meters.

Expressions for fatigue damage applying bi-linear S-N curves are given in App.F.

4.7.2

In addition to the high cycle fatigue induced by waves, the fatigue strength could be effected by the repeated

yielding as occurring during the cargo ballast loading cycles (low cycle fatigue). Guidance on how to account

for the effect of combined high cycle and low cycle fatigue is given in App.H.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

5.1 General

5.1.1

In the following sections simplified formulas for calculating the hot spot stress in stiffeners and plating are

presented. The formulas are based on simple beam theory combined with stress concentration factors. The stress

concentration factors may be based on tabulated values given in App.A or derived from local finite element

analysis as described in Sec.10.

5.1.2

The stress formulas may be combined with simplified loads derived according to Sec.6 or serve as basis for

determination of stress component factors for a component stochastic fatigue analysis as described in [7.3].

5.2 Hull girder bending

5.2.1

The wave induced vertical hull girder stress is given by

where

| z -n0 | = vertical distance in m from the horizontal neutral axis of hull cross section to considered member

IN = moment of inertia of hull cross-section in m4 about transverse axis

Kg axial = stress concentration factor for considered detail for axial loading

The corresponding stress range is

v = 2 v

5.2.2

In addition to the vertical hull girder stress induced by the waves, the waves also generally induces hull girder

vibrations that give rise to additional vertical dynamic stresses in the hull girder. Guidance on the how to

account for the effect of combined vertical hull girder stress and wave induced vibration stress is given in

App.I. The guidance is intended to be applied on a voluntary basis.

5.2.3

The wave induced horizontal hull girder stress is given by

h = K g axial M H 10 3 y / I C

where

y = distance in m from vertical neutral axis of hull cross section to member considered

IC = the hull section moment of inertia about the vertical neutral axis

Kg axial = stress concentration factor for considered detail for axial loading

The corresponding stress range is

hg = 2 h

5.3.1

Local secondary bending stresses (2) are the results of bending due to lateral pressure of stiffened single skin

or double hull cross-stiffened panels between transverse bulkheads, see Figure 4-2. This may be bottom or deck

structures, sides or longitudinal bulkheads.

5.3.2

The preferred way of determining secondary stresses is by means of FEM analysis or alternatively by 3(2)-

dimensional frame analysis models.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

5.3.3

Dynamic secondary bending stresses should be calculated for dynamic sea pressure pe and for internal dynamic

pressure pi. The pressures to be used should generally be determined at the mid-position for each cargo hold or

tank.

5.4 Local stiffener bending

5.4.1

The local bending stress of stiffeners with effective plate flange between transverse supports (e.g. frames,

bulkheads) may be approximated by

M m EI

2 A = K g bending K n K g bending 2 r

Zs l Zs

where

Kn = stress concentration factor for un-symmetrical stiffeners on laterally loaded panels

M = moment at stiffener support adjusted to hot spot position at the stiffener (e.g. at bracket toe)

ps l 2

= rp

12

p = lateral dynamic pressure

= pe for dynamic sea pressure

= pi for internal dynamic pressure

s = stiffener spacing

l = effective span of longitudinal/stiffener as shown in Figure 5-1

Zs = section modulus of longitudinal/stiffener with associated effective plate flange. For definition

of effective flanges, see [5.4.3]

I = moment of inertia of longitudinal/stiffener with associated effective plate flange.

m = moment factor due to relative deflection between transverse supports. For designs where all the

frames obtain the same deflection relative to the transverse bulkhead, e.g. where no stringers or

girders supporting the frames adjacent to the bulkhead exist, m may be taken as 4.4 at the bulk-

head. At termination of stiff partial stringers or girders, m may be taken as 4.4.

When the different deflections of each frame are known from a frame and girder analysis, m

should be calculated due to the actual deflections at the frames by using a beam model or a

stress concentration model of the longitudinal. A beam model of a longitudinal covering +

cargo hold length is shown in Figure 5-3. Normally, representative m may be calculated for

side and bottom, using one load condition, according to

M l 2

m =

i EI

where

M is the calculated bending moment at the bulkhead due to the prescribed deflection at the

frames, 1, 2 n. i is the relative support deflection of the longitudinal at the nearest frame

relative to the transverse bulkhead. The frame where the deflection for each longitudinal in each

load condition, , is to be taken, should be used.

= deformation of the nearest frame relative to the considered frame or bulkhead in the direction

of the local stiffener z-direction (see Figure 5-4)

rd rp = moment interpolation factors for interpolation to hot spot position along the stiffener length, see

Figure 5-2.

r = 1 2 x ; 0 x l

l

2

rp = 6 x 6 x + 1.0 ; 0 x l

l l

where

x = distance to hot spot, see Figure 5-2.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

For stiffener bending stress due to local pressures the following sign convention applies:

positive for pressures acting on the stiffener side of the panel (tension stress at hot spot)

negative for pressures acting on the plate side of the panel (compression stress at hot spot).

For stress due to relative deflections the sign convention is:

positive if the displacement (in local stiffener z-direction) at the adjacent frame is less than the

displacement at the considered frame or bulkhead (tension stress at hot spot)

negative if the displacement (in local stiffener z-direction) at the adjacent frame is larger than the displacement

at the considered frame or bulkhead (compression stress at hot spot).

l

h/2 h/2

h

x x

l

h/2 h/2

x x

b b

Figure 5-1

Definition of effective span lengths

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Figure 5-2

Stresses in stiffener

Figure 5-3

Beam element model of longitudinal through 6 frame spacings

5.4.2

It is of great importance for a reliable fatigue assessment that bending stresses in longitudinals caused by

relative deformation between supports are not underestimated. The appropriate value of relative deformation

has to be determined in each particular case, e.g. by beam- or element analyses (Classification Note No. 31.1

and 31.3 show modelling examples).

5.4.3

Effective breadth of plate flanges of stiffeners (longitudinals) in bending (due to the shear lag effect) exposed

to uniform lateral load can be taken as

For bending at midspan:

l m l

sin ; for m 9

s e 6 s s

=

s l

1.0 ; for m 9

s

For bending at ends:

l e l

0.67 sin ; for e 3

se 6 s s

=

s l

0.67 ; for e 3

s

where

length of stiffener between zero moment inflection points (at midspan - uniformly loaded

lm = l 3 and clamped stiffener)

(

le = l 11 )

3 / 2 length of stiffener at ends, i.e. outside zero moment inflection points

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

z

bf

bg

tf

zf tw

hw

N.A.

zp tp

se

Figure 5-4

Stiffener geometry

5.5.1

Longitudinal local tertiary plate bending stress amplitude in the weld at the plate/transverse frame/bulkhead

intersection (plate short edge) is midway between the longitudinals given by

3 = 0.343 p (s t n )2 K

where

p = lateral pressure

= pe for dynamic sea pressure

= pi for internal dynamic pressure

s = stiffener spacing

tn = net plate thickness

Similarly, the transverse stress amplitude at stiffener mid-length (plate long edge) is

3T = 0.50 p (s t n )2 K

For local tertiary plate bending due to local pressures the following sign conventions applies:

Positive for pressure acting on the welded side of the plate (tension at hot spot)

Negative for pressure acting on the non-welded side of the plate (compression at hot spot).

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

6.1 General

6.1.1

This section outlines a simplified approach for calculation of dynamic loads. Formulas are given for calculation

of global wave bending moments, external sea pressure acting on the hull and internal pressure acting on the

tank boundaries based on the linear dynamic part of the loads as defined in the Rules /1/. The design loads as

defined in the Rules do also includes non-linear effects such as bow-flare and roll damping, and are not

necessarily identical with the dynamic loads presented herein.

6.1.2

Fatigue damage should in general be calculated for representative loading conditions accounting for the

expected operation time in each of the considered conditions using actual draughts, Tact, metacentric heights

GMact and roll radius of gyration, kr,act for each condition.

6.2.1

The vertical wave induced bending moments may be calculated using the bending moment amplitudes

specified in the Rules Pt. 3, Ch.1 /1/.

The moments, at 10-4 probability level of exceedance, may be taken as:

where

Mwo,h = wave hogging amplitude

Cw = wave coefficient

= 0.0792L L < 100 m

= 10.75 [(300 L ) 100] 32

100 m< L < 300 m

= 10.75 300 m < L < 350 m

= 10.75 [(L 350) 150] 32

350 m< L

kwm = moment distribution factor

= 1.0 between 0.40L and 0.65L from A.P., for ships with low/moderate speed

= 0.0 at A.P. and F.P. (linear interpolation between these values)

fr = factor to transform the load from 10-8 to 10-4 probability level

= 0.51 / h o

ho = long-term Weibull shape parameter

= 2.21 0.54 log(L)

L = Rule length of ship (m)

B = Greatest moulded breath of ship measured at the summer waterline (m)

CB = Block coefficient (actual load condition data may be used)

6.2.2

The horizontal wave bending moment amplitude at 10-4 probability level may be taken as follows (ref. Rules

Pt.3, Ch.1 /1/):

M H = 0.22f r L9 4 (Tact + 0.30B)C B (1 cos(2x / L )) (kNm)

where

x = distance from A.P. to section considered

L, B, CB, fr = as defined in [6.2.1]

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

6.3.1

Due to intermittent wet and dry surfaces, the range of the pressure is reduced above Tact- zwl, see Figure 6-1.

The dynamic external pressure amplitude (half pressure range), pe, related to the draught of the load condition

considered, may be taken as:

p e = rp p d (kN/m 2 )

where

The dynamic pressure amplitude may be taken as the largest of the combined pressure dominated by pitch motion

in head/quartering seas, pdp, or the combined pressure dominated by roll motion in beam/quartering seas, pdr as:

where

pl = k s C w + k f

V

= (k s C w + k f ) 0.8 + 0.15

V

if > 1.5

L L

2.5

ks = 3C B + at A.P. and aft

CB

= 3C B between 0.2L and 0.7L from A.P.

4.0

= 3C B + at F.P. and forward

CB

= maximum Tact (m)

y = horizontal distance from the centre line to the load point (m)

y = y, but minimum B/4 (m)

kf = the smallest of Tact and f

f = vertical distance from the waterline to the top of the ships side at transverse section considered (m)

= maximum 0.8Cw (m)

= maximum roll angle, simple amplitude (rad) as defined in [6.5.1]

V = vessel design speed in knots

rp = reduction of pressure amplitude in the surface zone

= 1.0 for z < Tact - zwl

Tact + z wl z

= for Tact - zwl < z < Tact + zwl

2z wl

= 0.0 for z > Tact + zwl

zwl = distance measured from actual water line (m). In the area of side shell above z = Tact + zwl it is as-

sumed that the external sea pressure will not contribute to fatigue damage

3 p dT

=

4 g

pdT = pd at z = Tact

= density of sea water

= 1.025 (t/m3)

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Figure 6-1

Reduced pressure range in the surface region

6.4.1

The dynamic pressure from liquid cargo or ballast water should be calculated based on the combined

accelerations related to a fixed co-ordinate system. The gravity components due to the motions of the vessel

should be included.

The dynamic internal pressure amplitude, pi in kN/m2, may be taken as the maximum pressure due to

acceleration of the internal mass:

p 1 = a v h s

p i = f a max p 2 = a t y s (kN/m 2 )

p = a x

3 l s

where

p2 = pressure due to transverse acceleration

p3 = pressure due to longitudinal acceleration

of ballast, bunkers or liquid cargo, normally not to be taken less than 1.025 (t/m3). When actual

= density

densities are lower, they can be used.

xs = longitudinal distance from centre of free surface of liquid in tank to pressure point considered (m)

transverse distance from centre of free surface of liquid in tank to the pressure point considered (m),

ys = see Figure 6-5

hs = vertical distance from point considered to surface inside the tank (m), see Figure 6-5

av = combined vertical acceleration (m/s2)

at = combined transverse acceleration (m/s2)

al = combined longitudinal acceleration (m/s2)

fa = factor to transform the load effect to probability level 10-4, when the accelerations are specified at the

-8

10 probability level.

= 0.5l/h

h = h0 + 0.05

= 2.26 - 0.54log10(L)

Note:

The factor fa is estimated for ships with a roll period TR < 14 sec., and may otherwise be less for roll induced pressures

and forces, see also [4.3].

---e-n-d---of---N-o-t-e---

For the upper part of bulkheads the pressure range due to horizontal acceleration may be reduced by a factor

rull within a distance zul below the tank top due to the effect of ullage as follows:

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

h s + z ull

rull = , max 1.0 for cargo oil tanks

2z ull

= 1.0 for ballast tanks

where

Note:

The above scaling of pressures, by use of the factor fa, is only valid for fatigue assessment and may be justified as the

dominating fatigue damage is caused mainly by moderate wave heights.

---e-n-d---of---N-o-t-e---

For bulk and ore cargoes, only p1 need to be considered. The appropriate density and pressure height should be

specially considered.

Figure 6-2

Distribution of pressure amplitudes for tankers in the fully loaded condition.

Figure 6-3

Distribution of pressure amplitudes for tankers in ballast condition

Figure 6-4

Distribution of pressure amplitudes for a bulk carrier in the ore loading condition.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

6.5.1

The formula for ship accelerations and motions given below are derived from the Rules, Ch.1. Pt.3, Sec.4, /1/

. The acceleration and motions are extreme values corresponding to a probability of occurrence of 10-8.

Combined accelerations:

= (

a y 2 + g 0 sin + a ry )2

al = combined longitudinal acceleration (m/s2)

= (

a x 2 + g 0 sin + a px )2

av = combined vertical acceleration (m/s2)

a 2 +a 2

= max

rz z

a pz 2 + a z 2

Acceleration components:

= 0.2ga 0 C B

= 0.3g a o

az = heave acceleration (m/s2)

= 0.7g a o CB

ao = acceleration constant

= 3C W L + C V V L

CV = L 50 max. 0.2

V = ship design speed (knots).

Roll motions:

= (2 TR )2 R RZ

arz = vertical component of roll acceleration (m/s2)

= (2 TR )2 R RY

RR = distance from the axis of rotation to centre of mass (m).

The distance is related to the roll axis of rotation that may be taken at zr (m) above the baseline, where

zr is the smaller of [ D / 4 + T / 2 ] and [ D / 2 ].

RRZ = vertical distance from axis of rotation to centre of tank/mass (m)

RRY = transverse distance from axis of rotation to centre of tank/mass (m)

TR = period of roll

= 2kr GM , maximum 30 (s)

In case the values of roll radius, kr, and metacentric height, GM, have not been calculated for the relevant

loading conditions, the following approximate values may be used:

kr = roll radius of gyration (m), kr in the Rules Pt.3 ch.1 sec.16 shall be used unless the calculated value

of kr is available

= 0.39 B for ships not specified or with even distribution of mass.

= 0.35 B for single skin tankers in ballast.

= 0.25 B for ships loaded with ore between longitudinal bulkheads.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

GM = metacentric height (m) in the Rules Pt.3 ch.1 sec.16 shall be used unless calculated value of GM is

available

= 0.05 B for container ships with B < 32.2m

= 0.08 B for container ships with B > 40.0m

With interpolation for B in between

= 0.07 B for other type of ships not mentioned

= maximum roll angle, single amplitude (rad)

= 50c (B + 75)

c = (1.25 0.025T )kR

k = 1.2 for ships without bilge keel

= 1.0 for ships with bilge keel

= 0.8 for ships with active roll damping facilities

Pitch motions:

= (2 TP )2 R P

apx = longitudinal component of pitch acceleration (m/s2)

= (2 TP )2 R PZ

apz = vertical component of pitch acceleration (m/s2)

= (2 TP )2 R PX

RP = distance from the axis of rotation to the tank centre (m)

The distance is related to the pitch axis of rotation that may be taken as 0.45L from A.P. at centreline,

zr above baseline, where zr is the smaller of [D / 4 + T / 2] and [D / 2].

RPZ = vertical distance from axis of rotation to centre of tank/mass (m)

RPX = longitudinal distance from axis of rotation to centre of tank/mass (m)

TP = period of pitch (s)

L

= 1.80

g

= maximum pitch angle (rad)

= 0.25 a o C B

Figure 6-5

Illustration of acceleration components

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Figure 6-6

Illustration of acceleration components and centre of mass for double hull tankers or bulk carriers with

connected top wing- and hopper/bottom ballast tanks

For similar tank filling conditions on both sides of a bulkhead, e.g. for a bulkhead between two cargo tanks, the

following apply;

a) the effect of vertical acceleration is cancelled and may be set to zero

b) the pressures due to motion are added for bulkheads normal to the direction (plane) of the motions.

The combined pressure on a bulkhead between two tanks, i and ii, may be calculated by adding the pressure

calculated independently for each tank:

pi = p2, tank i + p2, tank ii for longitudinal bulkheads between cargo tanks and,

pi = p3, tank i + p3, tank ii for transverse bulkheads between cargo tanks,

6.5.2

As a simplification, sloshing pressures may normally be neglected in fatigue computations. However, if

sloshing is to be considered, the sloshing pressures in partly filled tanks may be taken as given in the Rules Pt.3

Ch.1 Sec. 4, C306 /1/. The pressure amplitude is defined at the 10-4 probability level of exceedance. In case of

partly filled tanks on both sides of a bulkhead, the pressure range may be taken as the sum of the pressure

amplitudes in the two tanks. Otherwise the range may be taken equal to the amplitude.

Unless otherwise specified, it may be assumed that tanks (in tankers) are partly filled 10% of the vessels design

life.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

7.1 General

7.1.1

Spectral fatigue calculations are based on complex stress transfer functions established through direct wave

load analysis combined with stress response analyses. The stress transfer functions express the relation between

the wave heading and frequency and the stress response at a specific location and may be determined by either

component stochastic analysis

full stochastic analysis.

Component stochastic calculations may in general be employed for stiffeners and plating and other details with

a well defined principal stress direction mainly subjected to axial loading due to hull girder bending and local

bending due to lateral pressures. Full stochastic calculations can be applied to any kind of structure.

7.1.2

Spectral fatigue calculations imply that the simultaneous occurrence of the different load effect is preserved

through the calculations and the uncertainties are significantly reduced compared to simplified calculations.

The calculation procedure includes the following assumptions for calculation of fatigue damage:

wave climate is represented by scatter diagram

Rayleigh distribution applies for stresses within each short term condition (sea state)

cycle count is according to zero crossing period of short term stress response

linear cumulative summation of damage contributions from each sea state in the wave scatter diagram.

7.1.3

The spectral method assumes linear load effects and responses. The hydrodynamic loads should be calculated

using 3D potential theory as described in Sec.8.

Non-linear effects due to large amplitude motions and large waves can be neglected in the fatigue analysis since

the stress ranges at lower load levels (intermediate wave amplitudes) contribute relatively more to the

cumulative fatigue damage. In cases where linearization is required, e.g. in order to determine the roll damping

or intermittent wet and dry surfaces in the splash zone, the linearization should be performed at a load level

representative to stress ranges giving the largest contribution to the fatigue damage. In general a reference load

or stress range at 10-4 probability of exceedance should be used.

7.2 Cumulative damage

7.2.1

When the long term stress range distribution is defined through a short term Rayleigh distribution within each

short term sea state the fatigue damage for one-slope S-N curves is given by

all seastates

0 Td m N load all headings

D= (1 + ) pn rijn (2 2m0ijn ) m

a 2 n =1 i =1, j =1

where

vo = long-term average response zero-crossing-frequency

moij = zero spectral moment of stress response process

Expressions for fatigue damage applying bi-linear S-N curves are given in App.D.

7.3 Component stochastic analysis

The component stochastic fatigue calculation procedure is based on combination of load transfer functions

calculated by the wave load analysis program and stress response factors representing the stress per load ratio.

A flow diagram of the calculation procedure is given in Figure 7-1.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Hydrodynamic load

load calculations

calculations

Simplified calculations: Sec. 5

Direct calculations Sec. 8

Finite element analysis Sec. 9

Load Stress/

transfer load

functions ratios

component

7.3

Wave data

function

S-N data

7.3

7.2

Figure 7-1

Flow diagram for component stochastic fatigue calculations

7.3.1

The load transfer functions to be considered normally include:

vertical hull girder bending moment

horizontal hull girder bending moment

hull girder axial force

vessel motions in six degrees of freedom

external (panel) pressures.

Load transfer functions for internal cargo and ballast pressures due to accelerations in x-, y- and z-direction are

derived from the vessel motions:

H p _ ax ( ) = x s H ax ( )

H p _ ay ( ) = y s H ay ( )

H p _ az ( ) = z s H az ( )

where xs, ys and zs is the distance from the centre of free liquid surface to the load point in x-, y- and z-direction

defined by the coordinate of the free surface centre minus the coordinate of the load point.

The acceleration transfer functions are to be determined in the tank centre of gravity and include the gravity

component due to pitch and roll motions.

7.3.2

For each load transfer function the corresponding stress transfer function is determined as

H ,k ( ) = A k H k ( )

where

H k ( ) = Load transfer function for load component k

The combined stress response is determined by a linear complex summation of stress transfer functions

n

H ( ) = H ( )

, k

k =1

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

7.3.3

The following stress component factors may be relevant to determine the combined stress in stiffeners and

plating:

A1 =

Axial stress per unit vertical hull girder bending moment

A2 =

Axial stress per unit horizontal hull girder bending moment

A3 =

Axial stress per unit global axial force

A4 =

Bending stress per unit local external pressure

A5 =

Bending stress per unit local internal pressure (to be combined with accelerations in x-, y- and z-direction)

A6 =

Axial stress due to double hull bending per unit external pressure

A7 =

Axial stress due to double hull bending per unit internal pressure (to be combined with accelerations in

x-, y- and z-direction)

A8 = Bending stress due to relative deflection of stiffeners between web frames per unit external pressure

A9 = Bending stress due to relative deflection of stiffeners between web frames per unit internal pressure

(to be combined with accelerations in x-, y- and z-direction).

The stress factors Ak may be either positive or negative depending on the position in the structure, type of

loading and sign convention of sectional loads used in the wave load programme. As wrong sign will change

the phase of the transfer function by 180 degrees it is important to ensure that correct signs are used.

Depending on the detail to be investigated the stress per load ratio is either calculated directly by finite element

analyses or derived from the simplified formulas for nominal stress given in Sec.5 combined with stress

concentration factors as given in App.A.

7.3.4

In the surface region the transfer function for external pressures should be corrected by the rp factor as given

in Section [6.3] to account for intermittent wet and dry surfaces. The dynamic pressure at the mean waterline

at 10-4 probability of exceedance should be used to calculate zwl. Since panel pressures refers to the midpoint

of the panel an extrapolation using the values for the two panels closest to the waterline has to be carried out

to determine the dynamic pressure at the waterline.

Above the waterline the pressure should be stretched using the pressure transfer function for the panel pressure

at the waterline combined with the rp-factor.

7.3.5

Stress due to deformation of the main girder system, such as double hull bending and relative deflections, is a

result of the pressure distribution over the frame and girder system. Consequently the corresponding stress

component factors should be calculated using reference panels representative for the pressure distribution over

the hull section rather than the local pressure at the stiffener considered. In general a panel at B/4 from the

Centreline (CL) may be used as reference panel for bottom structures and a panel at 2/3 of the draught may be

used for side structures.

Relative deflections and double hull stresses may be calculated based on a cargo hold analysis applying the

direct calculated long term pressure loads at 10-4 probability of exceedance, see [9.4].

7.4.1

In the full stochastic analysis hydrodynamic loads are directly transferred from the wave load analysis program

to finite element models. Hydrodynamic loads include panel pressures, internal tank pressures and inertia

forces due to rigid body accelerations.

The analysis is normally based on a global finite element model of the vessel combined with local stress

concentration models run as sub models to the global model. As an alternative to the global model a cargo hold

model (typically 3-4 cargo holds) can be used transferring sectional loads calculated by the wave load program

to the forward and aft end of the model.

All load effects are preserved through the calculations and hence the method is suitable for fatigue calculations

of details with complex stress pattern. Typical examples are panel knuckles, bracket terminations of the main

girder system, larger openings and hatch corners.

A flow diagram of the calculation procedure is shown in Figure 7-2.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

7.4.2

By direct load transfer the stress response transfer functions are implicitly described by the FE analysis results.

All wave headings from 0 to 360 degrees with an increment of maximum 30 degrees should be included. For

each wave heading 20-25 wave frequencies are normally included to properly describe the shape of the transfer

functions.

Hydrodynamic load

calculations

Direct calculations Sec. 8

Load

transfer

functions

Global FE analyis

Sec.9

Boundary

displacements

Local FE analysis

Sec. 9

Hot spot

Wave data

stress transfer

S-N data

functions

7.2

Figure 7-2

Flow diagram for full stochastic fatigue calculations

7.4.3

A prerequisite for correct load transfer from the hydrodynamic program is there is sufficient compatibility

between the hydrodynamic and the global model:

the total mass and mass distribution is similar

the total buoyancy and buoyancy distribution is similar.

Similar mass properties are ensured using the structural model as mass model in the hydrodynamic analysis.

Having performed the load transfer the final load equilibrium is to be checked by comparing transfer functions

and longitudinal distribution of bending moment and shear forces for different wave headings. Unbalanced

forces will disturb the global response, and the final check is critical for the reliability of the results.

7.4.4

Local models are used as sub models to the global analysis and the displacements from the global analysis are

automatically transferred to the local model as boundary displacements. In addition the local internal and

external pressure loads and inertia loads are transferred from the wave load analysis.

From the local stress concentration models local geometric stress transfer functions at hot spots are determined

using element sizes in the order of the plate thickness to pick up the geometric stress increase, see Sec.10.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

8.1 General

8.1.1

This section gives a brief description of the necessary steps in a direct load analysis for fatigue assessment. To

take the full advantage of direct wave load calculations it should be combined with the spectral fatigue

calculation methods as described in Sec.7 which implies that the simultaneous load occurrence is preserved

through the calculations.

8.1.2

Long term loads based on direct calculations may also substitute the simplified load components as defined in

Sec.5. As this option involves simplified formulas for combination of the different load effects and estimates

of the Weibull shape parameter and number of stress cycles for the combined load effect, the uncertainties in

the calculations are larger than in the spectral analysis options.

8.2 Hydrodynamic modelling

8.2.1

A linear modelling of the ship response is in general sufficient for fatigue assessment purposes. The response

is then described by a superposition of the response of all regular wave components that make up the irregular

sea, leading to a frequency domain analysis. The resulting response may be established as a summation over

all contributing dynamic loads/load effects. The linear frequency domain results should normally be applied

without any corrections for large wave effects as most of the fatigue damage is related to moderate wave

heights. A vessel speed set to 2/3 of the service speed in full load and ballast condition should be applied in the

modelling.

The length of the model should at least extend over Lpp. The mass model should reflect the steel weight

distribution and the distribution of cargo both in vertical, longitudinal and transverse directions.

8.2.2

In the evaluation of the ship response due to external wave induced loading, the effect of wave diffraction and

radiation should be accounted for.

8.3 Transfer functions

8.3.1

Transfer function values must be determined for a sufficient number of frequencies and headings. All wave

headings from 0 to 360 degrees with an increment of maximum 30 degrees should be included. For each wave

heading 20-25 wave frequencies are normally included to properly describe the shape of the transfer functions.

8.3.2

The transfer function (frequency response function) H(,), representing the response to a sinusoidal wave

with unit amplitude for different frequencies and wave heading directions , can be obtained applying linear

potential theory and the equation of motions of the ship.

8.3.3

The vertical bending moment may be estimated by making a hydrodynamic model of a vessel including mass

distribution data and by running a wave load program that determines the response for a set of wave frequencies

and heading directions. The vertical bending moment transfer function is computed as the vertical bending

moment Mv(,) per unit wave amplitude (H/2).

M v ( )

H v ( ) =

H 2

8.3.4

The horizontal bending moment transfer function, Hh(,), is to be determined similarly to the vertical bending

moment transfer function with consistent phase relations.

8.3.5

The external pressures are to be determined similarly to the vertical bending moment with consistent phase

relations. In the waterline region, a reduction of the pressure range applies due to intermittent wet or dry

surfaces /10/.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

8.3.6

The internal tank pressures may be obtained by combining the accelerations described in Section [6.4],

substituting the given acceleration estimates with those obtained from computations with combined transfer

functions for motions and accelerations relative to the ship axis system.

8.3.7

A consistent representation of phase and amplitude for the transfer functions are required in order to achieve a

correct modelling of the combined local stress response.

8.4 The long-term distribution

8.4.1

The long-term distribution of loads for fatigue analyses may be estimated using the wave climate, represented

by the distribution of Hs and Tz, as described in Figure 8-2, representing the North Atlantic (Marsden squares

8, 9, 15 and 16 /13/), or Figure 8-3 for world wide operation. As a guidance to the choice between these data

sets one should consider the average wave environment the vessel is expected to encounter during its design

life. The world wide sailing routes will therefore normally apply. For shuttle tankers and vessels that will sail

frequently on the North Atlantic, or in other harsh environments, the wave data given in Figure 8-2 should be

applied, if not otherwise specified.

The scatter diagrams are equal for all wave directions and specified at class midpoint values.

8.4.2

The environmental wave spectrum for the different sea states can be defined applying the Pierson Moskowitz

wave spectrum,

H2z 2 5 1 2 4

4 4

S ( Hz , Tz ) = exp

4 Tz T

z

8.4.3

The response spectrum of the ship based on the linear model is directly given by the wave spectrum, when the

relation between unit wave height and response, the transfer function H ( ), is established as

S ( H z , Tz , ) = H ( ) S ( H z , Tz )

2

8.4.4

The spectral moments of order n of the response process for a given heading may described as:

m n = n S ( H z , Tz , )d

+ 90o

mn = f ( ) s

n

S ( H s , Tz , )d

90

o

+90o

using a spreading function f () = k cos n () , where k is selected such that f () =1, and normally applying n = 2.

90o

8.4.5

The load response for ship structures can be assumed to be Rayleigh distributed within each short term

condition. The stress range distribution for a given sea state i and heading direction j is then,

2

Fij ( ) = 1 exp

8m 0ij

where mo is the spectral moment of order zero.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

8.4.6

In order to establish the long-term load distribution, the cumulative distribution may be estimated by a weighted

sum over all sea states and heading directions. The long-term load distribution is then calculated from

all seastates

all headings

F ( ) = r ij Fij ( ) p ij

i =1

J =1

where:

v ij

rij = is the ratio between the response crossing rates in a given sea state and the average crossing rate.

v0

1 m 2ij

v ij = is the response zero-crossing rate in sea state i and heading j.

2 m 0ij

8.4.7

A Weibull distribution is found to describe the long-term load distribution well, having shape parameter h and

scale parameters q. The Weibull distribution is described as:

h

F ( ) = 1 exp

q

The fitting of the Weibull distribution to the sum of Rayleigh distributions in [8.4.6] should preferably be based

on a least square technique for a number of probability levels of exceedance. With Weibull shape parameters

in the range 0.8 -1.0 the main contribution to the cumulative fatigue damage comes from the smaller waves,

see Figure 8-1, and the distribution should be fitted at probability levels 10-2, 10-3 and 10-4. The long term stress

range should be based on reference loads at a 10-4 probability of exceedance

If the highest stress range out of 108 stress cycles is used to describe the long-term stress range distributions,

the calculated fatigue damage is very sensitive to the estimate of the Weibull shape parameter h.

Figure 8-1

Contribution to fatigue damage from different stress blocks

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Tz(s) 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 Sum

Hs (m)

0.5 1.3 133.7 865.6 1 186.0 634.2 186.3 36.9 5.6 0.7 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 050

1.5 0 29.3 986.0 4 976.0 7 738.0 5 569.7 2 375.7 703.5 160.7 30.5 5.1 0.8 0.1 0 0 0 22 575

2.5 0 2.2 197.5 2 158.8 6 230.0 7 449.5 4 860.4 2 066.0 644.5 160.2 33.7 6.3 1.1 0.2 0 0 23 810

3.5 0 0.2 34.9 695.5 3 226.5 5 675.0 5 099.1 2 838.0 1 114.4 337.7 84.3 18.2 3.5 0.6 0.1 0 19 128

4.5 0 0 6.0 196.1 1 354.3 3 288.5 3 857.5 2 685.5 1 275.2 455.1 130.9 31.9 6.9 1.3 0.2 0 13 289

5.5 0 0 1.0 51.0 498.4 1 602.9 2 372.7 2 008.3 1 126.0 463.6 150.9 41.0 9.7 2.1 0.4 0.1 8 328

6.5 0 0 0.2 12.6 167.0 690.3 1 257.9 1 268.6 825.9 386.8 140.8 42.2 10.9 2.5 0.5 0.1 4 806

7.5 0 0 0 3.0 52.1 270.1 594.4 703.2 524.9 276.7 111.7 36.7 10.2 2.5 0.6 0.1 2 586

8.5 0 0 0 0.7 15.4 97.9 255.9 350.6 296.9 174.6 77.6 27.7 8.4 2.2 0.5 0.1 1 309

9.5 0 0 0 0.2 4.3 33.2 101.9 159.9 152.2 99.2 48.3 18.7 6.1 1.7 0.4 0.1 626

10.5 0 0 0 0 1.2 10.7 37.9 67.5 71.7 51.5 27.3 11.4 4.0 1.2 0.3 0.1 285

11.5 0 0 0 0 0.3 3.3 13.3 26.6 31.4 24.7 14.2 6.4 2.4 0.7 0.2 0.1 124

12.5 0 0 0 0 0.1 1.0 4.4 9.9 12.8 11.0 6.8 3.3 1.3 0.4 0.1 0 51

13.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 1.4 3.5 5.0 4.6 3.1 1.6 0.7 0.2 0.1 0 21

14.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.4 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.3 0.7 0.3 0.1 0 0 8

15.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0 0 3

16.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 1

Sum 1 165 2 091 9 280 19 922 24 879 20 870 12 898 6 245 2 479 837 247 66 16 3 1 100 000

Figure 8-2

Scatter diagram for North Atlantic

Tz(s) 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 Sum

Hs (m)

1.0 311 2 734 6 402 7 132 5 071 2 711 1 202 470 169 57 19 6 2 1 0 26 287

2.0 20 764 4 453 8 841 9 045 6 020 3 000 1 225 435 140 42 12 3 1 0 34 001

3.0 0 57 902 3 474 5 549 4 973 3 004 1 377 518 169 50 14 4 1 0 20 092

4.0 0 4 150 1 007 2 401 2 881 2 156 1 154 485 171 53 15 4 1 0 10 482

5.0 0 0 25 258 859 1 338 1 230 776 372 146 49 15 4 1 0 5 073

6.0 0 0 4 63 277 540 597 440 240 105 39 13 4 1 0 2 323

7.0 0 0 1 15 84 198 258 219 136 66 27 10 3 1 0 1 018

8.0 0 0 0 4 25 69 103 99 69 37 17 6 2 1 0 432

9.0 0 0 0 1 7 23 39 42 32 19 9 4 1 1 0 178

10.0 0 0 0 0 2 7 14 16 14 9 5 2 1 0 0 70

11.0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 6 6 4 2 1 1 0 0 28

12.0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 11

13.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4

14.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Sum 331 3 559 11 937 20 795 23 321 18 763 11 611 5 827 2 480 926 313 99 29 9 0 100 000

Figure 8-3

Scatter diagram for world wide trade

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

9.1 Finite element models

9.1.1

The main aim of applying a finite element model in the fatigue analysis is to obtain a more accurate assessment

of the stress response in the hull structure. Several types or levels of Finite Element models are to be used in

the analyses. Most commonly, five levels of finite element models are referred to:

1) Global stiffness model. A relatively coarse mesh is to be used to represent the overall stiffness and global

stress distribution of the primary members of the hull. Typical models are shown in Figure 9-2 and Figure

9-3.

2) Cargo hold model. The model is used to analyse the deformation response and nominal stresses of the

primary members of the midship area. The model will normally cover +1+ cargo hold length in the

midship region. Typical models are shown in Figure 9-4 and Figure 9-5.

3) Frame and girder models are to be used to analyse stresses in the main framing/girder system. The element

mesh is to be fine enough to describe stress increase in critical areas (such as bracket with continuous

flange). Typical models are:

web frame at mid-tank and at the transverse bulkhead in the midship area and in the forebody,

Figure 9-6 a

transverse bulkhead stringers with longitudinal connection, Figure 9-6 b

longitudinal double bottom girders and side stringers.

4) Local structure models are used to analyse stresses in stiffeners subjected to large relative deformation.

Areas which normally are considered are:

side, bottom and inner bottom longitudinals at the intersection to transverse bulkheads, Figure 9-7

vertical stiffeners at transverse bulkhead, Figure 9-7

horizontal longitudinals on longitudinal bulkheads at the connection to horizontal stringer levels at the

transverse bulkheads, Figure 9-6 b.

5) Stress concentration models are used for fully stochastic fatigue analyses and for simplified fatigue

analyses for details were the geometrical stress concentration is unknown. Typical details to be considered

are:

panel knuckles

bracket and flange terminations of main girder system.

9.1.2

All FE models are to be based on reduced scantlings, i.e. corrosion additions tk, are to be deducted as given in

the Rules /1/.

9.1.3

Effects from all stress raisers that are not implicitly included in fatigue test data and corresponding S-N curves

must be taken into account in the stress analysis. In order to correctly determine the stresses to be used in fatigue

analyses, it is important to note the definition of the different stress categories:

Nominal stresses are those derived from beam element models or from coarse mesh FEM models of level

2 and level 3 as defined above. Stress concentrations resulting from the gross shape of the structure, e.g.

shear lag effects, are included in the nominal stresses derived from coarse mesh FEM models

Geometric stresses include nominal stresses and stresses due to structural discontinuities and presence of

attachments, but excluding stresses due to presence of welds. Stresses derived from fine mesh FEM models

(level 5) are geometric stresses. Effects caused by fabrication imperfections as e.g. misalignment of

structural parts, are however normally not included in FEM analyses, and must be separately accounted for.

The greatest value of the extrapolation to the weld toe of the geometric stress distribution immediately

outside the region effected by the geometry of the weld, is commonly denoted hot spot stress.

Notch stress is the total stress at the weld toe (hot spot location) and includes the geometric stress and the

stress due to the presence of the weld.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Figure 9-1

Definition of stress categories

9.1.4

In general the various mesh models have to be compatible meaning that the coarser models are to have

meshes producing deformations and/or forces applicable as boundary conditions for the finer mesh models. If

super-element techniques are available, the model for local stress analysis may be applied as lower level super-

elements in the global model.

9.1.5

Fine mesh models may be solved separately by transferring boundary deformations/ boundary forces and local

internal loads to the local model. This load transfer can be done either manually or, if sub-modelling facilities

are available, automatically by the computer programme. The finer mesh models are usually referred to as sub-

models. The advantage of a sub-model or an independent local model is that the analysis is carried out

separately on the local model. In this way less computer recourses are necessary and a controlled step by step

analysis procedure can be carried out.

9.1.6

Refined mesh models, when subjected to boundary forces or forced deformation from the coarser models, shall

be checked to give comparable deformations and/or boundary forces as obtained from the coarse mesh model.

Furthermore, it is important that the extent of the fine mesh model is sufficiently large to prevent that boundary

effects due to prescribed forces and/or deformations on the model boundary affects the stress response in the

areas of particular interest.

9.2.1

For simplified fatigue calculations internal and external pressure loads calculated according to Sec.6 are to be

applied. Alternatively direct calculated loads at 10-4 probability of exceedance may be used, see Sec.8. For each

vessel loading condition the following discrete load cases are normally to be considered:

internal dynamic pressure

static internal and external pressure.

The static loads are included to calculate the mean stress correction factor, see Section [2.3]. Global hull girder

loads may be applied as end moment or sectional forces as described in App.D.

9.2.2

For spectral fatigue calculations loads are directly transferred from the wave load program to the finite element

models. In this case FE model has to be compatible with the mass and panel model used in the wave load

analysis. This means the vessels buoyancy (hull shape) and mass distribution has to be similar. Unbalanced

forces will disturb the hull girder shear force and bending moment distribution, and equilibrium in applied loads

should be verified by calculating and comparing hull girder shear forces and bending moments along the hull

girder.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

9.3.1

The purpose of the global hull analysis is to obtain a reliable description of the overall stiffness and global stress

distribution in the primary members in the hull. The following effects should be taken into account:

vertical shear distribution between ship side and bulkheads

horizontal hull girder bending including shear lag effects

torsion of the hull girder (if open hull type)

transverse bending and shear.

9.3.2

The extent of the model is dependent on the type of response to be considered and the structural arrangement

of the hull. In cases where the response within the region considered is dependent on the stiffness variation of

the hull over a certain length, the finite element model is generally required to extend over minimum the same

length of the hull. Thus for determination of the torsional response as well as the horizontal bending response

of the hull of an open type ship it is generally required that the model extent covers the complete hull length,

depth and breadth. A complete finite element model may also be necessary for the evaluation of the vertical

hull girder bending of ships with a complex arrangement of superstructures (e.g. passenger ships), and for ships

of complex cross-section (e.g. catamarans). For car carriers and Ro-Ro ships, the transverse deformation- and

stress response due to rolling may also require a model extending over the complete vessel length.

9.3.3

The global analysis may be carried out with a relatively coarse mesh. Stiffened panels may be modelled by

means of anisotropic elements. Alternatively, a combination of plate elements and beam elements, may be

used. It is important to have a good representation of the overall membrane panel stiffness in the longitudinal/

transverse directions and for shear.

Examples showing global finite element models for torsional analysis of a container vessel and global analysis

of an oil tanker are shown in Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3 respectively. The models may also be used to calculate

nominal global (longitudinal) stresses away from areas with stress concentrations. In areas where local stresses

in web frames, girders or other areas (as hatch corners) are to be considered (see Section [9.5]-[9.7]) fine mesh

areas may be modelled directly into the coarser model using suitable element transitions meshes to come down

from coarse meshes to finer meshes. This approach leads to a fairly large set of equations to be solved

simultaneously. An example of this is the container vessel shown in Figure 9-2 where the six hatch corner

models initially were put directly into the global model and analysed together in order to determine hot-spot

stresses in the hatch corners.

Figure 9-2

Global hull model of container vessel

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Figure 9-3

Global hull model of shuttle tanker

9.3.4

For the purpose of calculating the stress due to hull girder bending moments by direct global finite element

analyses, simplified loads may be obtained from App.D.

9.4.1

The cargo hold/tank analysis is used to analyse deformation response and nominal stresses of the primary hull

structural members in the midship area. This model also provides boundary conditions for frame and girder

analysis models.

9.4.2

Cargo hold model. The finite element model is normally to cover the considered tank/hold, and in addition one

half tank/hold outside each end of the considered tank/hold, i.e. the model extent is + 1 + hold or tank. If

there is symmetry in structure and loading, a model covering the half breadth of the ship may be used. If there

is a symmetry plane at the half-length of the considered tank/hold, the extent of the model may be taken as one

half tank/hold on each side of the transverse bulkhead. Figure 9-4 and Figure 9-5 shows typical cargo hold

midship models for a tanker and a container vessel respectively.

Note:

For ships which give rise to warping response, a coarse mesh finite element model of the entire ship hull length may

be required for torsional response calculations.

---e-n-d---of---N-o-t-e---

Figure 9-4

Cargo hold models of shuttle tanker (midship area)

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

9.4.3

Load application. Two alternative ways of applying the loads are described in [9.2]. In both cases lateral loads

from sea pressure, cargo etc. are to be applied along the model. The longitudinal hull girder loads, however,

have to be treated differently.

a) Simplified loads:

Hull girder loads, moments and shear forces, are to be applied to the ends of the model and analysed as

separate load conditions. The shear forces are to be distributed in the cross-sections according to a shear

flow analysis. Then, the hull girder response and the response from the lateral load distribution can be

combined as outlined in section [4.6]. Using this option, vertical load balance for the lateral load case will

not be achieved and it will be important to use boundary conditions that minimise the effects of the

unbalance.

b) Loads by direct load computations:

A consistent set of lateral loads along the model and hull girder loads at the model ends can be applied

simultaneously to the model. This will automatically take care of the load combination issue, as loads based

on direct hydrodynamic analysis will be simultaneously acting loads. In this case the combined set of loads

will approach a balance (equilibrium) such that a minimum of reaction forces at the supports should be

present. In any case the boundary conditions should be arranged such as to minimise the effects of possible

unbalances. The loads and boundary conditions in the hull cross section at each end of the model should be

evaluated carefully when modelling only a part of the hull in order to avoid unrealistic stiffness from the

forebody/aftbody.

9.4.4

Boundary conditions are closely related to how the loads are being applied to the FEM model. If the model

covers one half breadth of the vessel, symmetry conditions are to be applied in the centreline plane.

In order to cover the lateral load response associated with case a) simplified load application above, the

model is to be supported vertically by distributed springs at the intersections of the transverse bulkheads with

ship sides and the longitudinal bulkheads. The spring constants are to be calculated for the longitudinal

bulkheads and the ship sides based on actual bending and shear stiffness and for a model length of three cargo

holds. In addition, symmetry conditions at the model ends are to be applied. In this way no hull girder loads

enter into the model. To account for the hull girder loads cases (moments and shear) the symmetry conditions

at the ends have to be removed and the loads applied at the ends as described above applying the loads one at

the time as separate load cases.

In cases where reduced models spanning hold on each side of the transverse bulkhead is used the model can

be fixed along the intersection between ship sides and transverse bulkheads.

To cater for case b) loads by direct computations the same spring system as in case a) can be applied, but all

load components (lateral, moment and shear) are to be applied as a consistent set of simultaneously acting loads

as produced by the hydrodynamic analysis.

Figure 9-5

Cargo hold model of container vessel

9.4.5

Finite element mesh. The mesh fineness of the cargo hold/tank analysis is to be decided based on the method

of load application and type of elements used.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

The element mesh of the cargo hold/tank model shall represent the deformation response and be fine enough

to enable analysis of nominal stress variations in the main framing/girder system. The following may be

considered as guidance:

A minimum of 3 elements (4-noded shell/ membrane elements) over the web height will be necessary in

areas where stresses are to be derived. With 8-noded elements, 2 elements over the web/girder height will

normally be sufficient. Figure 9-4 illustrates these two alternatives for possible mesh subdivisions in a

double skin tanker. An additional example for the cellular cargo area of a container vessel is shown in

Figure 9-5 using 4-noded shell elements.

For the tanker model shown in Figure 9-4 a, the general element length is equal to the web frame spacing.

This implies that the effective flange/shear lag effect of the plate flanges (transverse web frames) will not

be properly represented in this model, and that the mesh is not suitable for representation of stresses in way

of stress concentrations as knuckles and bracket terminations.

The mean girder web thickness in way of cut-outs may generally be taken as follows;

t

w h

hco

l co

h h co

t mean = tw

hrco

where

t w = web thickness

2

l co

rco = 1 +

2.6(h h co )2

hco height of cut-out

h = girder web height

For large values of rco ( > 2.0 ), geometric modelling of the cut-out is advisable.

9.5 Frame and girder models

9.5.1

Frame and girder models shall be capable of analysing deformations as well as stresses in the framing/girder

system. Typical results derived will be membrane stresses caused by bending, shear and torsion for example in

a double skin construction.

9.5.2

This model may be included in the cargo hold/tank analysis model, or run separately with prescribed boundary

deformations/forces. However, provided sufficient computer capacity is available, it will in most cases be

convenient to combine the two analyses into one model. The mesh density of the frame and girder model may

then be used for the full extension of the cargo hold/tank FE model. Examples of such models are given in

Figure 9-4 b and Figure 9-5.

9.5.3

Finite element mesh. The element mesh should be fine enough to describe stress increase in critical areas (such

as brackets with continuous flange). Typical local frame/girder models are given in Figure 9-6. The following

may be considered as guidance:

Normally element sizes equal to the stiffener spacing will be acceptable.

In the longitudinal direction 3 elements between transverse frames is recommended for 4-noded elements.

For 8-noded elements 2 elements is considered acceptable.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

A minimum of 3 elements (4-noded shell/ membrane elements) over the web and girder heights will be

necessary in areas where stresses are to be derived, see for example Figure 9-4 b showing the framing

system in a double skin tanker with 4-noded elements. With 8-noded elements, 2 elements over the web/

girder height will normally be sufficient, Figure 9-4 a.

If cut-outs are not modelled, the mean girder web thickness in way of cut-outs may generally be taken as

in Section [9.4.5] above.

To the extent that reduced effectivity of flanges, webs etc. are not represented by the element formulation

itself; the reduced effectivity may be defined by assigning reduced thickness of plate elements or cross-

sectional areas of area elements. Efficiency of girder and frame flanges may be calculated by formulae

given in Design Principles in the Rules /1/. However, care should be exercised in reducing thicknesses, as

the effective flange for bending is different from the effective flange for membrane response. It will

therefore not be possible to satisfy both conditions with the same model. Hence, an appropriately fine mesh

able to capture the shear lag effect of girders and the warping effect of unsymmetrical members is

recommended.

9.5.4

The model for analysis of frames and girders should be compatible with the cargo hold model if forced

deformations are applied. If a separate analysis of frames and girders is carried out without any finite element

calculation of the global stress response, the extent of the model, boundary conditions and load distribution

should be carefully evaluated in order to obtain an acceptable global support and stiffness for the frame/girder

model.

Similarly to the cargo hold model, the frame/girder model may be used for calculation of nominal stresses. For

the models shown in Figure 9-4, Figure 9-5 and Figure 9-6, the hot spot stresses at bracket toe terminations and

panel knuckles have to be calculated using additional K-factors (Kg).

Figure 9-6

Frame and girder models

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

9.6.1

The local structure analyses are used to analyse stresses in local areas. Stresses in laterally loaded local plates

and stiffeners subjected to large relative deformations between girders/frames and bulkheads may be necessary

to investigate along with stress increases in critical areas (such as brackets with continuous flanges). Local

structure models may also be used to determine the edge stress in way of critical hatch corner openings in, e.g.

container vessels. In such cases the mesh fineness (i.e. the element length along the critical edge) is not to be

larger than 0.2 R where R is the radius of curvature of the hatch corner. If 4-noded elements are used fictitious

bar elements are to be applied at the free edge in order to facilitate a precise and straight forward read-out of

the critical edge stress to be used in the fatigue analysis.

The model may be included in the 3-D cargo hold/tank analysis model of the frame and girder system, but may

also be run separately with prescribed boundary deformations/forces from the frame and girder model. Note

that local lateral pressure loads must be applied to the local model (if of relevance for the response).

9.6.2

Areas to model. As an example the following structures of a tanker are normally to be considered:

longitudinals in double bottom and adjoining vertical bulkhead members. See Figure 9-7, which shows a

model with 8-noded shell elements

deck longitudinals and adjoining vertical bulkhead members

double side longitudinals and adjoining horizontal bulkhead members.

Figure 9-7

Stiffener transition at transverse bulkhead

9.6.3

As a simplified approach local structure stiffener models may be modelled with beam elements in order to

establish a simple basis for nominal stress to be applied in conjunction with established stress concentration

factors as given in App.A. It should be noted, however, that the Kg factors are derived on the basis of nominal

stresses calculated according to the simplified stress analysis procedure in Sec.5 using effective span and plate

flanges.

9.6.4

Finite element mesh. Normally three (3) 8-noded elements are to be used over the height (web) of the stiffeners.

Corresponding element sizes are to be used for the stiffener flange and the plate, noting that the plate mesh

should be fine enough to pick up the shear lag effect. It is especially important to model unsymmetrical

stiffeners correctly in order to capture the skew bending effect. In a model like the one in Figure 9-7, the best

strategy will be to combine the local structure stiffener model with the mesh fineness as described here with a

stress concentration model (see Section [9.7]) in order to get a good description of the stress concentration in

the bracket as basis for fatigue analysis. In a stochastic fatigue analysis procedure this is the preferred way of

modelling.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

9.7.1

Local finite element analyses may be used for calculation of local geometric stresses at the hot spots and for

determination of associated K-factors. These analyses involve use of finite element mesh models of details such

as bracket connections, stiffener to web frame connections and panel knuckles.

The procedure on calculation of hot spot stress by finite element analysis is described in Sec.10.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

10.1 Stress field at a welded detail

10.1.1

Due to the nature of the stress field at a hot spot region there are questions on how to establish the hot spot

stress, see Figure 10-1. The notch effect due to the weld is included in the S-N curve and the hot spot stress is

derived by extrapolation of the structural stress to the hot spot. It is observed that the stress used as basis for

such an extrapolation should be outside that affected by the weld notch, but close enough to pick up the hot

spot stress.

Nominal stress

Fillet weld

Attachment plate

A A

Notch stress

Stress

Surface stress

t/2 3t/2

Hot spot stress

Bracket toe

Notch stress

Fillet weld

Membrane stress

View:A-A

Figure 10-1

Schematic stress distribution at hot spot

10.2 FE modelling

10.2.1

The following guidance is made to the computation of hot spot stresses with potential fatigue cracking from

the weld toe with local models using the finite element method.

Hot spot stresses are calculated assuming linear material behaviour and using an idealized structural model with

no fabrication-related misalignment. The extent of the local model has to be chosen such that effects due to the

boundaries on the structural detail considered are sufficiently small and reasonable boundary conditions can be

formulated.

10.2.2

In plate structures, three types of hot spots at weld toes can be identified as exemplified in Figure 10-2:

a) at the weld toe on the plate surface at an ending attachment

b) at the weld toe around the plate edge of an ending attachment

c) along the weld of an attached plate (weld toes on both the plate and attachment surface).

Models with thin plate or shell elements or alternatively with solid elements are normally used. It should be

noted that on the one hand the arrangement and type of elements have to allow for steep stress gradients as well

as for the formation of plate bending, and on the other hand, only the linear stress distribution in the plate

thickness direction needs to be evaluated with respect to the definition of hot spot stress.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

c

b

c

a

Figure 10-2

Different hot spot positions

10.2.3

The following methods of modelling are recommended.

The simplest way of modelling is offered by thin plate and shell elements which have to be arranged in the mid-

plane of the structural components, see also Figure 10-3.

8-node elements are recommended particularly in case of steep stress gradients. Care should be given to

possible stress underestimation especially at weld toes of type b) in Figure 10-2. Use of 4-node elements with

improved in-plane bending modes is a good alternative.

The welds are usually not modelled except for special cases where the results are affected by high local

bending, e. g. due to an offset between plates or due to a small free plate length between adjacent welds such

as at lug (or collar) plates. Here, the weld may be included by transverse plate elements having appropriate

stiffness or by introducing constrained equations for coupled node displacements. A thickness equal to 2 times

the thickness of the plates may be used for modelling of the welds by transverse plates.

For efficient read out of element stresses and hot spot stress derivation a mesh density in the order of t t where

t is the plate thickness is in general preferred at the hot spot region. For 8-node shell elements and 4-node shell

elements with additional internal degrees of freedom for improved in plane behaviour and a mesh size from t/

2 up to 2t may be used. For conventional 4-node element a mesh size from t/2 to t may be used. Larger mesh

sizes at the hot spot region may provide non-conservative results.

10.2.4

An alternative particularly for complex cases is offered by solid elements which need to have a displacement

function allowing steep stress gradients as well as plate bending with linear stress distribution in the plate

thickness direction. This is offered, e. g. by iso-parametric 20-node elements (with mid-side nodes at the edges)

which mean that only one element in plate thickness direction is required. An easy evaluation of the membrane

and bending stress components is then possible if a reduced integration order with only two integration points

in the thickness direction is chosen. A finer mesh sub-division is necessary particularly if 8-noded solid

elements are selected. Here, at least four elements are recommended in thickness direction. Modelling of the

welds is generally recommended and easily possible as shown in Figure 10-4.

For modelling with three dimensional elements the dimensions of the first two or three elements in front of the

weld toe should be chosen as follows. The element length may be selected to correspond to the plate thickness.

In the transverse direction, the plate thickness may be chosen again for the breadth of the plate elements.

However, the breadth should not exceed the attachment width, i.e. the thickness of the attached plate plus 2

the weld leg length (in case of type c: the thickness of the web plate behind plus 2 weld leg length). The length

of the elements should be limited to 2t.

In cases where three-dimensional elements are used for the FE modelling it is recommended that also the fillet

weld is modelled to achieve proper local stiffness and geometry.

In order to capture the properties of bulb sections with respect to St. Venant torsion it is recommended to use

several three-dimensional elements for modelling of a bulb section. If in addition the weld from stiffeners in

the transverse frames is modelled the requirements with respect to element shape will likely govern the FE

model at the hot spot region.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

10.3.1

Recommended stress evaluation points are located at distances t/2 and 3t/2 away from the hot spot, where t is

the plate thickness at the weld toe. These locations are also denoted as stress read out points.

Two alternative methods can be used for hot spot stress derivation.

For modelling with shell elements without any weld the following procedures can be used:

A linear extrapolation of the stresses to the intersection line from the read out points at t/2 and 3t/2 from

the intersection line. The principal stress at the hot spot is calculated from the extrapolated component

values (Principal stress within an angle 45o to the normal to the weld).

The hot spot stress is taken as the stress at the read out point t/2 away from the intersection line and

multiplied by 1.12.

For modelling with three-dimensional elements with the weld included the following procedures can be used:

A linear extrapolation of the stresses to the intersection line from the read out points at t/2 and 3t/2 from

the weld toe. The principal stress at the hot spot is calculated from the extrapolated component values

(Principal stress within an angle 45o to the normal to the weld).

The hot spot stress is taken as the stress at the read out point t/2 away from the weld toe and multiplied by

1.12.

The stress components on the plate surface should be evaluated along the paths shown in Figure 10-3 and

Figure 10-4 and extrapolated to the hot spot. The average stress components between adjacent elements are

used for the extrapolation.

An alternative procedure for deriving the hot spot stress is presented in App.J. The procedure is intended to

replace the above procedure on a voluntary basis.

Figure 10-3

Stress extrapolation in a three-dimensional FE model to the weld toe

Figure 10-4

Stress extrapolation in a three-dimensional FE model to the weld toe

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

10.4.1

The stress at the read out points is established as described in the following. Alternatively the nodal stresses

may be used provided that they are derived directly from the calculated element stresses within each element.

4-node shell elements t/2 element size t:

element surfaces stress at the centre points is used as illustrated in Figure 10-6 a)

the stress at the element centre points are extrapolated to the line A-A as shown in Figure 10-6 b) to

determine the stress at read out points

if the mesh density differ from txt, the stresses at the stress read out points are determined by interpolation

as shown in Figure 10-6 c).

8-node shell elements t/2 element size t:

element edge surface stress points can be used as stress read out points as illustrated in Figure 10-7 a) and b)

if the mesh density differ from txt, the stress at the stress read out points are determined by interpolation as

shown in Figure 10-7 b).

8-node shell elements t element size 2t:

element surface result point stress is used as illustrated in Figure 10-8 a)

the stress at the surface result points are extrapolated to the line A-A as shown in Figure 10-8 b)

the stress at the read out points are determined by 2nd order interpolation as shown in Figure 10-8 c).

Solid elements:

in case of solid elements the stress may first be extrapolated from the Gaussian points to the surface. Then

these stresses can be interpolated linearly to the surface centre or extrapolated to the edge of the elements

if this is the line for hot spot stress derivation to determine the stress read out points.

10.4.2

For meshes with 4-node shell elements larger than t t it is recommended to fit a second order polynomial to

the element stresses in the three first elements and derive stresses for extrapolation from the 0.5 t and 1.5 t

points. An example of this is shown schematically in Figure 10-5. This procedure may be used to establish

stress values at the 0.5 t and 1.5 t points.

10.4.3

For 8-node elements a second order polynomial may be fitted to the stress results at the mid-side nodes of the

three first elements and the stress at the read out points 0.5 t and 1.5 t can be derived.

stress

Second order polynomial

0 t 2t 3t 4t 5t 6t

Distance from hot spot

Figure 10-5

Derivation of hot spot stress for element size larger than t t

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

10.5.1

It is recommended to link the derived hot spot stress to the hot spot S-N curve for welded joints in 2-4.

a)

Section I-I:

(II-II and III-III similar)

curve for upper (or lower) surface

based on element centre point

stress values

b)

Section A-A:

(standard procedure)

Linear extrapolation to hot

spot based on 3t/2 and t/2

curve for upper (or lower) surface

based on I, II and III

HS I

t/2 II

3t/2 III

t/2

Hot Spot

3t/2

c)

Section A-A:

(web stiffened cruciform joint)

curve for upper (or lower) surface

based on I, II and III

I

HS II

III

Hot Spot

xshift

d)

Figure 10-6

Determination of stress read out points and hot spot stress for 4-node shell elements

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

a)

Section A-A:

(standard procedure)

Linear extrapolation to hot

spot based on 3t/2 and t/2

curve based on element edge

surface stress points

HS I

t/2 II

3t/2 III

Hot Spot

(element intersection t/2

lines) 3t/2

b)

Section A-A:

(web stiffened cruciform joint)

curve based on element edge

surface stress points

I

HS

III

Element intersection

xshift

lines Hot Spot

c)

Figure 10-7

Determination of stress read out points and hot spot stress for 8-node shell elements t/2 element size t

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

a)

Section I-I:

(II-II and III-III similar)

(or lower) surface based on element

surface stress point values

b)

Section A-A:

(standard procedure)

spot based on 3t/2 and t/2

upper (or lower) surface based on

HS I I, II and III

t/2

3t/2 II III

Hot Spot

(element intersection t/2

lines) 3t/2

c)

Section A-A:

(web stiffened cruciform joint)

upper (or lower) surface based on

I I, II and III

HS

II III

Hot Spot

lines

d)

Figure 10-8

Determination of stress read out points and hot spot stress for 8-node shell elements t element size 2t

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

10.6.1

At hot spots with significant plate bending one might derive an effective hot spot stress for fatigue assessment

based on the following equation:

e ,spot = a ,spot + 0.60 b ,spot

where

a,spot = membrane stress

b,spot = bending stress

The reduction factor on the bending stress can be explained by redistribution of loads to other areas during

crack growth while the crack tip is growing into a region with reduced stress. The effect is limited to areas with

a localised stress concentration, which occurs for example at a hopper corner. However, in a case where the

stress variation along the weld is small, the difference in fatigue life between axial loading and pure bending is

much smaller. Therefore it should be noted that it is not correct to generally reduce the bending part of the stress

to 60 percent. This has to be restricted to cases with a pronounced stress concentration (where the stress

distribution under fatigue crack development is more similar to a displacement controlled situation than that of

a load controlled development).

10.7 Procedure for analysis of web stiffened cruciform connections

10.7.1

A number of FE-analyses using models with three-dimensional elements and models with shell elements have

been performed of web stiffened cruciform joints such as typical found at hopper connections, at stringer heels

and at joints connecting deck structures to vertical members in ship structures using shell elements, ref. Figure

10-9. The weld leg length is a parameter that has been included in these analyses. Based on the result from these

analyses a methodology for derivation of hot spot stress at welded connections using shell finite element

models has been developed. For solid models the hot spot stress is to be derived according to Sections [10.3]

and [10.6].

It should be noted that the procedure described in the following is limited to the plate flange connection. Other

hot spots as indicated in Figure 10-9 are to be checked according to the procedure given in Sections [10.7.3].

The procedure described in the following does not apply to bent type hopper knuckles. The hotspot stress for

hopper knuckles of the bent type should be established by following the extrapolation procedure described in

section [10.3].

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Ho

pp

erp

la

te

Hot spot (cruciform)

Other Hot

spots

Side shell

T/Bhd

Hot

Hotspot

spot (cruciform)

L/Bhd

Other Hot

spots

Hot spot

(cruciform)

Deck

Other Hot

spots

Side shell

connection

(cruciform)

c) Connection between deck web frame and side web frame in vehicle carrier, 90o

Figure 10-9

Example of web stiffened cruciform joints

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

10.7.2

This procedure is described as follows:

It is assumed that the weld is not included in the shell finite element analysis. The procedure is calibrated such

that surface stress can be read out from read out points shifted away from the intersection line at a position of

the actual weld toe. The distance from the intersection line to the weld toe is obtained as

t1

x shift = + x wt

2

where

xwt = additional fillet weld leg length

The stress at the shift position is derived directly from the analysis (without any extrapolation of stresses). The

surface stress (including membrane and bending stress) is denoted surface (xshift). The membrane stress is

denoted membrane (xshift). The membrane and bending stress are denoted membrane (xshift) and bending (xshift)

respectively.

Then the hot spot stress is then derived as

(

hot spot = membrane ( x shift ) + bending ( x shift ) * 0.60 * )

where

bending ( x shift ) = surface ( x shift ) membrane ( x shift )

2

x x

= 1.07 0.15 wt + 0.22 wt

t1 t1

For 120 connections a correction factor is derived as

2

x wt x

= 1.09 0.16 + 0.36 wt

t1 t1

For 90 connections a correction factor is derived as

2

x x wt

= 1 . 20 + 0 . 04 wt + 0 . 30

t1 t1

The derived hot spot stress is to be entered the hot spot S-N curve for welded connections.

The analysis procedure is illustrated in Figure 10-10.

Figure 10-10

Illustration of procedure for derivation of hot spot stress using shell finite element model

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

10.7.3

Other hot spots located in way of the web as indicated in Figure 10-9 are to be checked according to the

following procedure:

The maximum principal surface stress along the curve segment defined by the distance xshift = t3/2 +xwt

(t3 = web thickness) from the hot spot, but not closer than t3/2 from the element intersection lines, is to be used

in the fatigue evaluation. This stress is to be combined with stress concentration factors from Table A-7, i.e.

Kg =1.05 to 1.41 depending on detail.

It should be noted that when considering the hot spot in Figure 10-9 denoted as hot spot (cruciform) and the

extrapolation is adjacent to the centre of the web plane (where the critical hot spot is located), the detail may

go from being a web stiffened cruciform joint to a simplified cruciform joint as represented by Table A-7. It is

then necessary to consider a sufficient transverse distance from the centre of the web plane to avoid hot spot

outside the centre of the plane to become worse than at the centre of the plane, since the former is combined

with the additional factors in Table A-7. This could be relevant when determining the grinding extent.

t3/2

xshift

t3

t3/2

Figure 10-11

Hot spots in way of web

10.8.1

It should be noted that the definition of the stress field through the plate thickness in Section [10.1] implies that

the described hot spot stress methodology is not directly recommended for simple cruciform joints, simple T-

joints in plated structures or simple butt joints that are welded from one side only. Analysing such connections

with for example shell elements would result in a hot spot stress equal the nominal stress. This is illustrated by

the shell model shown in Figure 10-13. For stresses in the direction normal to the shell (direction I) there will

be no stress flow into the transverse shell plating as it is represented only by one plane in the shell model.

However, it attracts stresses for in-plane (direction II) shown in Figure 10-13.

10.8.2

As the nominal stress S-N curve for direction I is lower than that of the hot spot stress S-N curve, it would be

non-conservative to use the hot spot concept for this connection for direction I while it would be acceptable for

direction II at position a. For direction I at position c the calculated stress from finite element analysis

should be multiplied by a correction factor Kg= 1.13 for derivation of a hot spot stress that is entered the hot

spot stress S-N curve for calculation of number of cycles to failure. It should also be noted that it is for these

joints (butt welds and cruciform joints) that fabrication tolerances are most important and need to be considered

in a fatigue assessment.

10.8.3

The described hot spot concept linked to the hot spot S-N curve is giving acceptable results as soon as there is

a bracket behind the transverse plate as shown in Figure 10-2 acting with its stiffness in the direction of I

(Figure 10-13).

Weld correction factors for other simple connections can be found from Table 2-1 and Appendix A of DNV-

RP-C203. A butt weld on a permanent backing without fillet welds is used as an example. From Appendix A

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

of DNV-RP-C203/7/ this detail is classified as F. From Table 2-1 of DNV-RP-C203 it is found that this detail

includes a stress concentration equal 1.27 relative to that of the hot spot stress S-N curve. This means that the

calculated stress from finite element analysis should be multiplied by a correction factor Kg = 1.27 for

derivation of a hot spot stress before it is entered the hot spot stress S-N curve.

10.9 Verification of analysis methodology

10.9.1

The analysis methodology may be verified based on finite element analysis of details with derived target hot

spot stress. Such details with target hot spot stress are shown in Commentary section in DNV-RP-C203 /7/.

Plate 2

t2

t1

Plate 1

Figure 10-12

Three dimensional model used for calibration of analysis procedure

c

a

II I

Figure 10-13

Illustration of difference to attract stresses normal to and in plane of a shell element model

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

11.1 General

It should be noted that improvement of the toe will not improve the fatigue life if fatigue cracking from the root

is the most likely failure mode. The considerations made in the following are for conditions where the root is

not considered to be a critical initiation point for fatigue cracks.

Reference is made to IIW Recommendations, on post weld improvement with respect to execution of the

improvement.

The benefit of weld improvement may be claimed only for welded joints which are adequately protected from

corrosion.

11.2 Weld toe grinding

Where local grinding of the weld toes below any visible undercuts is performed the fatigue life may be

increased by a factor given in Table 11-1. In addition the thickness effect may be reduced to an exponent k =

0.20. Reference is made to Figure 11-1. Grinding a weld toe tangentially to the plate surface, as at A, will

produce only little improvement in fatigue strength. To be efficient, grinding should extend below the plate

surface, as at B, in order to remove toe defects. Grinding is normally carried out by a rotary burr. For grinding

of weld toes it is recommended to use a rotary ball shaped burr with typical diameter of 12 mm.

The treatment should produce a smooth concave profile at the weld toe with the depth of the depression

penetrating into the plate surface to at least 0.5 mm below the bottom of any visible undercut (see Figure 11-

1). The grinding depth should not exceed 2 mm or 7% of the plate thickness, whichever is smaller.

In general grinding has been used as an efficient method for reliable fatigue life improvement after fabrication.

Grinding also improves the reliability of inspection after fabrication and during service life. However,

experience indicates that it may be a good design practice to exclude this factor at the design stage. The designer

is advised to improve the details locally by other means, or to reduce the stress range through design and keep

the possibility of fatigue life improvement as a reserve to allow for possible increase in fatigue loading during

the design and fabrication process.

It should also be noted that if grinding is required to achieve a specified fatigue life, the hot spot stress is rather

high. Due to grinding a larger fraction of the fatigue life is spent during the initiation of fatigue cracks, and the

crack grows faster after initiation. This implies use of shorter inspection intervals during service life in order

to detect the cracks before they become dangerous for the integrity of the structure.

be 0.5mm below bottom

of any visible undercut.

T A B

Figure 11-1

Grinding of welds

The fatigue life may be improved by TIG dressing by a factor given in Table 11-1.

Due to uncertainties regarding quality assurance of the welding process, this method may not be recommended

for general use at the design stage.

11.4 Hammer peening

The fatigue life may be improved by means of hammer peening by a factor given in Table 11-1.

However, the following limitations apply:

Hammer peening should only be used on members where failure will be without substantial consequences.

Overload in compression must be avoided, because the residual stress set up by hammer peening will be

destroyed.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

It is recommended to grind a steering groove by means of a rotary burr of a diameter suitable for the

hammer head to be used for the peening. The peening tip must be small enough to reach weld toe.

Due to uncertainties regarding quality assurance of the process, this method may not be recommendable for

general use at the design stage.

11.5 Improvement of fatigue life by different methods

Table 11-1 includes factors of different fatigue life improvement techniques related to the weld. For grinding,

full benefit may be used for offshore units. For ships full benefit of grinding is not found acceptable and of the

three techniques only grinding is considered relevant. Requirements and criteria for the application of weld

improvement methods to ship structures are given in the Rules Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.16 B /1/.

Improvement method Minimum specified yield strength Increase in fatigue life

(factor on life)

Less than 350 MPa 0.01fy 2), 4)

Grinding

Higher than 350 MPa 3.54)

Less than 350 MPa 0.01fy

TIG dressing5)

Higher than 350 MPa 3.5

Less than 350 MPa 0.011fy for constant amplitude loading

Hammer peening3), 5)

Higher than 350 MPa 4.0

1) The improvement factors on fatigue life listed in Table 11-1 are only valid for high cycle fatigue, i.e. for number of

cycles > 104.

2) fy = characteristic yield strength for the actual material.

3) The improvement effect is dependent on tool used and workmanship. Therefore, if the fabricator is without

experience with respect to hammer peening, it is recommended to perform fatigue testing of relevant detail (with and

without hammer peening) before a factor on improvement is decided

4) For ships grinding factors are defined in the Rules Pt. 3 Ch. 1 Sec. 16 B /1/

5) The technique are normally not accepted for ships

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

12 References

/1/ Det Norske Veritas AS, Rules for Classification of Ships, Part 3, Chapter 1, Hull Structural Design,

Ships with Length 100 Meters and above, Hvik, June 2011.

/2/ Det Norske Veritas AS, Rules for Classification of Ships, P.5, Ch.2, Passenger and Dry Cargo Ships,

Hvik, January 2014.

/3/ Det Norske Veritas AS, Rules for Classification of Ships, Pt.6, Ch.11, Hull Monitoring Systems, H-

vik, July 2011.

/4/ Det Norske Veritas AS, Classification Notes No. 31.1, Strength Analysis of Hull Structure in

Bulk Carriers, December 2012.

/5/ Det Norske Veritas AS, Classification Notes No. 31.3 Strength Analysis of Hull Structures in Tank-

ers, January 1999 - amended May 2005.

/6/ Det Norske Veritas AS, Classification Notes No. 34.2 PLUS - Extended fatigue analysis of ship de-

tails, June 2010.

/7/ Det Norske Veritas AS, Recommended practice DNV-RP-C203 Fatigue Design of Offshore

Steel Structures, October 2012.

/8/ IACS Common Structural Rules, CSR-H

/9/ Hovem, L., Loads and Load Combinations for Fatigue Calculations - Background for the Wave Load

Section for the DNVC Classification Note: Fatigue Assessment of Ships, DNVC Report No. 93-0314,

Hvik, 1993.

/10/ Cramer, E.H., Lseth, R. and Bitner-Gregersen, E.,. Fatigue in Side Shell Longitudinals due to External

Wave Pressure, Proceedings OMAE conference, Glasgow, June 1993.

/11/ Bergan, P. G., Lotsberg, I.: Advances in Fatigue Assessment of FPSOs. OMAE-FPSO'04-0012, Int.

Conf. Houston 2004.

/12/ Berge, S., Kihl, D., Lotsberg, I., Maherault, S., Mikkola, T. P. J., Nielsen, L. P., Paetzold, H., Shin, C.

H., Sun, H. H and Tomita, Y.: Special Task Committee VI.2 Fatigue Strength Assessment. 15th

ISSC, San Diego, 2003.

/13/ British Maritime Technology, BMT, (Primary Contributors Hogben, H., Da Cunha, L.F. and Olliver,

H.N), Global Wave Statistics, Unwin Brothers Limited, London, 1986.

/14/ Doerk, O., Fricke, W., Weissenborn, C. (2003), Comparison of Different Calculation Methods for

Structural Stresses at Welded Joints. Int. J. of Fatigue 25, pp. 359-369.

/15/ Fricke, W. (2001), Recommended Hot Spot Analysis Procedure for Structural Details of FPSOs and

Ships Based on Round-Robin FE Analyses. Proc. 11th ISOPE, Stavanger. Also Int. J. of Offshore and

Polar Engineering. Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2002.

/16/ Fricke, W., Doerk, O. and Gruenitz, L. (2004), Fatigue Strength Investigation and Assessment of Fil-

let-Welds around Toes of Stiffeners and Brackets. OMAE-FPSO'04-0010. Int. Conf. Houston.

/17/ Hobbacher, A. (1996), Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and Components. IIW. XIII-1539-96/ XV-

845-96.

/18/ Holtsmark, G. The Bending Response of Laterally Loaded Panels with Unsymmetrical Stiffeners,

DNVC Report No. 93-0152. Hvik, 1993.

/19/ Holtsmark, G., Eimhjellen, R. and Dalsj, P. The Elastic Bending Response of Panel Stiffeners of Un-

symmetrical Cross-section subjected to Uniform Lateral Pressure Loads. DNV Report No. 2004-1150.

September 2004.

/20/ Kim, W. S. and Lotsberg, I., Fatigue Test Data for Welded Connections in Ship Shaped Structures.

OMAE-FPSO'04-0018, Int. Conf. Houston 2004. Also Journal of Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Vol

127, Issue 4. November 2005, pp 359-365.

/21/ Kuo, J.-F., Lacey, P. B., Zettlemoyer, N. and MacMillan, A. (2001), Fatigue Methodology Specifica-

tion for New-Built FPSO. OMAE Paper no 3016, Rio de Janeiro.

/22/ Lotsberg, I., Cramer, E., Holtsmark, G., Lseth, R., Olaisen, K. and Valsgrd, S.: Fatigue Assessment

of Floating Production Vessels. BOSS97, July 1997.

/23/ Lotsberg, I., Nygrd, M. and Thomsen, T.: Fatigue of Ship Shaped Production and Storage Units. OTC

paper no 8775. Houston May 1998.

/24/ Lotsberg, I., and Rove, H.: Stress Concentration Factors for Butt Welds in Stiffened Plates.OMAE,

ASME 2000.

/25/ Lotsberg, I.: Overview of the FPSO Fatigue Capacity JIP. OMAE, Rio deJaneiro, June 2001.

/26/ Lotsberg, I.: Design Recommendations from the FPSO Fatigue Capacity JIP. PRADS, Changhai 2001.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

/27/ Lotsberg, I., Fatigue Capacity of Fillet Welded Connections subjected to Axial and Shear Loading.

IIW Document no XIII-2000-03 (XV-1146-03).

/28/ Lotsberg, I., Fatigue Design of Welded Pipe Penetrations in Plated Structures. Marine Structures, Vol

17/1 pp. 29-51, 2004.

/29/ Lotsberg, I., Recommended Methodology for Analysis of Structural Stress for Fatigue Assessment of

Plated Structures. OMAE-FPSO'04-0013, Int. Conf. Houston 2004.

/30/ Lotsberg, I. and Sigurdsson, G., Hot Spot S-N Curve for Fatigue Analysis of Plated Structures.

OMAE-FPSO'04-0014, Int. Conf. Houston 2004. Also Journal of Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Vol

128. November 2006, pp 330-336.

/31/ Lotsberg, I and Landet, E. , Fatigue Capacity of Side Longitudinals in Floating Structures. OMAE-

FPSO'04-0015, Int. Conf. Houston 2004.

/32/ Lotsberg, I. Assessment of Fatigue Capacity in the New Bulk Carrier and Tanker Rules, Marine

Structures, Vol 19, Issue 1. January 2006, pp 83-96.

/33/ Lotsberg, I., Rundhaug, T. A, Thorkildsen, H. and Be, . (2005), Fatigue Design of Web Stiffened

Cruciform Connections, PRADS 2007, October 2007, Houston.

/34/ Na, J. H., Lee, I. H., Sim, W. S. and Shin, H. S. (2003), Full Stochastic Fatigue Analysis for Kizomba

A FPSO-Hull Interface Design. Proceedings 22nd Int. conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic En-

gineering, Cancun Mexico.

/35/ Polezhaeva, H. and Chung, H. (2001), Effect of Misalignment on the Stress Concentration of a Welded

Hopper Knuckle for a Typical FPSO. OMAE Rio de Janeiro.

/36/ Sigurdsson, S., Landet, E. and Lotsberg, I., Inspection Planning of a Critical Block Weld in an FPSO.

OMAE-FPSO'04-0032, Int. Conf. Houston, 2004.

/37/ Storsul, R., Landet, E. and Lotsberg, I., Convergence Analysis for Welded Details in Ship Shaped

Structures. OMAE-FPSO'04-0016, Int. Conf. Houston 2004.

/38/ Storsul, R., Landet, E. and Lotsberg, I., Calculated and Measured Stress at Welded Connections be-

tween Side Longitudinals and Transverse Frames in Ship Shaped Structures. OMAE-FPSO'04-0017,

Int. Conf. Houston 2004.

/39/ Urm, H. S., Yoo, I. S., Heo, J. H., Kim, S. C. and Lotsberg, I.: Low Cycle Fatigue Strength Assessment

for Ship Structures. PRADS 2004.

/40/ Witherby & Co. Ltd 1997: Guidance Manual for Tanker Structures.

/41/ IIW Recommendations on Post Weld Improvement of Steel and Aluminium Structures. Document

XIII-2200-07.

/42/ Sheinberg, R., Cleary, C., Stambaugh, K. and Storhaug, G., Investigation of wave impact and whip-

ping response on the fatigue life and ultimate strength of a semi-displacement patrol boat, FAST 2011,

Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, Sept. 2011.

/43/ Storhaug, G., Moe, E. and Holtsmark, G.: Measurements of wave induced hull girder vibrations of an

ore carrier in different trades, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 129, Issue

4, November 2007

/44/ Storhaug, G., Moe, E., Portella, R.B., Neto, T.G., Alves, N.L.C., Park, S.G., Lee, D.K. and Kim, Y.:

First Ocean going ships with springing and whipping included in the ship design, Proceedings of the

30th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2011-49366, June

19-24, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Appendix A

Stress concentration factors

A.1 General

A.1.1

Stress concentration factors or K-factors may be determined based on fine mesh finite element analyses as

described in Sec.10. Alternatively, K-factors may be obtained from the following selection of factors for typical

details in ships.

A.1.2

The fatigue life of a detail is governed by the hot spot stress range. The hot spot stress is obtained by

multiplication of the nominal stress by K-factors. The K-factors in this document are thus defined as

hot spot

K=

no min al

The S-N curves in [2.4] are given for a welded specimen where the effect of the notch stress is included.

The relation between the hot spot stress range to be used together with the S-N-curve and the nominal stress

range is

hot spot = K no min al

All stress risers have to be considered when evaluating the hot spot stress. This can be done by multiplication

of K-factors arising from different causes. The resulting K-factor to be used for calculation of hot spot stress is

derived as

K = K g K te K t K n

where

Kg = stress concentration factor due to the gross geometry of the detail considered

Kte = additional stress concentration factor due to eccentricity tolerance (normally used for plate butt weld

connections only)

Kt = additional stress concentration factor due to angular mismatch (normally used for plate butt weld

connections only)

Kn = additional stress concentration factor for un-symmetrical stiffeners on laterally loaded panels,

applicable when the nominal stress is derived from simple beam analyses.

A.2 Examples of K-factors for typical details in ships

A.2.1 Basis

The K-factors presented in the following covers typical details in ships. Local stress concentration factors in

way of welds depend on level of workmanship. The default values on workmanship tolerances given in the

following tables are based on normal shipbuilding practise. If greater tolerances are used, the K-factors should

be calculated based on actual tolerances, see also App.E.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

K-factors for flange connections are given in Table A-1. Possible crack locations are illustrated in the figures.

Geometry K-factor

Flange connection with

softening toe

K g = 1.47

Crossing of flanges

K g = 1.47

R 1.25t (ground)

t = thickness of flange

R/b >0.15

R

K g = 1.9

b

To be used together with S-N curve for base material.

Overlap connection

tf tp

K g = 4.0

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

K-factors for stiffener supports are given in Table A-2.

The factors are applicable to stiffeners subject to axial- and lateral loads. Note that the weld connection area

between supporting members and stiffener flange must fulfil the requirements in DNV Rules for Classification

of Ships.

Point A Point B

No. Geometry

Kg axial Kg bending Kg axial Kg bending

d

1.33 d 150 1.33 d 150

1 1.40 d > 150 1.60 1.40 d > 150 1.60

2 1.40 d > 150 1.60 1.33 d > 150 1.47

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Point A Point B

No. Geometry

Kg axial Kg bending Kg axial Kg bending

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Point A Point B

No. Geometry

Kg axial Kg bending Kg axial Kg bending

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Point A Point B

No. Geometry

Kg axial Kg bending Kg axial Kg bending

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Point A Point B

No. Geometry

Kg axial Kg bending Kg axial Kg bending

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Point A Point B

No. Geometry

Kg axial Kg bending Kg axial Kg bending

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Point A Point B

No. Geometry

Kg axial Kg bending Kg axial Kg bending

25 1.40 d > 150 1.60 1.40 d > 150 1.60

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Point A Point B

No. Geometry

Kg axial Kg bending Kg axial Kg bending

30

31

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Point A Point B

No. Geometry

Kg axial Kg bending Kg axial Kg bending

1.13* 1.20* 1.13* 1.20*

32

Notes:

(*) For detail #32 manual correction of the bending stress might be necessary since point A is below the flange.

For supporting members welded to stiffener web by overlap weld as given in Table A-6, the above factors are to be

multiplied by a factor 1.15.

Limitations for soft nose stiffeners, brackets and tripping brackets and scallops, see figures a to d below:

a) b)

d d

Max 15 mm

Max 15 mm

Min 1.5d

c) d)

Min R 300 mm

Min R 300 mm

M ax 15 m m

M ax 15 m m

The following should be noted when the value of the K-factor in bending is considered. The K-factors have

been determined based on finite element analyses of actual geometries. The hot spot stress has been determined

by extrapolation of stresses as defined in Sec.10. Then the procedure for stress calculation given in [5.4] has

been followed in a reverse direction to establish the K-factors. Effective plate flange and effective span width

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

between supports are included in the calculation. This will assure that the same hot spot stress is derived using

the K-factors based on the specified procedure for the same geometric conditions. Thus the value of the K-

factor will depend on the calculation procedure used to obtain the hot spot stress. Therefore, a direct

comparison of K-factors from different sources should not be performed without considering how they are

defined and derived. A more proper way for comparison is to compare the hot spot stresses due to a specific

load.

The K-factors in bending have been evaluated for different boundary conditions for the stiffener at the

transverse frames. It was found that the K-factors were not very sensitive to whether free support or fixed

conditions were used. (It might be added that the effect of boundary conditions would be a function of length

of stiffener analysed in relation to geometry of longitudinal and distance between transverse frames. Here, the

following geometry has been used: distance from top of longitudinal to end of supporting member equal

560 mm, frames spacing of 3 200 mm, plate thickness of 12.5 mm, T-profile 350 12 + 100 17 and spacing

800 mm).

To establish alternative K-factors for actual geometries of stiffener supports the following procedure should be

followed:

FE model extent: The finite element model should cover minimum four (4) web frame spacings in the

longitudinal (stiffener) direction with the detail to be considered located at the middle frame. The same type

of end connection is to be modelled at all the web frames. For double hull structures, the model is to include

both the outer and inner hull and for single skin type of connections the model should cover the entire depth

of the web frame. In the transverse direction, the model may be limited to one stiffener spacing (note that

for a sub-model of a cargo hold model the transverse extent should cover minimum five (5) stiffener

spacings).

Element types: 4- or 8-node shell elements, alt. 8- or 20-node solid elements, shall be used in the modelling.

Boundary conditions: Symmetry conditions are to be used at the model ends (along cuts). The web frames

are to be fixed for displacement in the direction of the web depth (along a single line of nodes at the top or

bottom of the web). Fixed displacement in the longitudinal direction is to be applied either at the forward

or aft end of the model.

FE mesh density: At the location of the hot spots to be considered the element size should be in the order

of the plate thickness. In the remaining part of the model the element size should be in the order of the s/

10 where s is the stiffener spacing. See also Sec.10.

Load application: In general two loading conditions are to be considered; axial loading by forced

deformation and lateral loading by a unit pressure load applied to the shell plating. Note that for double hull

structures loading of the outer and inner shell should be considered individually.

Calculation of the stress concentration factor: The hot spot stress is to be calculated based on the

extrapolation procedure described in Sec.10. The nominal (reference) stress is to be calculated according

to the formulas for simplified stress analysis given in Sec.5 based on unit loads (same loads as applied in

the FE analysis). The stress concentration factor is then given by the ratio of the hot spot stress derived from

the FE analysis on the nominal stress calculated by simplified stress analysis.

A.2.4 K-factors for stiffener welded to a plate

K-factors for stiffener welded to a plate are given in Table A-3. The factors are applicable to the connection

between plate and stiffener when the plate is stresses perpendicular to the weld direction.

No. Geometry K-factor

1

Kg = 1.13 if t 25 mm

Kg = 1.27 if t > 25 mm

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

K-factors for termination of stiffeners on plates are given in Table A-4.

No. Geometry K-factor

1 Local elements and stiffeners welded to plates:

t

K g = 1.33 1 + w

t p 160

tw = angle in degrees of sloping

tp Termination

2A f

Kg =

lt s

and K g = min 2.0

K-factors for butt welds are given in Table A-5. For some geometry, default values have been established for

normal design fabrication of the connections and should be used if not otherwise documented. See also App.E.

No. Geometry K-factor

1 Angular mismatch in joints between flat

s e plates results in additional stresses at the

butt weld and the stiffener

s

K t = 1 +

4 t

Default: e = 6 mm where:

= 6 for pinned ends

= 3 for fixed ends

= angular mismatch in radians

s = plate width

t = plate thickness

2 Welding from both sides: The eccentricity between welded plates may be ac-

counted for in the calculation of stress concentration

e factor. The following formula applies for a butt weld in

an unstiffened plate or for a pipe butt weld with a large

radius:

t

Default: e = 0.15 t 3 (e e0 )

K te = 1 +

t

where

e is eccentricity (misalignment) and t is plate thickness.

e0 = 0.1t is misalignment inherent in the S-N data for

butt welds.

Kt from 1

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

No. Geometry K-factor

3 Plate not restricted in out-of-plane movement: The stress concentration for the weld between plates

with different thickness in a stiffened plate field may be

a derived from the following formula:

6 (e + et e0 )

K te = 1 +

t2 t 1.5

t1 t1 1 + 21.5

t1

e Where

Defaults:

e = maximum misalignment

a = min 3( t + e) et = (t2-t1) eccentricity due to change in thickness

t = t 2 t1 e0 = 0.1t is misalignment inherent in the S-N data for

e = 0.15 t1 butt welds

t2 = thickness of thicker plate

t1 = thickness of thinner plate

Kt from 1

4 Plate restricted in out-of-plane movement (e.g. flanges)

t2 Kte=1.0

t1 Within the distance 2t2 from the web. Outside this dis-

tance No. 3 to be used.

e

Defaults:

a = min 3( t + e)

e = 0.15 t1

5 Welding from one side Kg = 1.27with temporary or permanent backing strip

without fillet weld

Kg = 1.8with backing strip fillet welded to the plate

Kg = 2.5without backing strip

Welding from one side is not recommended in areas

prone to fatigue due to sensitivity of workmanship and

fabrication

Kt from 1

Default: e = 0.15 t. Kte from 2

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

K-factors for doubling plates are given in Table A-6.

No. Geometry K-factor

1

Cover plates on beams

d

Kg=1.20 d 50

tD Kg=1.27 50 < d 100

Kg=1.33 100 < d 150

Kg=1.47 d > 150

tp

2

Doubling plates welded to plates

Kg=1.20 d 50

Kg=1.27 50 < d 100

d Kg=1.33 100 < d 150

Kg=1.47 d > 150

tD For larger doublers, a more detailed analysis should be

performed based on the actual geometry.

tp

Note:

If the welds of the doubling plates are placed closer to the member (flange, plate) edges than 10 mm, the K-factors in

Table A-6 should be increased by a factor 1.15.

A.2.8 Cruciform joints

K-factors for cruciform joints are given in Table A-7.

Table A-7 K-factors for cruciform joints

No. Geometry K-factor

1

t3

l3

t2 t1

6t 2 (e e 0 )

K te = 1 +

t13 t 3 t 3 t 3

l1 + 2 + 3 + 4

t4 l1 l2 l3 l 4

l

4

joints.

l l

2 1

= 45

Kte from 1

Kta = 1.0

t1 t

e= + e0 2

2 2

t1 t 2

e 0 0.3t 1

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

No. Geometry K-factor

3

= 45

Kte = 1

Kta = 1.0

4

= 45

t2

t1 Kte from 1 with e as given in 2

Kta = 1.0

t1 t1

t2 K g = 1.2

a

Kte from 1 with e as given in 2

t3 Kta = 1.0

t 2 t1

6

t1

K g = 1 .2

a

t1

t2 Kte from 1 with e as given in 2

Kta = 1.0

t3

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

A.2.9 Scallops

K-factors for scallops are given in Table A-8. The factors are applicable to stiffeners subject to axial loads. For

dynamic pressure loads on the plate these details are susceptible to fatigue cracking ref. /40/ and other design

solutions should be considered to achieve a proper fatigue life.

No. Geometry K-factor

1

100

A

Kg = 2.0 at point A (misalignment not included)

Kg = 1.27 at point B

2

120

B

35

A

Kg = 1.27 at point B

3

150

B

35

A

Kg = 1.17 at point A (misalignment not included)

Kg = 1.27 at point B

4

120

B

35

10

Kg = 1.27 at point B

Notes:

For scallops without transverse welds, the Kg at point B will be governing for the design.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

K-factors for hopper knuckles are given in Table A-9. Hot-spot stresses in panel knuckles should in general be

calculated case by case by a stress concentration model. However, for a yard standard geometry, a K-factor

related to nominal stress in a frame and girder model may be established using the stress concentration model.

The knuckle between inner bottom and hopper plate in oil carriers is called lower hopper knuckle. For this

knuckle, the nominal stress should be the transversal membrane stress, a half stiffener spacing from the knuckle

in the inner bottom plate, and averaged between two floors. For hopper knuckles with angles between inner

bottom and hopper plate between 30 and 75 K-factors are given in Table A-9. It is assumed that brackets are

fitted in ballast tanks in line with inner bottom. Geometrical eccentricity in the knuckle should be avoided or

kept to a minimum.

Table A-9 K-factors for lower hopper knuckles

No. Geometry K-factor

1

Kg = 7.0

required. Insert plates should be provided in

2 t inner bottom, hopper tank top, and web frame.

The insert plates should extend approximately

400 mm along inner bottom and hopper plate,

approximately 800 mm in longitudinal direc-

tion, and 400 mm in the depth of the web.

Kg = 4.5

extend approximately to the first longitudinals

Bracket and the bracket toe should have a soft nose

design.

Kg = 2.5

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

K-factors for rounded rectangular holes are given in Figure A-1. The factors may be used for hatch opening

corners in conventional ships, but not in container carriers.

Figure A-1

Stress concentration factors for rounded rectangular holes

The nominal bending stress of laterally loaded panel stiffeners is generally given by:

= (

p s l 2 1 6 x s l + 6 x s2 / l 2 )

12 Z

l = span length of stiffener as defined in [5.4]

p = lateral pressure load

xs = axial distance from the stiffener support (= end of l) to the position where the bending stress is determined

(at considered hot spot)

The stress concentration factors at the flange of un-symmetrical stiffeners on laterally loaded panels as defined

in Figure A-2 are calculated as follows:

At the flange edge

1 + fw

K n1 =

1 + f w 2

and at the mid thickness of the web

1 + f w 2

Kn2 =

1 + f w 2

where:

2b g

= 1 for built up sec tions

bf

tw

= 1 for rolled angles

bf

bg

=1

bw + bg

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

bg = distance from the nearest edge of the flange to the mid thickness plane of the web, see Figure A-3

= 0.5 tw for rolled profiles

= ratio between section modulus of the stiffener web with plate flange as calculated at the flange and the

section modulus of the complete panel stiffener

= Zw / Z

Zw = section modulus of the stiffener web with respect to the top surface of the stiffener flange (neutral axis

located 1/10 of the web height above the lower edge).

h w3 (1/ 12 + 0.42 ) tw

ZW =

((0.5 + 0.4) hw + h hw )

Z = section modulus of panel stiffener including plate flange with respect to a neutral axis normal to the

stiffener web. It is calculated at the considered hot spot in the stiffener flange (e.g. at the bracket toe),

i.e. at a distance xs from the support.

fw = parameter relating the warping of the flange to the bending response of the stiffener

fw =

(

6 A f bw + bg )2

6 x s 6 x s2

2 l 2 I f 1 + 2

l l

l, xs = as defined above

bw = transverse distance from mid thickness plane of the web to the centre of the flange cross-section.

= 0.5 (bf tw) for rolled angle profiles

= as given in Table A-10 and Table A-11 for HP and JIS bulb profiles respectively

hw = h-tf in general

= as given in Table A-10 and Table A-11 for HP and JIS bulb profiles respectively

= parameter of the warping bending moment of the flange at end support

Sinh lf sin lf

=

Sinh lf + sin lf

(1 + / 280 )

= (approximate solution)

12 (1 + / 40)

lf = span length of stiffener flange with respect to its warping response.

= l as defined in [5.4] for stiffeners without end bracket(s)

= span length reduced by the full arm length of any end bracket(s) fitted

= parameter of the warping response of the unsymmetrical flange

1

=

4h s

4 2

4 If h fc fc +

t 3w t 3p

= ( lf )4 / 3

hfc = stiffener height, measured to centre of flange area

= as given in Table A-10 and Table A-11 for HP and JIS bulb profiles respectively

If = moment of inertia of the flange with respect to bending in a plane at right angle to the web of the stiffener

= A f rf2

Af = cross-sectional area of flange

= bf tf for flanges of rectangular cross-section

= as given in Table A-10 and Table A-11 for HP and JIS bulb profiles respectively

rf = radius of gyration of the flange area with respect to an axis that is parallel to the plane of the web

= for flanges of rectangular cross-section b f ( 12 )

= as given in Table A-10 and Table A-11 for HP and JIS bulb profiles respectively

bf = breadth of stiffener flange.

without relevance for bulb profiles

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

tf = flange thickness

= without relevance for bulb profiles

h = stiffener height

tw = stiffener web thickness

s = plate width between stiffeners

tp = plate thickness

Kn1 nominal

Kn2 nominal

nominal

Neutral axis

Figure A-2

Bending stress in symmetrical and un-symmetrical panel stiffener with same web and flange areas

bf

bg

bw tf

tw

h

tp

Figure A-3

Un-symmetrical profile dimensions

h hw two Afo Af bw hfc rfo

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm2) (mm) (mm) (mm)

200 171 9 836 50.8 10.9 188 9.54

220 188 9 1 004 56.5 12.1 206 10.3

240 205 10 1 221 62.2 13.3 225 11.4

260 221 10 1 421 67.8 14.5 244 12.1

280 238 10 1 636 73.5 15.8 263 12.8

300 255 11 1 911 79.2 16.9 281 13.9

320 271 11 2 159 84.9 18.1 300 14.6

340 288 12 2 472 90.5 19.3 318 15.6

370 313 13 2 955 99.1 21.1 346 17.1

400 338 14 3 481 107.6 22.9 374 18.5

430 363 15 4 049 116.1 24.7 402 19.9

Note:

rf = rfo + 0.275(twn tc two)

Af = Afo + (h hw) (twn two) Af tc

two is the web thickness, table values of Afo and rfo apply.

twn is the as rolled web thickness of the bulb stiffener

tc is the corrosion deduction in mm to be applied, if any.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

h hw two Afo Af bw hfc rfo

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm2) (mm) (mm) (mm)

180 156 9.5 635 41.6 9.0 170 8.4

200 172 10 814 48.0 10.4 188 9.4

230 198 11 1 030 54.3 11.7 217 10.6

250 215 12 1 250 60.0 12.9 235 11.6

Note:

rf = rfo + 0.275(two tc)

Af = Afo Af tc

two is the as rolled web thickness for the JIS bulb profile.

tc is the corrosion deduction in mm to be applied, if any.

A.2.13 K-factors in web of un-symmetrical stiffener on laterally loaded panels

The nominal web stress of laterally loaded panel stiffeners is generally given by:

= sp / t w

p = lateral pressure load

s = stiffener spacing

tw = web thickness

It should be noted that the bending stress in the stiffener web at the weld attachment to the stiffener plate may

be significant at mid span of stiffeners with un-symmetrical flange, see Figure A-4. The stress concentration

factor, Knw, due to this bending is calculated as:

K nw = 1 +

( )

6 A f b w + b g def h fc

(

Z t w 1 + m 2 )

where

Sinh ( lf / 2 ) cos ( lf / 2 ) + Cosh ( lf / 2 ) sin ( lf / 2)

def = 1 2

Sinh lf + sin lf

/ 32

= (simplified formulation)

1 + / 40

m =

( lf )2

Sinh lf + sin lf

3 (1 / 1120)

= (simplified formulation)

1 + / 40

Remaining parameters in the expressions are defined in Appendix [A.2.12].

Figure A-4

Bending in webs at mid span of un-symmetrical stiffeners subjected to lateral loading

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

K-factors for holes with reinforcement are given for the following details:

Holes in plates with inserted tubular are given in Figure A-5 to Figure A-16.

Holes in plates with ring reinforcement are given in Figure A-17 to Figure A-21.

Holes in plates with double ring reinforcement are given in Figure A-22 to Figure A-25.

For stresses parallel with the weld the given stress concentration factors can be reduced according to Table 2-

3 of Section [2.4.6].

At some locations of the welds there are stress in the plate transverse to the fillet weld,w, and shear stress in

the plate parallel with the weld 11. Then the fillet weld is designed for a combined stress obtained as:

where

t = plate thickness

a = throat thickness for a double sided fillet weld.

3.5

3.0

r/t p

2.5

tr

100

tp

Kg

tr A A 2.0

r 50

H

1.5

A A

20

1.0

10

0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

t r /t p

Figure A-5

Kg at hole with inserted tubular. Stress at outer surface of tubular, parallel with weld. H/tr = 2

3.5

3.0

r/t p

2.5

100

tr

Kg

2.0

tp 50

tr A A

r H

1.5

20

A A

1.0

10

0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

t r /t p

Figure A-6

Kg at hole with inserted tubular. Stress at outer surface of tubular, parallel with weld. H/tr = 5

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

3.5

3.0

tr 2.5 r/tp

tp

tr A A

Kg

100

r H

2.0

50

A A

1.5

20

10

1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

tr /tp

Figure A-7

Kg at hole with inserted tubular. Stress in plate, parallel with weld. H/tr = 2

3.5

3.0

2.5

tr

tp

Kg

tr A A

r/tp

r H 2.0

100

A A

50

1.5

20

10

1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

tr/tp

Figure A-8

Kg at hole with inserted tubular. Stress in plate, parallel with weld. H/tr = 5

0.5

r/tp

0.4 10

0.3 20

tr

Kg

tp

tr A A

r H 0.2

50

A A

0.1 100

0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

tr /tp

Figure A-9

Kg at hole with inserted tubular. Stress in plate, normal to weld. H/tr = 2

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

0.5

r/tp

0.4

10

20

tr 0.3

tp

tr A A

Kg

50

r H

0.2

A A 100

0.1

0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

tr /tp

Figure A-10

Kg at hole with inserted tubular. Stress in plate, normal to weld. H/tr = 5

1.4

r/t p

10

1.3

20

1

1.2

tr

tp

Kg

tr A A

r H 1.1

50

A A

1.0 100

0.9

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

tr /tp

Figure A-11

Kg at hole with inserted tubular. Principal stress in plate. H/tr = 2

tr/tp r/tp=10 r/tp=20 r/tp=50 r/tp=100

0.0 90 90 90 90

0.5 72 80 86 88

1.0 56 63 75 82

1.5 50 54 64 73

2.0 46 50 57 66

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

1.4

r/t p

10

1.3

20

1 1.2

50

tr

tp

Kg

tr A A

r H 1.1

100

A A

1.0

0.9

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

t r/tp

Figure A-12

Kg at hole with inserted tubular. Principal stress in plate. H/tr = 5

tr/tp r/tp=10 r/tp=20 r/tp=50 r/tp=100

0.0 90 90 90 90

0.5 66 72 80 85

1.0 54 58 65 72

1.5 49 52 56 62

2.0 46 48 52 56

1.0

0.9

r/t p

0.8 10

0.7

20

0.6

tr

tp

Kg

tr A A 0.5

r 50

H 0.4

0.3

A A 100

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

tr /tp

Figure A-13

Kg at hole with inserted tubular. Shear stress in plate. H/tr = 2

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

1.0

r/tp

0.9

10

0.8

20

0.7

50

0.6

tr

Kg

tp 0.5 100

tr A A

r H 0.4

0.3

A A

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

tr /tp

Figure A-14

Kg at hole with inserted tubular. Shear stress in plate. H/tr = 5

0.15

0.10 r/t p

0.05 10

tr

tp

tr A A

Kg

r/t p

r H

0.00 100

A A

50 20

-0.05

20

100

10

50

-0.10

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

t r/tp

Figure A-15

Kg at hole with inserted tubular. Stress in plate, normal to weld. H/tr = 2

0.25

r/tp

0.20

10

0.15

tr

0.10

tp

tr A A

Kg

r H 0.05

A A 20

0.00

-0.05

50

100

-0.10

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

t r/tp

Figure A-16

Kg at hole with inserted tubular. Stress in plate, normal to weld. H/tr = 5

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

3.5

3.4

t R /t p

0.5

3.3

tR 1.0

B A A tp

Kg

Kg

R

3.2

A A 1.5

(a = throat-thickness):

3.1 tR /tp a/tR

0.5 0.71

1.0 0.40

1.5 0.33

3.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

B/R

Figure A-17

Kg at hole with ring reinforcement. Max stress concentration

3.0

(a = throat-thickness):

tR /tp a/tR

tR /tp 0.5 0.71

1.0 0.40

2.5 0.5 1.5 0.33

tR

B A A Kg tp 1.0

Kg

1.5

A A

2.0

1.5

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

B/R

Figure A-18

Kg at hole with ring reinforcement. Stress at inner edge of ring

3.0

The following relation applies

(a = throat-thickness):

tR /tp a/tR

2.5 0.5 0.71

1.0 0.40

1.5 0.33

2.0

tR

Kg

B tp 1.5 t R /t p

A A

R 0.5

A A 1.0 1.0

1.5

0.5

0.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

B/R

Figure A-19

Kg at hole with ring reinforcement. Stress in plate, parallel with weld

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

1.0

0.9 tR /tp

0.8 0.5

1.0

0.7

1.5

0.6

tR

Kg

B A A tp 0.5

R

0.4

A A

0.3 The following relation applies

(a = throat-thickness):

0.2 tR /tp a/tR

0.5 0.71

1.0 0.40

0.1

1.5 0.33

0.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

B/R

Figure A-20

Kg at hole with ring reinforcement. Shear stress in weld

1.3

1.2 t R /tp

1.1 1.5

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.5

0.7

tR

Kg

B A A tp 0.6

R

0.5

A A

0.4

The following relation applies

0.3 (a = throat-thickness):

tR /tp a/tR

0.2 0.5 0.71

1.0 0.40

0.1 1.5 0.33

0.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

B/R

Figure A-21

Kg at hole with ring reinforcement. Stress in plate, normal to weld

3.0

The following relation applies

(a = throat-thickness):

tR /tp a/tR

0.5 0.71

1.0 0.40

1.5 0.33

2.5

tR /tp

tR

Kg

B A A

tp

0.5

R

2.0

A A

1.0

1.5

1.5

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

B/R

Figure A-22

Kg at hole with double ring reinforcement. Stress at inner edge of ring

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

3.0

The following relation applies

(a = throat-thickness):

tR /tp a/tR

2.5

0.5 0.71

1.0 0.40

1.5 0.33

2.0

tR

Kg

tp 1.5

B A A

R

1.0 tR /tp

A A

0.5

1.0

0.5 1.5

0.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

B/R

Figure A-23

Kg at hole with double ring reinforcement. Stress in plate, parallel with weld

1.2

t R /t p

1.0

1.5

1.0

0.8

0.5

tR

Kg

tp 0.6

B A A

R

A A

(a = throat-thickness):

tR /tp a/tR

0.5 0.71

0.2 1.0 0.40

1.5 0.33

0.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

B/R

Figure A-24

Kg at hole with double ring reinforcement. Shear stress in weld

1.0

The following relation applies t R /t p

0.9 (a = throat-thickness):

tR /tp a/tR

1.5

0.8 0.5 0.71

1.0 0.40

1.5 0.33

0.7

1.0

0.6

tR 0.5

Kg

0.5

B A A

tp

R 0.4

A A 0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

B/R

Figure A-25

Kg at hole with double ring reinforcement. Stress in plate, normal to weld

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Appendix B

Fatigue design tables

B.1 Maximum allowable stress range

Different maximum allowable stress ranges results for different Weibull shape parameters h and for different

S-N curves. In Table B-1 and Table B-2 the maximum allowable hot spot stress range (0) at 10-4 and 10-8

probability of exceedance are given for total design lives of 0.5108, 0.7108 and 1.0108 cycles.

The maximum allowable stress range includes the stress concentration factors (K-factors), such that the

maximum allowable nominal stress range is obtained as:

0

no min al =

K

Example:

weibull shape parameter h = 0.87

total number of stress cycles ntotal = 0.7108

welded joint, non-corrosive environment, S-N curve I.

It follows from Table B-2 that the maximum allowable hot spot stress range at 10-8 probability level of

exceedance is 376 MPa and from Table B-1 that maximum hot spot stress range at 10-4 probability level of

exceedance is 169 MPa.

Table B-1 Maximum allowable hot spot stress range (MPa) at a 10-4 probability of exceedance to keep

the fatigue damage less than 1.0 for different design life cycles. (A Weibull distribution for the long-

term stress range is assumed)

Weibull S-N Curve I Welded joint Welded joint S-N Curve III Base material S-N Curve IV Base material

Shape- Air/Cathodic Corrosive Air/Cathodic Corrosive

parameter 0 0 0 0

h

Design life cycles Design life cycles Design life cycles Design life cycles

0.5108 0.7108 1.0108 0.5108 0.7108 1.0108 0.5108 0.7108 1.0108 0.5108 0.7108 1.0108

cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles

0.60 259 233 209 209 188 169 408 375 344 311 278 247

0.61 255 230 206 206 186 167 405 373 342 307 274 244

0.62 252 227 203 203 183 165 402 370 339 302 270 240

0.63 249 224 201 201 181 163 399 368 337 298 267 237

0.64 246 221 198 198 179 161 396 365 335 294 263 233

0.65 242 218 196 196 177 159 393 362 332 290 259 230

0.66 239 215 193 193 175 157 391 360 330 286 256 227

0.67 236 213 191 191 173 155 388 357 327 282 252 224

0.68 233 210 189 189 170 154 385 354 325 278 249 221

0.69 230 208 186 186 168 152 382 352 322 275 245 218

0.70 227 205 184 184 167 150 379 349 320 271 242 215

0.71 225 203 182 182 165 148 376 346 317 267 239 212

0.72 222 200 180 180 163 147 373 344 315 264 236 209

0.73 219 198 178 178 161 145 370 341 313 260 233 207

0.74 216 195 176 176 159 144 367 338 310 257 230 204

0.75 214 193 174 174 157 142 364 336 308 254 227 202

0.76 211 191 172 172 156 141 361 333 306 251 224 199

0.77 209 189 170 170 154 139 359 330 303 248 221 197

0.78 207 187 168 168 152 138 356 328 301 245 219 194

0.79 204 185 166 166 151 136 353 325 299 242 216 192

0.80 202 182 164 164 149 135 350 323 296 239 213 189

0.81 200 180 163 163 148 134 348 320 294 236 211 187

0.82 197 179 161 161 146 132 345 318 292 233 208 185

0.83 195 177 159 159 145 131 342 315 290 230 206 183

0.84 193 175 158 158 143 130 340 313 287 228 204 181

0.85 191 173 156 156 142 128 337 311 285 225 201 179

0.86 189 171 154 154 140 127 334 308 283 223 199 177

0.87 187 169 153 153 139 126 332 306 281 220 197 175

0.88 185 168 151 151 138 125 329 304 279 218 195 173

0.89 183 166 150 150 136 124 327 302 277 215 192 171

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Table B-1 Maximum allowable hot spot stress range (MPa) at a 10-4 probability of exceedance to keep

the fatigue damage less than 1.0 for different design life cycles. (A Weibull distribution for the long-

term stress range is assumed) (Continued)

Weibull S-N Curve I Welded joint Welded joint S-N Curve III Base material S-N Curve IV Base material

Shape- Air/Cathodic Corrosive Air/Cathodic Corrosive

parameter 0 0 0 0

h

Design life cycles Design life cycles Design life cycles Design life cycles

0.5108 0.7108 1.0108 0.5108 0.7108 1.0108 0.5108 0.7108 1.0108 0.5108 0.7108 1.0108

cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles

0.90 182 164 148 148 135 123 325 299 275 213 190 169

0.91 180 163 147 147 134 122 322 297 273 211 188 167

0.92 178 161 146 146 133 121 320 295 271 208 186 165

0.93 176 160 144 144 132 119 317 293 269 206 184 164

0.94 175 158 143 143 130 118 315 291 267 204 182 162

0.95 173 157 142 142 129 117 313 289 265 202 181 160

0.96 171 155 141 141 128 116 311 287 264 200 179 159

0.97 170 154 139 139 127 116 309 285 262 198 177 157

0.98 168 153 138 138 126 115 306 283 260 196 175 156

0.99 167 151 137 137 125 114 304 281 258 194 174 154

1.00 165 150 136 136 124 113 302 279 256 192 172 153

1.01 164 149 135 135 123 112 300 277 255 190 170 151

1.02 162 147 133 133 122 111 298 275 253 189 169 150

1.03 161 146 132 132 121 110 296 273 251 187 167 148

1.04 160 145 131 131 120 109 294 271 250 185 166 147

1.05 158 144 130 130 119 109 292 270 248 183 164 146

1.06 157 143 129 129 118 108 290 268 247 182 163 144

1.07 156 141 128 128 117 107 288 266 245 180 161 143

1.08 154 140 127 127 116 106 286 265 243 179 160 142

1.09 153 139 126 126 116 105 285 263 242 177 158 141

1.10 152 138 125 125 115 105 283 261 240 175 157 139

Table B-2 Maximum allowable hot spot stress range (MPa) at a 10-8 probability of exceedance to keep

the fatigue damage less than 1.0 for different design life cycles. (A Weibull distribution for the long-

term stress range is assumed.)

Weibull S-N Curve I Welded joint Welded joint S-N Curve III Base material S-N Curve IV Base material

Shape- Air/Cathodic Corrosive Air/Cathodic Corrosive

parameter h 0 0 0 0

Design life cycles Design life cycles Design life cycles Design life cycles

0.5108 0.7108 1.0108 0.5108 0.7108 1.0108 0.5108 0.7108 1.0108 0.5108 0.7108 1.0108

cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles

0.60 822 740 662 662 597 536 1 294 1 192 1 092 988 883 784

0.61 796 716 641 641 579 520 1 262 1 161 1 064 956 854 759

0.62 771 694 622 622 561 504 1 230 1 132 1 038 925 827 734

0.63 748 673 603 603 544 489 1 200 1 105 1 012 896 801 711

0.64 725 653 585 585 529 475 1 171 1 078 988 869 777 689

0.65 704 634 568 568 514 462 1 143 1 052 965 843 753 669

0.66 684 616 552 552 499 449 1 116 1 028 942 818 731 649

0.67 664 599 537 537 486 437 1 091 1 004 921 794 710 630

0.68 646 582 522 522 473 426 1 066 982 900 771 690 612

0.69 629 567 509 509 460 415 1 042 960 880 750 670 595

0.70 612 552 495 495 448 404 1 019 939 861 729 652 579

0.71 596 538 483 483 437 394 998 919 843 710 634 563

0.72 581 524 471 471 426 384 976 900 825 691 618 549

0.73 566 511 459 459 416 375 956 881 808 673 602 534

0.74 552 499 448 448 406 366 937 863 792 656 587 521

0.75 539 487 437 437 396 358 918 846 776 640 572 508

0.76 526 475 427 427 387 350 900 829 761 624 558 495

0.77 514 464 418 418 379 342 882 813 746 609 544 483

0.78 502 454 408 408 370 335 865 797 732 595 532 472

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Table B-2 Maximum allowable hot spot stress range (MPa) at a 10-8 probability of exceedance to keep

the fatigue damage less than 1.0 for different design life cycles. (A Weibull distribution for the long-

term stress range is assumed.) (Continued)

Weibull S-N Curve I Welded joint Welded joint S-N Curve III Base material S-N Curve IV Base material

Shape- Air/Cathodic Corrosive Air/Cathodic Corrosive

parameter h 0 0 0 0

Design life cycles Design life cycles Design life cycles Design life cycles

0.5108 0.7108 1.0108 0.5108 0.7108 1.0108 0.5108 0.7108 1.0108 0.5108 0.7108 1.0108

cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles cycles

0.79 491 444 399 399 362 328 849 782 718 581 519 461

0.80 480 434 391 391 355 321 833 768 705 568 507 451

0.81 470 425 382 382 347 314 818 754 692 555 496 440

0.82 460 416 375 375 340 308 803 740 680 543 485 431

0.83 450 407 367 367 333 302 789 727 668 531 475 421

0.84 441 399 360 360 327 296 775 715 656 520 464 412

0.85 432 391 352 352 320 290 762 702 645 509 455 404

0.86 424 383 346 346 314 285 749 690 634 498 445 395

0.87 415 376 339 339 308 280 736 679 624 488 436 387

0.88 407 369 333 333 303 275 724 668 613 478 428 380

0.89 400 362 327 327 297 270 712 657 604 469 419 372

0.9 392 355 321 321 292 265 701 647 594 460 411 365

0.91 385 349 315 315 287 260 690 637 585 451 403 358

0.92 378 343 309 309 282 256 679 627 576 443 396 351

0.93 372 337 304 304 277 252 669 617 567 435 388 345

0.94 365 331 299 299 272 248 659 608 559 427 381 339

0.95 359 325 294 294 268 244 649 599 550 419 375 333

0.96 353 320 289 289 264 240 640 590 543 412 368 327

0.97 347 315 285 285 260 236 630 582 535 405 362 321

0.98 341 310 280 280 255 232 621 574 527 398 355 316

0.99 336 305 276 276 252 229 613 566 520 391 350 310

1.00 330 300 271 271 248 226 604 558 513 385 344 305

1.01 325 295 267 267 244 222 596 550 506 378 338 300

1.02 320 291 263 263 240 219 588 543 499 372 333 295

1.03 315 287 259 259 237 216 580 536 493 366 327 291

1.04 311 282 256 256 234 213 573 529 486 361 322 286

1.05 306 278 252 252 230 210 565 522 480 355 317 282

1.06 302 274 249 249 227 207 558 515 474 350 313 277

1.07 297 270 245 245 224 204 551 509 468 344 308 273

1.08 293 267 242 242 221 202 544 503 462 339 303 269

1.09 289 263 239 239 218 199 537 496 457 334 299 265

1.10 285 259 235 235 215 197 531 490 451 330 295 262

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Appendix C

Example of application - Simplified calculation method

C.1 Introduction

In this Appendix an example of the fatigue assessment of a welded connection between a longitudinal and a

bracket in the shipside is considered. Before starting to calculate the stresses it may be of relevance to decide

what loads and load conditions and the level of detail that shall be considered for the calculation of stresses.

The following observations have implication on how the calculations are made:

a) The considered detail is the termination of a bracket on top of a longitudinal in the shipside of a container

vessel. The longitudinal is located in a ballast tank assuming 15 years of effective corrosion protection.

b) The analysis is to be performed according to simplified procedure as described in Sec.4 using the simplified

formulas for load and stress calculations as given in Sec.5 and Sec.6. The local and global loads are based

on the main dimensions of the vessel given in Table C-1. Further, the Rules /1/ describe which loading

conditions to be considered and minimum requirements to the corrosive environment.

c) The effect of torsion is not included.

Figure C-1

View of ship and location of detail in ship

Length of ship L = 263 m

Breadth of ship B = 40 m

Block coefficient CB = 0.70 -

Design speed V = 20 knots

Depth of ship D = 24 m

Moment of inertia of hull cross-section about transverse neutral axis IN = 458.0 m4

Neutral axis above keel n0 = 10.39 m

Moment of inertia of hull cross-section about vertical neutral axis IC = 1 273 m4

The loading conditions to be considered are normally given in the Rules /1/ for the specific ship types. For the

considered container vessel, two load conditions have been used:

1) Fully loaded, with a fraction of time pn = 0.65 and

2) Ballast with a fraction of time pn = 0.20.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

The load conditions should be defined in terms of draughts Tact and GM and KR (or period of roll, TR) as given

in Table C-2 for the considered vessel. Guidance for choice of these values is given in [6.5]. It should be noted

that the given parameters are artificial values.

The centre of gravity and free surface of the ballast tank is given in Table C-3.

Fully loaded Ballast

Stillwater bending moment 3 874 950 kNm 3 874 950 kNm

Draught Tf = 13.0 m Tb = 9.0 m

Metacentric height GM = 1.6 m GM = 1.6 m

Roll radius of gyration KR = 15.0 m KR = 15.0 m

Part of time in load condition pn = 0.65 pn = 0.20

Density Water= 1 025 kg/m3

Ballast tank Distance from AP Distance from CL Distance from BL

[m] [m] [m]

Centre of gravity 138.5 17.896 7.174

Centre of free surface 138.5 18.94 17.624

For different load conditions it is normally only the loads that change for each load condition. It may therefore

be practical to calculate the stresses per unit bending moment and per unit lateral pressure and scale these with

relevant values for each load condition. It is primarily the calculation of stresses due to lateral pressures that

will be simplified by such an approach.

The geometry and scantlings of the stiffener considered is given in Figure C-2 and Table C-4. For a bracket

termination on top of a stiffener, the stresses to be considered related to lateral pressure are due to stiffener

bending due to

1) local pressure stiffener bending due to relative deflection between bulkhead and first frame

2) stress due to double hull bending

3) In the present example only stiffener bending due to local pressure is considered. The stresses are to be

calculated based on the reduced scantlings. The stresses are to be calculated at the considered point on the

weld connection of bracket and longitudinal stiffener as shown in Figure C-2.

Figure C-2

Geometry of considered detail

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Stiffener sectional modulus at top of flange (with effective Zs = 999.6 103 mm3

plate according to item [5.4.3] and net scantlings)

Distance above keel z = 6.34 m

Effective span length as defined in Figure C-2 l = 3 000 mm

Distance from end of stiffener to hot spot x = 0 mm

Web frame spacing ls = 3 200 mm

Stiffener spacing s = 868 mm

Thickness of plate tp = 16.5 mm

Height of stiffener h = 400 mm

Thickness of web tw = 13 mm

Width of flange bf = 100 mm

Thickness of flange tf = 18 mm

Distance from neutral axis to top flange z01 = 356.16 mm

C.4 K-factors

An important parameter in the fatigue analysis is the stress concentration factor. The stress concentration factor

describes the increase in notch stress due to local geometry, weld geometry and workmanship. The value of the

K-factor has to be decided for the considered detail before the hot spot stresses can be calculated. Reference is

made to Sec.12.

The considered geometry is an unsymmetrical L-profile exposed to lateral loading in combination with global

bending moments.

For the weld at the end of a triangular bracket welded on top of the stiffener flange, the K-factor for axial

loading and bending of the stiffener is taken according to Table A-2. For local stiffener bending due to lateral

pressures the stress concentration factor Kn2 due to skew bending applies for un-symmetrical profiles, see

[A.2.12].

Kg, bending = 1.6

Kn2 = 1.52

The stress concentration factor Kg, axial applies to global dynamic stress components (g) and secondary stress

due to bending of girder systems (2) and the stress concentration factor Kg, bending applies to local stiffener

bending stresses (first term of 2A).

C.5 Calculation of stresses due to lateral pressure

C.5.1 General

The stresses to be considered due to lateral pressure according to [4.4] are:

e ,i = 2 + 2 A + 3

where

2A is stress resulting from bending of stiffener between supports

3 is local plate bending stress

The secondary stress due to bending of girder system stress, 2, is not considered in the present example. The

tertiary stress due to local plate bending is not applicable to the considered hot spot.

The local bending stress of stiffeners between supports is given in [5.4] as:

M m EI

2A = K K 2 r

Zs l Zs

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Stress due to relative deflections are not considered and the stress is thus

where

2

x x

rp = 6 6 + 1.0

l l

2

0 0

rp = 6 6 + 1 .0 = 1 .0

3000 3000

1 10 3 868 3000 2 N mm 2

2 A = 1.6 1.52 1 = 1.583

12 999.6 10 3 kN / m 2

To determine the stresses from stiffener bending in the relevant loading conditions the bending stress is to be

multiplied with the relevant dynamic pressure. For an external pressure load (pressure acting on plate side of

the panel) there will be compression stress at the considered location and hence the negative sign applies.

Internal pressure loads (pressure acting on stiffener side) will give tension stress and the positive sign applies.

C.6 Calculation for loading condition - fully loaded (FL)

C.6.1 Internal pressure loads

The longitudinal is located in a ballast tank with no local bending due to internal pressure loads in the fully

loaded condition.

C.6.2 External sea pressure loads

The sea pressure is calculated according to [6.3.1]:

pe = rppd

where

y

pdp = pl + 135 1.2(Tact zw )

B + 75

pd = max

p = 10 y + C y + kf 0.7 + 2 zw

dr 16 Tact

B

2

Tact + z wl z

rp = for Tact z wl < z < Tact + z wl

2 z wl

0.0 for Tact + z wl < z

= 50 c / (B + 75)

c = (1.25 0.025 TR) k (period of roll, maximum 30 (s))

TR = 2 k R GM (roll period)

3 p dT (distance from actual water line. It is assumed that the external sea pressure above

z wl =

4 g Tact + zwl will not contribute to fatigue damage)

zw = z (vertical distance from the baseline to the load point)

pdt = pd (at zw = Tact)

k = 1.0 (for ship with bilge keel)

f = 8.42 m (vertical distance from the waterline to the top of the ship's side, maximum 0.80 Cw)

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

T

kf = min act (the smallest of Tact and f , maximum 0.80 Cw)

f

y = 20.0 m (horizontal distance from the centre line to the load point)

20

p dp = 30.52 + 135 1.2(13 6.34) = 46.00 kN/m 2

40 + 75

p dr = 10 20 + 0.7 0.7 + 2 = 48.37 kN / m

2

2 16 13

0.275 20 + 8.42 13

p dT = 10 20 + 0 .7 0.7 + 2 = 61.11 kN / m

2

2 16 13

rp = 1.0

pe = 1.0 48.37 = 48.37 kN/m2

C.6.3 Combination of local stress components

The stress amplitudes due to internal and external pressures are combined considering the sign of stress.

Positive stress is defined as tension at the location of the weld.

Stresses due to external pressure loads:

Stress per unit

pressure Pressure Stress

Double hull bending 0 0

Local stiffener bending -1.583 48.37 -76.61

Relative deflection 0 0

Total local stress amplitude due to external pressure loads, e -76.61

Stress per unit Pressure Stress

pressure

Double hull bending 0 0

Local stiffener bending +1.583 0 0

Relative deflection 0 0

Total local stress amplitude due to internal pressure loads, i 0

l = 2 2e + 2i + 2 p e i

1 z x y x z

p = + + , z Tact

2 10 Tact 4 L 4 B 5 L Tact

where

x, y and z are the coordinates of the load point, according to the coordinate system described in [4.6.6] with

origin at midship, centreline, baseline:

x=7m

y = 20.00 m

z = 6.34 m

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

1 6.34 7 20 7 6.34

p = + + = 0.580

2 10 13 4 263 4 24 5 263 13

The vertical wave bending moments are computed according to [6.2.1] as:

Mwo,s = 0.19fr kwmCwL2BCB (hogging moment).

MH = 0.22 fr L9/4 (Tact + 0.30 B) CB (1-cos(2x/L))

where:

Cw = 10.75 [(300-L) / 100]3/2 (wave coefficient)

fr = 0.51/h0 (factor to transform the load from 10-8 to 10-4 probability level)

h0 = 2.21 0.54 log(L) (long term Weibull shape parameter)

x = L/2 (distance from A.P to considered point)

kwm = 1.0 (moment distribution factor)

h0 = 2.21 0.54 log(221) = 0.903

fr = 0.51/0.903 = 0.464.

For fr = 1.0 (10-8 probability level):

Mw0,s = - 0.11 1.0 1.0 10.525 2632 40 (0.7 + 0.7) = -4 484.5103kNm

Mw0,h = 0.19 1.0 1.0 10.525 2632 40 0.7 = 3 873.0103 kNm

MH = 0.22 1.0 2639/4 (13 + 0.30 40) 0.7 (1-cos()) = 1 789.1103 kNm.

Mw0,s = - 0.11 0.464 1.0 10.525 2632 40 (0.7 + 0.7) = -2 081.8103kNm

Mw0,h = 0.19 0.464 1.0 10.525 2632 40 0.7 = 1 797.9103 kNm

MH = 0.22 0.464 1.0 263 (13 + 0.30 40) 0.7 (1-cos()) = 988.7103 kNm.

9/4

The vertical and horizontal bending moments results in the following stress ranges, according to [5.2.1] and

[5.2.3] at the 10-4 level.

(z n 0 )

v = K axial (M Wo.h M Wo.s ) 10 3 (vertical global stress range)

IN

y

hg = 2 K axial M H 10 3 (horizontal global stress range)

IC

Where

y = B/2 (h) (distance in m from vertical neutral axis to considered

member)

vh = 0.1 (average correlation between vertical and horizontal

wave induced bending stress from [4.6.5])

y = 40/2 (0.400) = 19.6 m

( (

v = 1.4 1797.9 10 3 2081.8 10 3 10 3 )) 6.34 10.39

458.0

= 48.05 N/mm 2

19.6

hg = 1.4 2 988.7 10 3 10 3 = 42.61 N/mm2

1273

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

The combined local and global stress range is given as

g + b l

= f e max

a g + l

where

a, b Load combination factors, accounting for the correlation between the wave induced local and global stress

range equal 0.6

67.33 + 0.6 153.2

= 1.0 max

0.6 67.33 + 153.2

= 193.6 N/mm2

C.6.7 Mean stress correction

To calculate the mean stress correction factor the static stress at the hot spot has to be established. The static

stress is calculated in the same manner as the dynamic stress, but based on static loads and full correlation

between the different stress components.

The static external pressure is:

p static,external = 1.025 9.81 (Tact z) = 66.97 kN/m 2

The internal pressure is zero for the full load condition and the static stress due to local stiffener bending is:

Stress per unit Pressure Stress

pressure

Double hull bending 0 0

Local stiffener bending -1.583 66.97 -106.0

Relative deflection 0 0

Total local stress static, local -106.0

(z n 0 ) (6.34 10.39)

v,static = K axial M S 10 3 = 1.4 3874950 10 3 = 47.96 N/mm 2

IN 33.66(24 10.39)

The compression and tension stress and fm factor is calculated as given in [2.3]:

193.6

+ = 58.08 + = 38.76

t = max static 2 2 = 38.72

0

193.6

= 58.08 = 154.9

c = min static 2 2 = 154.9

0

fm = = = 0.76

t + c 38.76 + 154.9

o = fm

o = 0.76 193.6 = 147 N/mm2

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

The period of roll is found to be TR = 24.67 sec. Using this roll period the Weibull shape parameter for the

location of considered detail is calculated according to [4.3]:

h0 = 2.21 0.54 log(L)

where

ha = 0.05 (factor depending on the motion response period)

h0 = 2.21 0.54 log(263) = 0.903

h = 0.903 + 0.056.34/13 0.005(13 6.34) = 0.894

C.6.9 Fatigue part damage

The part damage in the fully loaded condition over 20 years design life is calculated according to [F.1.2]:

Non-corrosive environment:

q m1 S

h q m2 S

h

m m

D = 0 Td 1+ 1 ; 1

+ a 1 + 2 ; 1

a1 h q h q

2

Corrosive environment:

D = 2 D non corrosive

where

(the number of cycles during 20 years)

20 365 24 3600

v 0 Td = = 6.516 10 7

4Log10 (L)

(the Weibull scale parameter)

0 147

q= 1

= 1

= 12.29 N/mm 2

h 4 0.894

(ln n 0 ) (ln 10 )

a 2 , m2 = S-N parameters for N>107 cycles

S1 = Stress range for which change of slope occur

This gives:

Dnon-corrosive = 0.617

D corrosive = 2 D non corrosive = 2 0 . 617 = 1 . 234

Based on an effective corrosion protection period of 15 years this gives the following fatigue damage for the

full load condition:

T (T Tc )

D fulload = p fulload Dnon corrosive c + Dcorrosive d

Td Td

Where:

pfulload = part of design life in full load condition = 0.65

Tc = corrosion protection period = 15 years

15 20 15

D fulload = 0 . 65 0 . 617 + 1 . 234 = 0 . 501

20 20

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

C.7.1 Internal pressure loads

The accelerations and pressures are calculated according to Section [6.4.1] for the cargo tank as:

av = 3.24 m/s2

at = 2.82 m/s2

al = 1.24 m/s2

hs = 11.284 m

ys = 1.06 m

xs = 1.7 m

p1 = 37.47 kN/m2

p2 = 3.07 kN/m2

p3 = 2.16 kN/m2

The local internal pressure amplitude at the 10-4 probability level of exceedance is then calculated according

to Section [6.4] as

p1 = av hs

pi = fa max p2 = at ys

p3 = al xs

where

fa = 0.483 (same as for fully loaded condition)

p i = 0.483 max p 2 = 1.025 2.82 1.06 = 3.07

p = 1.025 1.24 1.7 = 2.16

3

pi = 18.11 kN/m2

The sea pressure is calculated according to Section [6.3.1]

pe = rppd

where

Tact + z wl z

rp = for Tact z wl < z < Tact + z wl

2 z wl

for Tact + z wl < z

0.0

c = (1.25 0.025 TR)

k

TR = 2 k R GM (period of roll, maximum 30 (s))

3 p dT (vertical distance from actual water line. It is assumed that the external sea pressure

z wl = above Tact + zwl will not contribute to fatigue damage)

4 g

zw = z (vertical distance from the baseline to the load point)

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

k = 1.0 (for ship with bilge keel)

f = 8.42 m (vertical distance from the waterline to the top of the ships side, maximum 0.80 Cw)

T

kf = min act (the smallest of Tact and f)

f

y = 20.0 m (horizontal distance from the centre line to the load point)

20

p dp = 30.5 + 135 1.2(9 6.34) = 50.81 kN/m 2

40 + 75

p dr = 10 20 + 0.7 0.7 + 2 = 53.76 kN / m

2

2 16 9

0.275 20 + 8.42 9

p dT = 10 20 + 0.7 0.7 + 2 = 61.11 kN / m

2

2 16 9

rp = = 0.792

2 4.56

pe = 0.792 53.76 = 42.57 kN/m2

C.7.3 Combination of local stress components

The stress amplitudes due to internal and external pressures are combined considering the sign. Positive stress

is defined as tension at the location of the weld

Stresses due to external pressure loads:

Stress per unit Pressure Stress

pressure

Double hull bending 0 0

Local stiffener bending -1.583 42.57 -67.42

Relative deflection 0 0

Total local stress amplitude due to external pressure loads, e -67.42

Stress per unit

pressure Pressure Stress

Double hull bending 0 0

Local stiffener bending +1.583 18.11 +28.68

Relative deflection 0 0

Total local stress amplitude due to internal pressure loads, i +28.68

l = 2 2e + 2i + 2 p e i

1 z x y x z

p = + + , z Tact

2 10 Tact 4 L 4 B 5 L Tact

where

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

x, y and z are the coordinates of the load point, according to the coordinate system described in Section [4.6.6]

with origin at midship, centreline, baseline:

x=7m

y = 20.00 m

z = 6.34 m

1 6.34 7 20 7 6.34

p = + + = 0.557

2 10 9 4 263 4 24 5 263 9

The vertical wave bending moments are the same as for the fully load condition (assuming same CB).

The horizontal wave bending moment is calculated according to [6.2.2] as

MH = 0.22 0.464 1.0 2639/4 (9 + 0.30 40) 0.7 (1-cos()) = 830.5103 kNm

C.7.5 Stresses from global loads

The vertical and horizontal bending moments results in the following stress ranges, according to [5.2.1] and

[5.2.3] at the 10-4 probability level of exceedance

(z n 0 )

v = K axial (M Wo.h M Wo.s ) 10 3 (vertical global stress range)

IN

y

hg = 2 K axial M H 10 3 (horizontal global stress range)

IC

2 2

Where

(distance in m from vertical neutral axis to considered

y = B/2 (h)

member)

(average correlation between vertical and horizontal

vh = 0.1 wave induced bending stress from [4.6.5])

y = 40/2 (0.400) = 19.6 m

( (

v = 1.4 1797.9 10 3 2081.8 10 3 10 3 )) 6.34 10.39

458.0

= 48.05 N/mm2

19.6

hg = 1.4 2 830.5 10 3 10 3 = 35.82 N/mm2

1273

62.74N/mm2

g = 48.052 + 35.822 + 2 0.1 48.05 35.82 =

The combined local and global stress range is given as

g + b l

= f e max

a g + l

where

a, b Load combination factors, accounting for the correlation between the wave induced local and global stress

range equal 0.6

62.74 + 0.6 113.3

= 1.0 max

0.6 62.74 + 113.3

= 151.0 N/mm2

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

To calculate the mean stress correction factor the static stress at the hot spot has to be established. The static

stress is calculated in the same manner as the dynamic stress, but based on static loads and full correlation

between the different stress components.

The static external pressure is:

The internal pressure is zero for the full load condition and the static stress due to local stiffener bending is:

Stress per unit Pressure Stress

pressure

Double hull bending 0 0

Local stiffener bending, external pressure -1.583 26.75 -42.35

Local stiffener bending, internal pressure 1.583 49.71 78.69

Relative deflection 0 0

Total local stress static, local 36.4

(z n 0 ) (6.34 10.39)

v,static = K axial M S 10 3 = 1.4 3874950 10 3 = 47.96 N/mm 2

IN 33.66(24 10.39)

The total static stress at the hot spot is then

The compression and tension stress and fm factor is calculated as given in [2.3]:

151

+ = 84.4 + = 159.9

t = max static 2 2 = 159.9

0

151

= 84.4 = 8.9

c = min static 2 2 =0

0

fm = = = 1.0

t + c 159.9 + 0

The stress range to be used in fatigue calculations is then:

o = fm

o = 1.0 151.0 = 151 N/mm2

C.7.8 Long term distribution

The period of roll is found to be TR = 24.67 sec. Using this roll period the Weibull shape parameter for the

location of considered detail is calculated according to Section [4.3]:

where

ha = 0.05 (factor depending on the motion response period)

h = 0.903 + 0.056.34/9 0.005(9 6.34) = 0.925

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

The part damage in the fully loaded condition over 20 years design life is calculated according to [F.1.2]:

Non-corrosive environment:

q m1 S

h q m2 S

h

m m

D = 0 Td 1+ 1 ; 1

+ a 1 + 2 ; 1

a1 h q h q

2

Corrosive environment:

D = 2 D non corrosive

where

20 365 24 3600

v 0 Td = = 6.516 10 7 (the number of cycles during 20 years)

4Log10 (L)

0 151

q= 1

= 1

= 13.70 N/mm 2 (the Weibull scale parameter)

h 4 0.925

(ln n 0 ) (ln 10 )

a 2 , m2 = S-N parameters for N>107 cycles

S1 = Stress range for which change of slope occur

This gives:

Dnon-corrosive = 0.752

Based on an effective corrosion protection period of 15 years this gives the following fatigue damage for the

full load condition:

T (T T )

Dballast = pballast Dnon corrosive c + Dcorrosive d c

Td Td

Where

pfulload = part of design life in full load condition = 0.2

Tc = corrosion protection period = 15 years

15 20 15

Dballast = 0 .2 0 .752 + 1 .504 = 0 .188

20 20

The total fatigue damage in full load and ballast condition is:

Dtotal = Dfulload + DBallast

Dtotal = 0.501 + 0.188 = 0.69

The total fatigue damage is less than 1.0 and the detail has an acceptable fatigue life for 20 years operation in

North Atlantic wave environment.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Appendix D

Simplified loads for direct strength analysis

D.1 General

In combination with the loads related to the simplified method described in Sec.4, direct strength analysis may

be applied to determine the stresses in the hull. Each of the load components should then be considered

separately and combined according to the formulas in Section [4.6]. The stresses from global loads in item [5.2]

are then substituted with those determined from the loads given in [D.2]. The local internal and external load

induced stress components are to be combined as described in [5.4].

D.2 Vertical hull girder bending moment

For direct global finite element calculation purpose, the range of vertical hull girder wave bending moment

given in [6.2] may be expressed in terms of counteracting vertical forces, see also Figure D-1:

At A.P. and 0.4L forward of A.P.:

MWO,h, MWO,s = as given in [4.2.1].

F

1

0.65 F.P

A.P 0.4

F

2

Figure D-1

Distribution of sectional forces for computation of vertical bending stress range.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Appendix E

Workmanship and link to analysis procedures

The fatigue life of a welded joint is highly dependent on the local stress concentrations factors arising (weld

discontinuities and geometrical deviations) arising from surface imperfections during the fabrication process.

Surface weld discontinuities are weld toe undercuts, cracks, overlaps, porosity, slag inclusions and incomplete

penetration. Geometrical imperfections are defined as misalignment, angular distortion, excessive weld

reinforcement and otherwise poor weld shapes.

When kept below normal workmanship levels, embedded weld discontinuities like porosity and slag inclusion

are less harmful for the fatigue strength.

App.A gives equations for calculation of Kg-factors due to fabrication tolerances for alignment of butt joints

and cruciform joints, and the local weld geometry. Normally the default values given in the tables in App.A

should be used if not otherwise defined. These normal default values are estimated assuming geometrical

imperfections within limits normally accepted according to good shipbuilding practices, see Table E-1. The S-

N curves given in this note are assumed to include the effect of surface weld discontinuities representative for

normal, good workmanship. The S-N curves are also assumed to include a linear misalignment of 0.1t for butt

welds and 0.3t for cruciform joints, see also Appendix [A.2.6].

In special cases, K-factors may be calculated based on a specified, higher standard of workmanship. However,

care should be taken not to underestimate the stress concentration factors by assuming a quality level which is

difficult to achieve and follow up during production.

TYPE OF I EMBEDDED SURFACE

TYPE OF IMPERFECTION MPERFECTION IMPERFECTIONS IMPERFECTIONS

POROSITY, ISOLATED2) Weld t/4, max. 4 mm 3 mm

Max. pore diameter, d:

Min. distance to adjacent pore: Discontinuities 2.5d 2.5d

POROSITY, CLUSTERED1) Weld 3 mm

Max. pore diameter, d: Not applicable

Max. length of cluster: Discontinuities 25 mm

SLAG INCLUSIONS1)2)3) Weld 3.0 mm

Max. width: Not applicable

Max. length: Discontinuities t, max. 25 mm

UNDERCUT Weld

Max. depth: Not applicable 0.6 mm

(Smooth transition required) Discontinuities

UNDERFILL1)2) Weld 1.5 mm

Max. depth: Not applicable

Max. length: Discontinuities t/2

EXCESSIVE WELD Geometrical

REINFORCEMENT2)4) Not applicable b/5, max. 6 mm

Max. height: Imperfections

OVERLAP1)2) Weld Not applicable t

Max. Length Discontinuities

CRACKS Weld Not accepted Not accepted

Discontinuities

LACK OF FUSION Weld

Discontinuities Not accepted Not accepted

LINEAR MISALIGNMENT2) Geometrical 0.15t, max. 3 mm

Max. eccentricity, butt joints: Not applicable

Max. eccentricity, cruciform joints: Imperfections 0.3t

ANGULAR MISALIGNMENT Geometrical Not applicable 6 mm

Max. distortion: Imperfections

INCOMPLETE PENETRATION1)2) Weld t t

Max. length: Discontinuities 1.5 mm t/10, max. 1.5 mm

Max. height:

Notes:

1) Defects on a line where the distance between the defects is shorter than the longest defect are to be regarded as one

continuous defect.

2) t: Plate thickness of the thinnest plate in the weld connection.

3) If the distance between parallel slag inclusions, measured in the transverse direction of welding is less than 3 times

the largest slag inclusion, the slag inclusions are regarded as one defect.

4) b: Width of weld reinforcement

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Appendix F

S-N Curve fatigue damage expressions

F.1 Weibull distributed stress range

The long term stress range distribution may be presented as a two-parameter Weibull distribution

h

Q() = exp

q

where

h = Weibull shape parameter

q = Weibull scale parameter is defined from the stress range level, 0, as

0

q=

(ln n 0 )1 h

0 is the largest stress range out of n0 cycles.

F.1.1 One-slope S-N curves

When the long-term stress range distribution is defined applying Weibull distributions for the different load

conditions, and a one-slope S-N curve is used, the fatigue damage is given by

0 Td m m

D= q (1 + )

a h

where

Td = design life in seconds

h = Weibull stress range shape distribution parameter

q = Weibull stress range scale distribution parameter

0 = average zero-crossing frequency

m

(1 + )

h =gamma function. Values of the gamma function are listed in Table F-1.

Use of one slope S-N curves leads to results on the safe side for calculated fatigue lives (when using slope of

curve at N < 107 cycles).

h m = 3.0 h m = 3.0 h m = 3.0

0.60 120.000 0.77 20.548 0.94 7.671

0.61 104.403 0.78 19.087 0.95 7.342

0.62 91.350 0.79 17.772 0.96 7.035

0.63 80.358 0.80 16.586 0.97 6.750

0.64 71.048 0.81 15.514 0.98 6.483

0.65 63.119 0.82 14.542 0.99 6.234

0.66 56.331 0.83 13.658 1.00 6.000

0.67 50.491 0.84 12.853 1.01 5.781

0.68 45.442 0.85 12.118 1.02 5.575

0.69 41.058 0.86 11.446 1.03 5.382

0.70 37.234 0.87 10.829 1.04 5.200

0.71 33.886 0.88 10.263 1.05 5.029

0.72 30.942 0.89 9.741 1.06 4.868

0.73 28.344 0.90 9.261 1.07 4.715

0.74 26.044 0.91 8.816 1.08 4.571

0.75 24.000 0.92 8.405 1.09 4.435

0.76 22.178 0.93 8.024 1.10 4.306

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

When a bi-linear or two-slope S-N curve is used, the fatigue damage expression is

given by

q m1 S

h q m2 S

h

m m

D = 0 Td 1+ 1 ; 1

+ a 1 + 2 ; 1

a1 h q h q

2

where

a1 , m1 = S-N fatigue parameters for N < 107 cycles (air condition)

a 2 , m2 = S-N fatigue parameters for N > 107 cycles (air condition)

( ) = Incomplete Gamma function, to be found in standard tables

( ; ) = Complementary Incomplete Gamma function, to be found in standard tables

F.2 Short term Rayleigh distribution

F.2.1 Linear S-N curve

When the long term stress range distribution is defined through a short term Rayleigh distribution within each

short term sea state for the each different loading conditions, and a one-slope S-N curve is used, the fatigue

criterion reads,

all seastates

all headings

T

r (2

m

D = 0 d (1 + ) ij 2m 0ij ) m

a 2 i =1, j=1

where

vo = long-term average zero-up-crossing-frequency (Hz)

moij = zero spectral moment of stress response process

m

The Gamma function, 1 + is equal to 1.33 for m = 3.0.

2

F.2.2 Bi-linear S-N curve

When a bi-linear or two-slope S-N curve is applied, the fatigue damage expression is given as:

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Appendix G

Uncertainties in fatigue life predictions

G.1 General

There are a number of different uncertainties associated with fatigue life predictions. The calculated loading

on the ship is uncertain due to uncertainties in wave heights, periods and distribution of waves. The resulting

stresses in the ship are uncertain due to uncertainties in the loading, calculation of response and calculation of

stress concentrations.

G.2 Calculation of stress

Because of the sensitivity of calculated fatigue life to the accuracy of estimates of stresses, particular care must

be taken to ensure that stresses are realistic. Fatigue damage is proportional to stress raised to the power of the

inverse slope of the S-N curve. I.e. small changes in stress result in much greater changes in fatigue life. Special

attention should be given to stress raisers like eccentricities and secondary deformations and stresses due to

local restraints. Due considerations should, therefore, be given to the fabrication tolerances during fatigue

design.

G.3 S-N curves

There is a rather large uncertainty associated with the determination of S-N curves. The scatter in the test results

which form the basis for the S-N curves is generally accepted to relate to the normal variation of weld

imperfections within normal workmanship. The ratio between calculated fatigue lives based on the mean S-N

curve and the mean minus two standard deviations S-N curve is significant as shown in Figure G-1.

G.4 Stress concentration factors

There is also uncertainty associated with the determination of stress concentration factor. The error introduced

in the calculated fatigue life by wrong selection of stress concentration factor is indicated in Figure G-2.

G.5 Probability of fatigue failure

It should be kept in mind that a high fatigue life is an efficient mean to reduce probability of fatigue failure, see

Figure G-3. It also reduces the need for in-service inspection. (A high calculated fatigue life means that the

accumulated fatigue damage occurring during service life is in the left part of this figure).

Reliability methods may be used to illustrate the effect of uncertainties on probability of a fatigue failure.

Reference is made to Figure G-4 which shows accumulated probability of a fatigue failure as function of years

in service for different assumptions of uncertainty in the input parameters. The left part of this figure

corresponding to the first 20 years service life is shown in Figure G-5.

Figure G-4 and Figure G-5 shows accumulated probability of fatigue failure for uncertainty in S-N data

corresponding to a standard deviation of 0.20 in log N scale. A normal distribution in logarithmic scale is

assumed. The uncertainty in Miner summation is described as log normal with median 1.0 and CoV equal 0.30.

Other uncertainties are load and response assumed as normal distributed with CoV equal 15-20% and hot spot

stress derivation also assumed as normal distributed with CoV equal 5-10%.

Calculated fatigue life forms the basis for assessment of probability of fatigue cracking during service life.

Thus, it implicitly forms the basis for requirement to in-service inspection. For details showing a short fatigue

life at an early design stage, it is recommended that the considered details are evaluated in terms of

improvement of local geometry to reduce its stress concentration. At an early design stage it is considered more

cost efficient to prepare for minor geometric modifications than to rely on methods for fatigue improvement

under fabrication and construction, such as grinding and hammer peening.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Figure G-1

Fatigue life influence of stress level and S-N data for welded connections

Figure G-2

Fatigue life sensitivity to stress concentration factor K and Weibull shape factor h

0.1

0.01

Probability of fatigue failure

0.001

0.0001

0.00001

0.000001

0.0000001

0.00000001

0.000000001

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Calculated fatigue damage

Figure G-3

Calculated probability of fatigue failure as function of calculated damage

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

Uncertainty in S-N, Miner,

0.30 CoVnom = 0.15, CoVhs = 0.05

Uncertainty in S-N, Miner,

CoVnom = 0.20, CoVhs = 0.05

0.20

Uncertainty in S-N, Miner,

CoVnom = 0.15, CoVhs = 0.10

0.10 Uncertainty in S-N, Miner,

CoVnom = 0.20, CoVhs = 0.10

0.00

0 50 100 150 200

Time in service (years)

Figure G-4

Accumulated probability of fatigue crack as function of service life for 20 years design life

1E-11

Uncertainty in S-N curve only

1E-10

Uncertainty in S-N, Miner,

Accumulated probability of fatigue failure

CoVnom = 0.20, CoVhs = 0.05

1E-07

Uncertainty in S-N, Miner,

CoVnom = 0.15, CoVhs = 0.10

1E-06

Uncertainty in S-N, Miner,

1E-05 CoVnom = 0.20, CoVhs = 0.10

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time in service (years)

Figure G-5

Accumulated probability of fatigue crack as function of service life for 20 years design life (left part from

Figure G-4)

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Appendix H

Low cycle fatigue

H.1 General

This chapter describes a procedure to assess low cycle fatigue (LCF) strength of ship structures under frequent

loading and unloading cycles.

Note that the procedure given in the following defines the minimum requirement to low cycle fatigue strength.

The procedure is to be used independently of the required design life. If LCF verification is wanted for an

extended design life the number of loading/unloading cycles and HCF damage contribution should be adjusted

accordingly.

Ship structures will experience static and dynamic loads during their lifetime. Normally, fatigue strength of

most joints in the cargo area has been checked in view of high cycle fatigue (HCF) due to dynamic loads. Even

though high cycle fatigue strength is checked at the design stage, cracks have been reported within few years

after delivery of ships, which might be suspected as low cycle fatigue cracks. For such cases, significant

yielding was observed for static loads.

It may be necessary to check low cycle fatigue strength of highly stressed locations under repeated cyclic static

loads mainly due to cargo loading and unloading, as significant yielding can cause cracks and/or paint cracks

at hot spots even though the dynamic stress from wave loading is low.

A fatigue life in low cycle high stress region is normally expressed in terms of the total strain range rather than

the stress range. An approach based on the pseudo-elastic hot spot stress range is adopted in this chapter. This

approach is in principle compatible with the hot spot strain range approach, as total strain is converted to

pseudo-elastic stress range by using a plasticity correction factor.

An S-N curve approach in the low cycle fatigue region, below design cycles of 104 is used in this chapter.

H.2 Critical locations for low cycle fatigue

The following locations may be vulnerable in view of low cycle fatigue.

Web stiffener on top of inner bottom longitudinal and hopper slope longitudinals when wide frame space

is employed.

Web-frame hotspots at the stiffener-frame connections in areas of high girder shear stress or where web

stiffener is not fitted on top of longitudinal flange.

Heel and toe of horizontal stringer of transverse bulkhead for frequent alternate loading anticipated.

Inner bottom connection to transverse bulkhead for frequent alternate loading anticipated.

Lower stool connection to inner bottom for a loading condition with one side tank empty and the other tank

full.

Any other locations under repeated high static stress ranges.

H.3 Limitations and assumptions of the procedure

This procedure is developed for the low cycle fatigue strength assessment with the following limitations.

new building of steel ship structures

steel materials with yield stress less than 355 N/mm2

same LCF performance for base metal and welded joints

the maximum principal stress direction does not change for a load condition.

H.4 Simplified assessment procedure for low cycle fatigue

This procedure describes how to calculate combined fatigue damage due to LCF and HCF for base metal and

welded joints. The combined fatigue damage due to HCF and LCF should be satisfied. A simplified fatigue

strength assessment procedure of low cycle fatigue is shown in Figure H-1.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Static stress component for each load Dynamic stress component for each load

condition condition at 10 -4 probability

Design cycles ,

Fraction of load

combination at sea

Static hot spot stress range Dynamic hot spot stress range

due to wave actions

correction correction

DLCF > 0.25

DHCF 1.0

Yes

Figure H-1

Assessment procedure for low cycle fatigue

Load conditions for low cycle fatigue calculations are quasi static loads due to mainly loading and unloading

of cargoes and ballast, while load conditions for high cycle fatigue calculations are dynamic due to wave action.

Stress components for low cycle fatigue can be obtained from the normal beam theory with known stress

concentration factors or by fine mesh finite element analysis with mesh size equal to the thickness at hot spot

regions. The calculated stress ranges for low cycle fatigue should be corrected by using a plasticity correction

factor in order to employ the S-N curve instead of a strain-cycle curve.

H.5 Load conditions for assessment of low cycle fatigue strength

H.5.1 Design cycles

The number of design cycles may vary depending on the ship in operation. The minimum design cycle in Table

H-1 shall be used for strength assessment of low cycle fatigue, unless otherwise described.

Ship type Recommended design cycle, nLCF

Tankers over 120 000 TDW 500

Tankers below 120 000 TDW 600

Chemical tankers 1 000

LNG carriers 800

LPG carriers 800

Over Panamax bulk carriers 500

Panamax bulk carriers 800

Handymax bulk carriers, about 45 000 1 000

TDW or smaller

Shuttle tankers 1 200

For vessels to be operated with frequent loading and unloading cycles, the design cycle may be increased, but

need not be greater than 1500 cycles for shuttle tankers, chemical tankers, and Handymax bulk carriers, and

1000 cycles for the other vessel types respectively.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Table H-2 Fraction of load combination at sea for low cycle fatigue

Fraction of load combinations, Lk

Ship type Full load-Ballast, Alternate LCs,

L1 L2

Tankers over 120 000 TDW 0.90 0.10

Tankers below 120 000 TDW 0.85 0.15

Chemical tankers 0.80 0.20

LNG carriers 1.00 0.00

LPG carriers 0.85 0.15

Over Panamax bulk carriers 0.90 0.10

Panamax bulk carriers and smaller 0.85 0.15

Ore carriers 0.85 0.15

Shuttle tankers 1.00 0.00

H.5.2

Load conditions shall be selected to obtain stress ranges from each load condition. Figure H-2 and Figure H-3

show possible loading and unloading scenarios of a vessel during voyage. The following two stress ranges shall

normally be taken into account at the design stage.

Stress range due to full load and ballast

1LCF = full

ballast

LCF

2

= alt 1

alt 2

The other possible load combinations, e.g. full load to alternate, ballast to alternate, etc. need normally not be

taken into account.

The static hot spot surface stress range for low cycle fatigue shall be obtained from a combination of load

conditions shown in Table H-3, Table H-4 and Table H-5 as appropriate.

Table H-3 Load combination for calculation of low cycle fatigue stress range, LCF

Tankers with Tankers with Vessels without

Location Load conditions centreline longitudinal two longitudinal longitudinal

bulkhead bulkheads bulkhead

Longitudinal flange connections *) Full load -ballast |LC1-LC2| |LC7-LC8| |LC13-LC14|

Web stiffener on top of longitudinal Full load -ballast |LC1-LC2| |LC7-LC8| |LC13-LC14|

stiffener

Transverse members welded to Full load -ballast |LC1-LC2| |LC7-LC8| |LC13-LC14|

longitudinals in water ballast tanks,

i.e. web stiffener, cutout, lug plate

Lower and upper hopper knuckles, Full load -ballast |LC1-LC2| |LC7-LC8| |LC13-LC14|

lower and upper chamfers *)

Horizontal stringer at inner side Full load -ballast |LC1-LC2| |LC7-LC8| |LC13-LC14|

longitudinal bulkhead *) Alternate load |LC3-LC4| |LC9-LC10| |LC15-LC16|

Girder connection to transverse Full load -ballast |LC1-LC2| |LC7-LC8| |LC13-LC14|

bulkhead, inner bottom to lower Alternate LCs 1 -2 |LC3-LC4| |LC9-LC10| |LC15-LC16|

stool, inner bottom to cofferdam

bulkhead *)

Remark:

*) hull girder stress should be added to the local bending stress for the corresponding load condition in the trim and

stability booklet.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

W1 Ballast

1LCF

Full load

W2

Figure H-2

Operation scenarios, full load - ballast

Alternate 2 W4

Full load

W1

1LCF

LCF

2

Ballast

W2

Alternate 1

W3

Figure H-3

Operation scenarios, ballast - full load alternate load conditions

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

The following load conditions may be applied for vessels with a centreline bulkhead. Normal ballast condition

shall be used for ballast condition. Actual draft, Tact shall be obtained from the loading manual.

Table H-4 Load conditions to be considered for low cycle fatigue for vessels with a centreline bulkhead

Load case Stress component Midship section view Plan view

LC1 Full load, Ts,

LC 1

LC 2

LC3 Alternate 1,

Tact, LC 3

LC4 Alternate 2,

Tact, LC 4

LC5 Alternate 3,

Tact, LC 5

LC6 Alternate 4,

Tact, LC 6

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

The following load conditions may be applied for vessels with two longitudinal bulkheads.

Table H-5 Load conditions to be considered for low cycle fatigue for vessels with two longitudinal

bulkheads

Load case Stress component Midship section view Plan view

LC7 Full load, Ts,

LC 7

LC 8

LC9 Tact, LC 9

LC10 Tact, LC 10

LC11 Tact, LC 11

LC12 Tact, LC 12

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

The conditions in Table H-6 may be applied to vessels without longitudinal bulkhead, e.g. LNG carriers, bulk

carriers, ore carriers, etc. As the load combination between load conditions LC5 and LC6 and between load

conditions LC11 and LC12 is unusual, the combinations are normally not taken into account for low cycle

fatigue strength assessment at the design stage.

Table H-6 Load conditions to be considered for low cycle fatigue for vessels without longitudinal

bulkhead

Load case Stress component Midship section view Plan view

LC13 Full load, Ts

LC 13

LC 14

LC15 Tact, LC 15

LC16 Tact, LC 16

In general, stresses contributed from both external pressures from sea water and internal pressures from both

liquid cargo and ballast water shall be considered for low cycle fatigue calculation.

The calculations and establishment of external and internal dynamic pressures based on 10-4 probability level

of exceedance are given in Sections [6.3], [6.4] and [6.5].

The static external pressure is calculated based on actual draft, Tact, which is obtained from the loading manual.

The static internal pressure is calculated based on actual filling height and cargo density, which can be obtained

from loading manual. The static internal pressure shall be established according to the loading conditions

defined in Section [H.5.2], Table H-3, Table H-4, Table H-5 and Table H-6.

H.7 Simplified calculations of stresses

H.7.1 Hot spot stress range due to wave actions

Where the principal stress direction for low cycle fatigue is the same as for high cycle fatigue the following

procedure may be used for fatigue assessment. A maximum expected stress range from that of the wave action

in the period between the load and unloading operations shall be added to that of the low cycle stress range

before the fatigue damage from low cycle fatigue is calculated. The hot spot stress range from the wave action

can be calculated as

1/ h

log n LCF

=

i

w

i

HCF 2 1/ h

1

log n 0

where

HCF

i

= hot spot high cycle fatigue stress range corresponding to 10-4 probability level for the i-th load condition,

based on dynamic pressure components given in this class note for the intended operation route

n0 = number of cycles, 108

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

The static elastic hot spot stress range for the load combination k for low cycle fatigue calculations is the

difference between the hot spot stress components for load condition i and j.

LCF

k

= si sj

Where

LCF

k = static hot spot stress range for the k-th load combination between two load conditions i and j, given

in Table H-3

s i = static hot spot stress amplitude for i-th load condition

Thus, combined stress range for, low cycle fatigue strength assessment which represent a peak to peak stress

due to loading and unloading and wave actions is given as below

comb

k

= LCF

k

(

+ 0.5 wi + wj )

where

wi = dynamic stress range at 10-4 probability level of exceedance for the i-th load condition

wj = dynamic stress range at 10-4 probability level of exceedance for the j-th load condition

Thus, an effective pseudo stress range for calculation of low cycle fatigue damage for the k-th load combination

can be obtained as

eff

k

= n comb

k

where

= ke

comb

= 1.0 for 2 .0

f

1.0

= max for comb > 2.0

a comb 10 + b

3

f

comb

= 1.0 if 2. 0

f

comb

= 0.9 for mild steel if > 2 .0

f

comb

= 0.8 for NV-32 or NV-36 steel if > 2 .0

f

f = yield stress

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Coefficients for the plasticity correction factor, a and b are given below.

comb

Stress range > 2 .0

f

a = 1.16

Mild steel b = 0.524

NV-32 and NV-36 steels a = 1.0

b = 0.53

The combined stress ranges are assumed to be derived from the linear elastic analysis. The hot spot stress range

contributing to low cycle fatigue is large and implies local yielding at the hot spot. Thus, a correction of the

elastic stress range is needed in order to derive a stress range that is representative for the actual strain range

taking the non-linear material behaviour into account.

H.7.4 Plasticity correction factor

The plasticity correction factor can be obtained from an actual cyclic stress-strain curve and Neuber's rules or

non-linear finite element analysis, as shown in Figure H-4.

pseudo

ke =

elastic

where

elastic = Elastic hot spot stress obtained from linear elastic finite element analysis or a formula

pseudo = Pseudo linear elastic hot spot stress

= E hs

For more complex structural connections only part of the region around the hot spot area will be yielding when

subjected to large dynamic loads. This can be accounted for by a factor accounting for redistribution of stress

and strain. Based on non-linear analysis of actual connections in ship structures a redistribution factor may be

introduced.

In order to obtain the plasticity correction factor, a cyclic stress-strain curve for materials should be obtained

from tests.

If the cyclic stress-strain relation is combined with the Neuber's rule, the Neuber's formula is given using the

Ramberg-Osgood relation as follows,

n2 K 2 hs2

1/ n

= + hs hs'

E E K

where

K = stress concentration factor

hs = the actual stress in the hot spot

hs = the actual strain in the hot spot

E = Youngs modulus

n, K = material coefficients.

K depends on the magnitude of the load and the sharpness of the notch. Coefficients, n and K' are given in Table

H-8 for different steel grades used for derivation of the plasticity correction factors.

Normally, the Neubers rule is widely used to obtain the plasticity correction factor, as the rule may give

somewhat conservative results. If the plane strain behaviour is relevant, the Glinka rule may be used for

derivation of the plasticity correction factor instead of the Neubers rule.

Table H-8 Material properties for cyclic stress-strain curves

Material Mild NV32 NV36

K, (N/mm2) 602.8 678.3 689.4

n 0.117 0.111 0.115

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Pseudo linear

elastic stress

pseudo

Linear elastic

stress by FEA

hs

at hot spot strain curve

elastic from hs

Linear FEA

Figure H-4

Definition of stresses and strains

The total elastic static hot spot stress amplitude due to static hull girder and static pressure loads, Appendix

[H.7.2], and the total elastic dynamic hot spot stress amplitude at 10-4 probability level of exceedance due to

wave actions during loading and unloading, Appendix [H.7.1], are established by use of simplified stress

analysis or finite element analysis, Table H-9 below.

The relevant pressure and girder loads are established according to Sec.6. The dynamic stress components due

to local and global loads should be combined to a total dynamic stress range according to Section [4.6].

Locations covered by the PLUS notation should be combined according to Classification Note 34.2 /6/.

Table H-9 Stress models for elastic hotspot stress at LCF vulnerable location

Location Stress approach

Longitudinal flange connection Simplified stress analysis according to chapter 5

Web stiffener on top of longitudinal stiffener *) Semi-nominal stress model according to CN34.2

(50x50mm mesh)

Transverse members welded to longitudinals in water bal- Semi-nominal stress model according to CN34.2

last tanks, i.e. cut-outs, lug plate (50x50mm mesh)

Lower and upper hopper knuckles, lower and upper cham- Fine mesh model according to chapter 10.

fers *) (txt mesh)

Horizontal stringer at inner side longitudinal bulkhead *) Fine mesh model according to chapter 10.

(txt mesh)

Girder connection to transverse bulkhead, inner bottom to Fine mesh model according to chapter 10.

lower stool, inner bottom to cofferdam bulkhead *) (txt mesh)

A one-slope S-N curve for low cycle fatigue strength is given as follows:

= effective stress range for the k-th load combination

effk

The basic S-N curve for low cycle fatigue assessment is given in Table H-9.

This design curve is applicable to both welded joints and base metal for LCF region.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

n LC n LC

n LCF

D LCF = 1

L k D LCF

k

= L

1

k

Nk

where

Lk = fraction of load combinations, see Table H-2.

If a non-linear finite element analysis is carried out directly, the effective pseudo-elastic hot spot stress

amplitude can be obtained by multiplying the Youngs modulus by the calculated notch strain amplitude.

Material 102 N < 104

log a m

Welded joints & base metal 12.164 3.0

H.9 Corrosion

Corrosion reduction given in DNV rules for Classification of Ships Pt.3 Ch.1 /1/ shall be applied.

An S-N curve in air is used for the entire design life time.

H.10 Thickness effect

The thickness effect is not accounted for when evaluating damage due to low cycle fatigue, section [H.7].

H.11 Mean stress effect for base metal and welded joints

No mean stress effect should be considered for base metal and welded joints for evaluation of low cycle fatigue

damage, section [H.7].

H.12 Environmental reduction factor

No environmental reduction factor, fe should be considered for evaluation of low cycle fatigue damage, section

[H.7].

H.13 Weld Improvement

Benefit of weld improvement methods like grinding, hammer-peening and TIG-dressing should not be applied

for low cycle fatigue condition.

H.14 Fabrication tolerance

The fabrication tolerances given in this document are assumed applicable.

H.15 Combined fatigue damage due to HCF and LCF

A combined damage ratio due to high cycle fatigue and low cycle fatigue shall be satisfied when DLCF 0.25.

2

D 0 . 25

Df = + LCF 1 . 0 for 0 . 25 D LCF 1 . 0

2

D HCF

0 . 75

where

DHCF = damage due to high cycle fatigue based on the 20 years or 25 years design life for NAUTICUS

(Newbuilding) or CSR respectively.

DLCF = damage due to low cycle fatigue based on the design cycles, no need to be greater than the maximum

design cycles in [H.5].

Note that the HCF damage contribution to the combined fatigue damage should be based on minimum design

life, 20 years for Nauticus(Newbuilding) or 25 years for CSR-notation, even if an extended fatigue design life

is required for HCF calculations.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

For low cycle fatigue damage below 0.25, fatigue damage due to HCF shall be satisfied.

Figure H-5 shows the requirements for the combined fatigue damages.

Figure H-5

The combined fatigue criteria

H.16.1 Introduction

An example of low cycle fatigue strength assessment of a VLCC is illustrated. The following figure shows a

hot spot to be checked at an inner bottom longitudinal.

Inner bottom

HS1

Figure H-6

Hot spot to be checked

Item Requirements Remark

Design cycle, nLCF 600 cycles From Table H-1

Dimension of longitudinal 645 x 12 + 175 x 20 mm (T), Net scantling

NV-32 steel

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

From a finite element analysis, it is assumed that the following hot spot stress components are obtained at HS1

in Table H-12.

Stress components Full load Ballast

Hot spot stress amplitude due to still water vertical bending moment -126.9 126.9

Hot spot stress amplitude due to local bending of stiffener -270 311.0

Total static hot spot stress amplitude, is -396.9 437.9

Dynamic stress range at 10-4 probability level, iHCF 64.7 100.6

Dynamic stress range due to wave actions, wi 87.5 135.2

Thus, the following stress range for low cycle fatigue is obtained.

Table H-13 Combined stress range for low cycle fatigue strength assessment, N/mm2

Stress component Full load-Ballast

Static hot spot stress range for low cycle fatigue, k

LCF 437.9 (-396.9) = 834.8

Combined stress range, k

Comb

834.8+ 0.5 (87.5+135.2) = 946.2

The following figure shows hot spot stress components from loading and unloading and wave actions.

Non-scale

Ballast

437.9 135.2

834.8

Full load

396.9 87.5

Figure H-7

Hot spot stress components, N/mm2

The following fatigue damage ratio due to LCF is calculated.

Full load-Ballast

Plasticity correction ke, 1.0946.210-3+0.53 = 1.48

Effective pseudo stress range, eff

k

, N/mm2 0.81.48946.2 = 1 120.3

The number of cycles, Nk 1012.164-3Log1120.3 = 1 038

Damage ratio due to high cycle fatigue, DHCF 0.24

600

Damage ratio due to low cycle fatigue, DLCF = 0 . 58

1038

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Since the LCF damage is greater than 0.25, a combined damage due to high cycle fatigue and low cycle fatigue

should be taken into account as follows.

2

D 0 . 25

Df = 2

D HCF + LCF =

0 . 75

0 . 24 2 + 0 . 44 2 = 0 . 50 1 . 0

It is found that the current detail is acceptable in view of the combined fatigue due to LCF and HCF.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Appendix I

Wave induced vibrations for blunt vessels

I.1 Introduction

In fatigue assessment of ship structures, the waves induce

quasi static stresses in the ship structure, referred to as wave stress

dynamic vibrations of the hull girder, referred to as vibration stress.

The vibration stress comes from springing (resonance) and whipping (transient), and their relative importance

depends on design (flexibility and shape), loading condition (ballast and cargo) and wave condition (speed, sea

state and heading).

Springing is caused by linear and nonlinear excitation, where the encounter frequency or the sum of two

encounter frequencies coincides with the natural frequency of the hull girder. Whipping is caused by nonlinear

excitation, like wave impact or slamming in the bow flare, stem flare, bottom and stern area. The two

phenomena occur to a large degree continuously and simultaneously and may be difficult to distinguish due to

low damping. Therefore, they are commonly referred to as wave induced vibrations from a fatigue consequence

point of view.

The governing vibration shape is the two-node vertical mode, which is associated with the lowest natural

vibration frequency. It is most easily excited and gives the largest vertical bending stress amidships.

Figure I-1

Upper is 2-node vertical bending moment and lower plot is associated vertical bending moment distri-

bution for a normalised homogeneous ship.

The damping is an important parameter, which affects the vibration level of springing and the decay of the

springing and whipping in lack of excitation. The damping is low for the governing vibration modes.

The period of the vibration stress (0.25-3 seconds) is an order of magnitude lower than the periods of the wave

stress (5-20 seconds). The vibration stress combined with the wave stress makes up a broad band process, and

Rainflow counting is then the recognised approach to establish the loading history. First the fatigue damage is

calculated for the total stress (wave stress + vibration stress), which defines the total damage. Secondly, the

fatigue damage is estimated for the wave stress referred to as the wave damage. The difference between the

total and wave damage makes up the vibration damage. In practise it is the vibration on top of the wave

frequency loading that makes up the significant part of the vibration damage for ocean going vessels. The

vibration damage has been of comparable magnitude as the wave damage for all full scale measurements and

model tests that have been assessed, but the relative magnitude depends on ship type and trade.

I.2 How to include the effect of vibration

The effect of vibration is to be applied to the simplified fatigue assessment.

It is assumed that the vibration stress is put on top of the wave stress from the vertical wave bending moment

only. The vertical wave stress is then adjusted by

v = vib vw

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Where

vib = vibration factor, which represents a correction of the wave stress consistent with the additional vibra-

tion damage (from whipping and springing) for the intended design area, e.g. North Atlantic or World

Wide. The correction factor assumes all wave headings of equal probability.

vw = denotes the wave stress v from vertical bending moment as determined according to Sec [5.2.1] for

the longitudinal structure detail considered.

The vibration factor vib is given as vib = vib,i where the subscript i refers to the loading condition, i.e. cargo

or ballast condition.

Dw,i + Dvib ,i

vib ,i = m 1 .0

Dw,i

Where

Dvib,i = vibration damage and

m = inverse slope of the SN-curve consistent with the estimate of the damages.

I.3 Vibration factor for blunt vessels

Blunt vessels are vessels with high block coefficients like ore carriers. Empirical vibration factor is based

mainly on full scale measurement data with some correction from model tests for ships with block coefficient

of about 0.8 and with design speeds of about 15 knots. It is supposed to cover a size range from about 170 to

350 meters in length. The correction factor is estimated as:

Fw4 + Fvib

3.7

vib ,i = m

,i

Fw4

Where

6 B (C B + 0.7 ) L1pp.9

Fw = 18.5 10

Z

B = moulded hull breadth (m)

CB = block coefficient at scantling draught

Lpp = length between perpendiculars (m)

Z = hull girder section modulus, gross scantlings (m3)

m = 3 for welded material, and 4 for base material assumed protected from corrosive environment.

Fvib ,c = 6.55 10

(T / L )

c pp

0.2

Z

7 R V B (C B + 0.7 ) L1pp.9

Fvib ,b = 1.82 10

(T / L )

b pp

0.6

Z

R = route factor

= 0.937 for North Atlantic operation

= 1.0 for World Wide operation

Ti = forward draught in (m) in loading condition i, i = c for cargo and i = b for ballast. It is recommended

to use draft related to heavy ballast condition or gale ballast draft.

V = contract speed at design draft at 85% MCR and 20% sea margin in (knots).

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

If the contract speed, Vd, is specified at another x% MCR and y% sea margin, it can be converted by the

following formula (simplistic)

1

1 + y / 100 3

V = 0.891 Vd

x / 100

For hatch corners (where m=4 is relevant), the vibration factor is only applied as a correction to wave stress

from vertical bending moment.

I.4 Application of the vibration factor vib

In the most simplified approach, useful for early design, the vib is multiplied with the wave stress from the

vertical bending moment, which is defined in Sec.6.

It is however convenient to utilize the directly calculated vertical wave bending moment towards the forward

and aft part of the cargo area. A reduction factor, fd(x), can be established based on the directly calculated

moment distribution along the hull

Where

Mw,i = Directly calculated wave bending moment for position x from AP for loading condition i. The mo-

ment is taken out at a probability level of exceedance of 10-4.

The fd(x) is applied as a reduction factor to the maximum vertical wave bending moment amidships. It thereby

replaces the moment distribution factor kwm (however kwm may be used in the software, and then this need to

be accounted for). The fd(x), i.e. the normalised bending moment distributions for ballast and cargo condition,

is illustrated Figure I-2.

1.2E+00

Ba llast C argo

1.0E+00

8.0E-01

VBM [KN-m]

6.0E-01

4.0E-01

2.0E-01

0.0E+00

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350

Ship Len gth f rom AP [m]

Figure I-2

Reduction factor, fd, as a function of length in ballast and cargo condition (an example).

v = f d vib vw

Where vw denotes the wave stress v as determined according to Sec [5.2.1] for the longitudinal structure

detail considered, but where kwm = 1.0 in Sec [6.2.1], consistent with the maximum moments amidships.

I.5 Effect of the trade

Standard design trades are the North Atlantic or World Wide. If another specific trade is specified by the owner/

yard in agreement with class, the environmental factor, fe, can be estimated. This can also be useful if another

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

wave source than global wave statistics are to be used or small vessels are intended for harsh design trade, since

the relation between World Wide and North Atlantic may differ from experience with large vessels. The fe

should then replace the fe factor in Sec. [4.6.4], where fe = 0.8 for World Wide or fe =1.0 for North Atlantic

trade.

The environmental factor fe is established for the vessel or for a similar vessel by component stochastic fatigue

analysis. For convenience it is sufficient to consider only the vertical wave bending moment. The fatigue

damage is calculated for the North Atlantic and the actual scatter diagram for a life time of 20 years, and for

both loading conditions (as the route specific scatter diagram may also differ for the two loading conditions due

to sailing restrictions). This gives the following damages:

Db,a = Damage for ballast cond. in actual trade

Dc,a = Damage for cargo cond. in actual trade

Db,ww = Damage for ballast cond. in North Atlantic

Dc,ww = Damage for cargo cond. in North Atlantic

The part time in the different conditions is denoted pi, where i = b for ballast and i = c for cargo. The part time

is taken from Sec.3 or as specified. The environmental factor is estimated in the following principle way

1

D p + Dc ,a pc m

f e = b, a b

D

b , NA bp + Dc , NA p c

Where m can be taken as 3, and represents most of the fatigue sensitive welded details.

I.6 Model tests procedure

While empirical relations are useful in early design, the most accurate way of establishing vib, is by model

tests. This assumes that the state-of-the-art procedure is followed.

Another benefit of model tests is that the vibration factor vib can be estimated along the vessel, while the

empirical relations assume a constant value in the cargo area.

In agreement with the owner/yard, the model test procedure should be submitted for approval by DNV

Maritime Advisory.

I.7 Numerical calculation procedure

Numerical analysis can replace model tests. It is regarded less accurate than model tests, but can still be a good

alternative in order to estimate ship specific vib factors. This assumes that the state-of-the-are procedure is

followed and that the numerical tool is tuned for the particular vessel design.

The state-of-the-art hydroelastic tools today are regarded more useful for container vessels with dominating

whipping impacts than blunt vessels with dominating springing excitation.

In agreement with the owner/yard, the model test procedure should be submitted for approval by DNV

Maritime Advisory.

I.8 Full scale measurements.

The uncertainties in the encountered wave environment in different trades are considerable in model tests and

numerical analysis. Full scale measurements of similar ships on similar trades can also be basis for estimation

of vib factors for sister vessels or future designs.

The full scale measurements for obtaining useful data in decision support should preferably be carried out using

approved hull monitoring system according to DNV Rules for Classification of Ships Part 6 Chapter 11 /3/

Hull monitoring systems. Systems approved to the 2005 revision include fatigue and extreme loading with

the effect of vibration included, but it should also be ensured that measured raw and statistical data is stored

and can be submitted to shore for further assessment.

In agreement with the owner/yard, the documentation should be submitted for approval by DNV Maritime

Advisory.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Appendix J

Derivation of effective hot spot stress

The SN-curves defined in Section [2.4] are derived based on stress range normal to the weld. As the angle

between the principal stress direction and the normal to the weld is increased it becomes conservative to use

the principle stress range together with a SN-curve for stress range normal to the weld toe. An optional method

for deriving the hot spot stress is described below and is intended to replace the procedure described in Section

[2.3.2] and [10.3.1] on a voluntary basis.

Two alternative methods can be used for hot spot stress derivation: method A and method B.

Method A

For modelling with shell elements without any weld a linear extrapolation of the stresses to the intersection line

from the read out points at 0.5t and 1.5t from the intersection line can be performed to derive hot spot stress.

For modelling with three-dimensional elements with the weld included in the model a linear extrapolation of

the stresses to the weld toe from the read out points at 0.5t and 1.5t from the weld toe can be performed to derive

hot spot stress.

The notations for stress components are shown in Figure J-1 and Figure J-2.

The effective hot spot stress to be used together with the hot spot S-N curve is derived as

2 + 0.81 2

//

Eff = max 1

2

+ // 1

1 = + ( // )2 + 4 //2

2 2

and

+ // 1

2 = ( // )2 + 4 //2

2 2

where

= 0.90 if manual fillet or butt welds are carried out

= 0.80 if automatic welds are carried out from both sides.

The equation for effective stress is made to account for the situation with fatigue cracking along a weld toe as

shown in Figure J-1 and fatigue cracking when the principal stress direction is more parallel with the weld toe

as shown in Figure J-2.

Method B

For modelling with shell elements without any weld the hot spot stress is taken as the stress at the read out point

0.5 t away from the intersection line.

For modelling with three-dimensional elements with the weld included in the model the hot spot stress is taken

as the stress at the read out point 0.5 t away from the weld toe.

The effective hot spot stress is derived as

( )

1.12 2 + 0.81 2

//

Eff = max 1.12 1

1.12

2

where

, 1 and 2 are explained under method A.

The equation for effective stress is made to account for the situation with fatigue cracking along a weld toe as

shown in Figure J-1 and fatigue cracking when the principal stress direction is more parallel with the weld toe

as shown in Figure J-2.

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

Principal stress

// direction

//

Weld

toe

Fatigue crack

Section

Figure J-1

Fatigue cracking along weld toe

//

// Principal stress

direction Weld

toe

Fatigue crack

Section

Figure J-2

Fatigue cracking when principal stress direction more parallel with weld toe

Classification Notes - No. 30.7, April 2014

CHANGES HISTORIC

Note that historic changes older than the editions shown below have not been included. Older historic changes

(if any) may be retrieved through http://www.dnv.com.

Main Changes

The following topics have been included or changed:

A table of stress reduction factors to be used if principal stress direction is parallel with the weld line, is

included.

Analysis guidance for bent hopper knuckle type is included.

Guidance on post weld treatment for low cycle fatigue is included.

The validity of the S-N curve is elaborated. It is states that the curves is also valid for duplex, and austenitic

steels.

- Syllabus- Strength of MaterialsUploaded byAli Saleh
- FatigueUploaded bySufferedMuch
- Cumulative Fatigue Damage and Life Prediction TheoriesUploaded byrafaguera
- Fatigue of Aircraft StructuresUploaded byBharosh Yadav
- Piping-Code-Paradoxes-B31-3-PUploaded bySachin Chavan
- 25-11 Machine Design & CAD-I (ME)Uploaded byAbdul Ahad
- IPC2012-90236Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- Otc17221 - Premium and Semi-Premium Connections Design Optimization for Varied Drilling-With-Casing ApplicationsUploaded byTimothy Galle
- 032501_1Uploaded byfaint27
- Fatigue Connection RiserUploaded byAnonymous bPPfuLdti
- chung_thesisUploaded byalfredaoude
- Fatigue Life Prediction of Pultruded E-glassPolyurUploaded byArturo Medina
- Fracture Mechanics of Through-Crack Cylindrical Pressure VesselsUploaded bybfred_4
- DNV-OS-J102 (Draft October 2004) Design and Manufacturing of Wind Turbine Blades (Offshore)Uploaded bympk8588
- 254Uploaded byAnjani Prabhakar
- M#1Uploaded byTommyVercetti
- New Microsoft PowerPoint PresentationUploaded bydeshraj
- D02Uploaded byGeorge Camacho
- no 1 fatigueUploaded byIsti_M
- Fatemi 1988Uploaded byparchekoh
- Dak TailUploaded byHendri Hermawan
- FatigueUploaded byChaby Atanante Ros
- FatigueUploaded byDiego Avendaño
- Design and Exploitation Problems of Drill String in Directional DrillingUploaded byzbhdzp
- When is Too Much Thrust Not Enough - Managing Turbine Suppliers Quality and Design IssuesUploaded byMatthew Johnston
- rp105Uploaded byChrisBurnett
- Term PaperUploaded byChaitanya Vundru
- 1369_app2Uploaded byRaisa B. Lobo Caride
- UCSD Final Report IsaUploaded byjorgevelso
- SOM1Uploaded byShardul Tagalpallewar

- Advantages of Polypropylene Based CoatingsUploaded bypaimpilly
- Specification_for_Pipe_Corrosion_Coating_Neoprene.pdfUploaded byhendry_hdw
- FRP Pipes & Fitting.pdfUploaded byAbbas
- Performance of Thermoplastic Pipe Under Highway Vehicle LoadingUploaded byhendry_hdw
- ChainUploaded byhendry_hdw
- Top Int MethUploaded byAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- High Density Polyethylene Pipe in Highway ApplicationsUploaded byhendry_hdw
- Buried HDPE Piping Stress AnalysisUploaded byhendry_hdw
- A Guide to Understanding Ship Weight and Tonnage MeasurementsUploaded byhendry_hdw
- Abs FatigueUploaded byjpsingh823632
- SS304 304L Data SheetUploaded byPrakash Kumar
- 1. Datasheet - Product Insert 6inch 750psi 300ansiUploaded byhendry_hdw
- 1.Pipeline Risk Assessment Definitive Approach and Its Role in Risk ManagementUploaded byhendry_hdw
- aga9Uploaded byShabaaz Mohamed
- Standoff AnodeUploaded byhendry_hdw
- Corroded Pipeline AssessmentUploaded byhendry_hdw
- RTJ Catalogue Rev1Uploaded bysteventrigochasin3537
- Pap 042Uploaded byElham Mashhudi

- grade 1 chapter 3 resourcesUploaded byapi-300856235
- Planning PremisesUploaded byanshika13
- V2I600162Uploaded byeditor_ijarcsse
- Mentor VIQ ManualUploaded byJosh Buens
- HVAC Laboratory PDFUploaded byPaul Rodgers
- S60_Ed3Eng.pdfUploaded byAn Nisa Tri Rahmawati
- DistrictHeatingSubstationDesign.pdfUploaded byJovan Mitrevski
- eureka math grade 1 module 1 tips for parentsUploaded byapi-270945269
- Manual de Servicio Afico Color MPC3500-4500.pdfUploaded bymetalboton
- Dot ProductUploaded byLim Jing Zhan
- UML DiagramsUploaded bychiropriyac
- Configuring and Troubleshooting DNSUploaded bymaina111
- Fall14_Lab 2 Phase Relationships.docxUploaded byMewnEProwt
- Adil ProfileUploaded byAnonymous oVIAFmi
- Smart Mobile Cities ReportUploaded byYoann Gaudry
- Quick Pitch ToolsUploaded byViet Quang Tran
- ivulitUploaded byscr789
- Resistive Circuit PracticeUploaded byBrandon Barndt
- C&I part of SCUploaded byLakshmi Narayan
- Cement Storage TankUploaded byJoel Cristobal
- T Fillet WeldsUploaded bysere
- 9A03501 Thermal Engineering - IIUploaded bysivabharathamurthy
- FUSESUploaded byVankurd
- Ignou Ms-95 solved assignment june -2013Uploaded byAmit Kumar Singh
- Effortless Success - Course 1 Workbook.pdfUploaded byAwadhesh Yadav
- MM1-Chap5Uploaded byavinashkustagi
- text feature walkUploaded byapi-312187600
- 1710 Side Mounted Level Switch Cat864Uploaded byBasil M. Ikhleif
- Lab 3 EnerconUploaded byALlan ABiang
- 221 1 Engineering Work Suwpport by Excel Based ProgramUploaded byZoebair