CSR Harmonisation

Direct Strength Analysis

Industry Presentation
September 2012

Philippe Baumans & Åge Bøe

Project Management Team (PMT)

CSR-H Finite element analysis

Contents…
• Comparison CSR-OT vs CSR-BC
• Finite element analysis (FEA)– Midship cargo hold region
• FEA procedure - Forward and aft cargo regions
• FEA procedure - Foremost and aftmost cargo hold
• Local fine mesh analysis
• Screening

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 2

 Definition of a single method
ƒ To define a common method applicable for tankers and bulk carriers

CSR-OT CSR-BC CSR-H

+ =>

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 3

Cargo hold finite element analysis scope

CSR-BC and CSR-OT
CSR-OT Common OT/BC CSR-BC
Model Extent Three cargo lengths
around midship
include 4 BHD with
stool.
Mesh boundary To follow the
stiffening system
Modeling Two node co-centric Three or four node Eccentric beams
beam elements. plate/shell element Alt: Orthotropic
elements
Where to cover Fore/Aft cargo hold Midship cargo hold
region for region for
longitudinal hull longitudinal hull
girder shear girder structural
structural members members, PSM and
TBHD
Note: Underlined items => Used in in CSR-H Red items => Not used
September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 4
 Cargo hold structural strength assessment
CSR-BC and CSR-OT
CSR-OT Common OT/BC CSR-BC
HG Loads Direct method, Alt: Superimposition
with method (for BM analysis
simultaneously only)
acting HG Loads
and Local Loads
Boundary Spring elements Both ends of model are
conditions simply supported using
Rigidly links
Equilibrium BM applied to the model ends SF and BM controlled at
method / HG to produce the BM target target location with each
load Vertical distributed loads two sets of enforced
applied to each frame position moments
application
to produce target VSF
Yield criteria λy ≤ λyperm Allowable stress:
λy = σvm/ReH for plate elements σvm ,σaxial < 235/k
λy = σrod/ReH for rod elements
λyperm : for S and S+D. Also Deflection of PSM:
dependent of member type δmax< L/150m
Note: Underlined items => Used in in CSR-H Red items => Not used
September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 5

Local fine mesh structural strength analysis

CSR-BC and CSR-OT
CSR-OT Common OT/BC CSR-BC

Mandatory Upper hopper knuckle connection Not specified

locations Deck, DB longitudinal and
adjoining TBHD vertical stiffener
Corrugated bulkheads
Locations Detailed screening method for Where stresses exceed
for bracket end connection, opening 95% of the allowable
screening and heel connection stress fine mesh FEA
to be carried out
Modelling Mesh size: not to be greater than Element aspect ratio: Mesh size: 0.25 *
50x50 <3 stiffener spacing
Skew angle: between 60 and 120 Skew angle: between
45 and 135
Yield λy = k·σvm/235 < λyperm Allowable stress:
criteria for plate and rod elements 280/k
λyperm for S and S+D. Also
dependent on location (weld/base)
Note: Underlined items => Used in in CSR-H Red items => Not used

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 6

 Harmonised CSR
Scope and objectives
• The finite element strength assessment of the hull girder,
primary supporting structural members and bulkheads
• Cargo hold strength analysis: mandatory from collision
bulkhead to the forward machinery transverse bulkhead

Area covered by FEA

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 7

Modelling

• Model extent:
• Longitudinal: Three cargo lengths
• Transverse: Both sides of the ship
• Vertical: Full depth of the ship
• Mesh : Following the stiffening system
• Plates: Modelled with shell elements
• Eccentric beam: Stiffeners modelled with beam elements considering their
eccentricity about neutral axis
• Openings: Modelled similar to CSR-OT
• Face plate of PSM: Effective cross sectional area for curved part from CSR-OT
• Sniped stiffener: Modelled with reduced cross section (see figure below)

Beam element:: dw Web: de

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 8

 Boundary conditions

Comparison results between whole ship model and cargo hold model

• Numerical test for

whole ship model
and cargo hold model

• Good results for

oblique sea and roll
condition

• Realistic warping
deflections and
torsional stresses
simulated with cargo
hold model

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 9

Boundary conditions &

Equilibrium method / BM application
Cargo holds region except aftmost and foremost cargo holds

Fwd. C/H

Equilibrium method for Equilibrium method for

bending moment correction bending moment correction
(Midship cargo holds region) (Aft/Fwd cargo holds region)

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 10

 Boundary conditions &
Equilibrium method / BM application
Foremost cargo hold Aftmost cargo hold

Foremost C/H Equilibrium method for

bending moment correction

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 11

Equilibrium method / SF application

• Adjustment of shear force

distribution by applying
vertical forces, similar to
CSR-OT
• Vertical forces at each web
frame distributed in
accordance with the HG
shear flow

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 12

 Load combinations
Oil tankers with two oil-tight bulkheads

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 13

Load combinations - Bulk carriers

Ex: Analysis applicable to empty hold in alternate condition of BC-B & BC-C

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 14

 FE analysis procedure –
Outside midship cargo region
• Boundary condition • HG load application
The boundary conditions of midship cargo Same as the for midship cargo region except
region are also applicable outside midship HG bending moment corrections to obtain
cargo region target HG bending moment within the full
extent of the model
• Load combination Applied axial force for correction of BM
The fore and after cargo hold regions excluding
foremost and aftmost regions are using similar
loading patterns, draft, permissible SWBM and
SWSF as midship cargo region.

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 15

Foremost and aftmost cargo hold

Structural model
FE model for the foremost
• Structural model cargo hold structure of an
9 Longitudinal extent: oil tanker
a) In the foremost cargo hold – from the after
BHD of the cargo hold No.2 to the ship’s
foremost cross section where the reinforce
ring or web frame remains continuous
from the base like to the strength deck;
b) In the aftmost cargo hold - from the after
BHD of the engine room to the forward
BHD of cargo hold N-1.

9 Transverse extent: FE model for the aftmost

Both port and starboard sides. cargo hold structure of a
bulk carriers
9 Vertical extent:
The full depth of the ship is to be modelled
including primary supporting members
above upper deck, trunks and/or cargo
hatch coaming if any. The superstructure
is not required to be included in the model.

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 16

 Equilibrium/HG load application method
FE load combinations
• Adjustment for HG bending moment,
foremost cargo hold

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 17

Cargo hold FE analysis

Acceptance criteria
Yield:
λy = σvm / Ry ≤ λyperm
λy = σaxial / Ry ≤ λyperm
where
σvm : Von Mises stress in shell el. ,
average membrane stress for sxs
σaxial : Axial stress in rod/beam el.
average stress at length s
Ry = 235 / k

Buckling of plate and

stiffener:
Allowable utilization
factor: ηall

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 18

 Local fine mesh analysis vs. screening
Principles
• Fine mesh analysis
– Element size: 50x50 mm
– Stress: Von Mises membrane stress
– Acceptance criteria for fine mesh
• Screening
– Element size: s x s (cargo hold model)
– Stress: σsxs . λsc
– Acceptance criteria for screening

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 19

Local fine mesh analysis

vs. Screening
• Mandatory areas for fine mesh analysis
– Mandatory locations are given, e.g. large openings.
– Maximum 50x50 mm mesh size
• Screening areas
– Areas for screening given, e.g. Hatch corner area (BC), Heels of
transverse bulkhead horizontal stringers (Tankers)
– Screening criteria is based on stresses from C/H analysis
– If screening criteria fails, fine mesh analysis is required

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 20

 Local fine mesh analysis
Mandatory details
a) Hopper knuckles
b) Side frame end brackets and lower hopper knuckle for single side bulk carrier
c) Large openings
d) Connections of deck and double bottom longitudinal stiffeners to T/bhd
e) Connections of corrugated bulkhead to adjoining structure

Bulk carrier Oil tanker

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 21

Local fine mesh analysis

Acceptance criteria

σvm - av. membrane stress for 50x50 mm

σaxial - average axial stress for 50 mm

ff = 1.0 in general
ff = 1.2 for details complying with Ch 9 Sec 6,
Table 1 (fatigue)

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 22

 Screening – Mandatory details
a) Openings in way of web of primary supporting members
b) Bracket toes on transverse web frame, horizontal stringer and transv. plane
bulkhead to double bottom connection or buttress structure
c) Heels of transverse bulkhead horizontal stringers
d) Connections of transverse lower stool to double bottom girders and longitudinal
lower stool to double bottom floors
e) Connection of lower hopper to transverse lower stool
f) Connection of topside tank to inner side
g) Connection of corrugation and upper supporting structure to upper stool
h) Hatch corner area, such as the hatch coaming end bracket, hatch corner and hatch
end beam

Oil tanker Bulk carrier

September 2012 Direct Strength Analysis 23

Screening - Acceptance criteria

CSR-H HG & Local prescriptive

September 2012 Rules 24
Thank you for your attention !