Section 09 14 09 04 PDF

Common Structural Rules for
Double Hull Oil Tankers, June 2004
Background Document
SECTION 9 – DESIGN VERIFICATION
Version: 14 September 2004
© American Bureau of Shipping, Det Norske Veritas and Lloyd’s Register
PREPARED BY:-
JOINT TANKER PROJECT − BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
PAGE 2 – SECTION 9: DESIGN VERIFICATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
SECTION 9 – DESIGN VERIFICATION ................................................................................................... 3
1 HULL GIRDER ULTIMATE STRENGTH.................................................................... 3

1.1 General................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Calibration procedure........................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Rule criteria ......................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Characteristic load.............................................................................................................. 7
1.5 Uncertainty modelling....................................................................................................... 9
1.6 Calibration results ............................................................................................................ 15
1.7 Geometrical input............................................................................................................. 22
1.8 References.......................................................................................................................... 22
2 STRENGTH ASSESSMENT (FEM) ............................................................................. 23
2.1 General............................................................................................................................... 23
2.2 Global Cargo Tank Structural Strength Analysis ........................................................ 24
2.3 Local Fine Mesh Structural Strength Analysis ............................................................. 25
3 FATIGUE STRENGTH ......................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Fatigue Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Fatigue Criteria ................................................................................................................. 25
3.3 Locations to Apply ........................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Fatigue Assessment Methods ......................................................................................... 26
COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

©AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING, DET NORSKE VERITAS, LLOYD'S REGISTER 2004
SECTION 9: DESIGN VERIFICATION – PAGE 3
SECTION 9 – DESIGN VERIFICATION

1 HULL GIRDER ULTIMATE STRENGTH
1.1 General
1.1.1 Application
1.1.1.a This sub-section is not structured in accordance with the corresponding sub-
sections of the Rules. The principles addressed set the scene for the rule
requirements and are organised to provide a better understanding for the rule
requirements for hull girder ultimate strength.
1.2 Calibration procedure
1.2.1 Introduction
1.2.1.a The Hull Girder Ultimate Capacity is an explicit control of the most critical failure
mode for double hull tankers. The criterion for the ultimate strength of the hull
girder is given in a partial safety format, and has been subjected to calibration using
structural reliability analyses.
1.2.1.b The ultimate hull girder capacity check is categorised as the Ultimate Limit State
and is the first step in the design verification. Scantlings required will be used as
input to the FEM strength assessment. Failure in sagging is identified as the most
critical failure mode for double hull tankers. Failure in hogging is not considered in
the current JTP rules.
1.2.2 Scope
1.2.2.a The present scope covers a design rule for determining the hull girder ultimate
strength for:
(a) Oil tankers equal to or greater than 150 m in length;
(b) Sagging condition only.
1.2.2.b The load effect considered is vertical bending moment due to still water and wave
loads. North Atlantic environmental conditions are used as basis. Abnormal waves
are not considered. The net thickness approach is applied with the ultimate
capacity checked with 50% tcorr applied to all structural members.
1.2.3 Test set

1.2.3.a The project has defined five test vessels, and a summary of vessel particulars are
given in Table 9.1.1. This set of vessels covers the scope of the Rules.
Table 9.1.1
Test vessels
Case Vessel type Lpp (m) Breadth (m) Depth (m)
1 Suezmax 263 48 22.4
2 Product/Chemical Carrier 174.5 27.4 17.6
3 VLCC 1 320 58 31
4 VLCC 2 316 60 29.7
5 Aframax 234 42 21

1.2.4 Methodology
1.2.4.a Structural reliability analyses have been used as a tool to calibrate a design rule for
hull girder ultimate strength. The aim is to obtain a rule that ensures that a
sufficient and appropriate safety level is obtained for the structures and structural
components covered by the rule. A partial safety factor format has been employed.
1.2.4.b In the structural reliability analysis the randomness in environment, structural load
effects and strength parameters is accounted for. Uncertainties in the prediction
models are also considered. The aim of the structural reliability analysis is to
represent the physics of the problem as realistically as possible, reflecting the
uncertainty involved and avoiding conservatism. The main result is a prediction of
the nominal annual probability of failure together with the sensitivity of this result
with respect to the various parameters. Effects of gross error are not considered in a
structural reliability analysis.
1.2.4.c The rule analysis is a deterministic analysis following a well defined procedure.
This procedure should be practical to use in design and approval.
1.2.4.d The safety level obtained using the rule depends on how the characteristic values
are defined and the magnitude of the corresponding partial safety factors. It is
assumed that the same target safety level is applicable for all ships to be covered by
the rule.
1.2.4.e An illustration of calibration is given in Figure 9.1.1. Here the partial safety factors
are calculated as the ratio between the design point values (that is the most likely
values at failure) at the target reliability level and the characteristic values. This is
straightforward when considering a single case only. However, when more cases
and variations in the designs are considered it becomes more complex since such
ratios will usually vary between cases.
1.2.4.f In a calibration the magnitudes of the partial safety factors are optimised to provide
a consistent reliability level for the test set spanning the scope of the rule; i.e.
avoiding significant under-design and excessive over-design. The definition of the
characteristic values may in principle also be considered in this optimisation.
1.2.4.g Whereas Figure 9.1.1 illustrates a “single test case” calibration, Figure 9.1.2 illustrates
a more general procedure that has been implemented and applied in the calibration.
The steps involved are described as follows:
(a) Start out with the characteristic values for the still water bending moment and
the wave moment together with initial trial partial safety factors. Results
obtained from a “single test case “ calibration, as illustrated in Figure 9.1.1, may
be used as guidance to select the initial trial safety factors.
(b) Apply the rule criteria to compute the required characteristic capacity. This
may represent a structural design that differs from the initial design. The
difference is defined in terms of a design modification factor (DMF) which is
further defined in Section 1.4.4. The DMF is a deck area scaling factor following
a defined procedure on how to modify the deck (stiffener size and plate
thickness) in order to increase (or decrease) the capacity relatively to the initial
design (”target scantlings”). The loads are assumed to be unaffected by the
design modification.
(c) Determine the probability of failure corresponding to the DMF, from step (b),
and find its deviation from the specified annual target probability of failure.

Figure 9.1.1
Calibration “single test case” illustration
Rule Reliability Analysis

MU
Criterion: γ S M SW + γ W M WV ≤ Criterion: Pf ≤ Pf , t arg et
γR
Limit state: g=Mu-MS-MW
Still water moment, MSW
• Rule value, empirical Probability - actual loading
• Actual loading condition Density - model uncertainty
• Other → MS distribution
M S , DP
γS =
M SW
MS, DP
MS
Wave moment, MWV Probability

- joint environmental model
• Rule value, empirical - hydrodynamic analysis
Density
- model uncertainty
• Direct calculation
→ annual extreme response
- Detailed recipe wrt. kind of
analysis, environmental M W , DP
γW =
conditions, probability level etc. M WV
• Other MW, DP
MW
Moment capacity, MU - random material

Probability - geometrical uncertainty
• E.g. incremental iterative method Density - model uncertainty
• Material strength → capacity distribution
• Other
MU
γR =
M U , DP
MU, DP
Mu
Safety factors, γS, γW, γR Design Points (DP)
(d) Evaluate whether the optimum set of partial safety factors are obtained; i.e.
minimising the deviation from the target, considering all cases in the test set.
Modify the safety factors and recalculate from (b) if necessary.

(e) Calibration completed.
Figure 9.1.2
Calibration, applied procedure
a Characteristic Initial trial

values, MSW & MWV safety factors
MU,C
b Design analysis,
M U = (γ S M SW + γ W M WV ) / γ R
DMF
? minimum DMF
-log(Pf)
c Reliability of design,
Modify
safety
Target
deviation from target
factors
DMF
NO
Optimum
d values of safety
I.e. avoid serious under-
factors? design and excessive
over-design by
YES minimising deviation
from target probability
e Calibration
completed
1.3 Rule criteria
1.3.1 Rule format

1.3.1.a The rule format is defined as:
MU
γ S M SW + γ W M WV ≤
γR
Where:
M SW is the characteristic still water moment
γ S is the partial safety factor for the still water moment
M WV is the characteristic wave moment
γ W is the partial safety factor for the wave moment
M U is the characteristic moment capacity
γ R is the partial safety factor for the moment capacity

1.4 Characteristic load
1.4.1 Still water moment

1.4.1.a The characteristic still water moment used for the purpose of calibration is here
defined as the maximum sagging value from any seagoing condition given in the
loading manual. The values used from the 5 sample ships are included in Table 9.1.2.
1.4.2 Wave moment

1.4.2.a The characteristic wave bending moment is calculated according to Section 7/3.4.1 of
the JTP Rules, and the values are included in Table 9.1.2.
Table 9.1.2
Characteristic still water moment and wave moment (kNm)
SUEZMAX PRODUCT VLCC 1 VLCC 2 AFRAMAX
Still water moment,
maximum in load 2119568 564960 4439967 4858373 1435429
manual
Wave moment, IACS
5762522 1279133 10418575 10513937 3843692
formula
1.4.3 Characteristic moment capacity

1.4.3.a The characteristic bending moment capacity may, in principle, be calculated
according to any selected computational methods. The characteristic capacities
used in this requirement are calculated according to a single step method; here after
called HULS-1 for convenience, see Appendix A/2 of the Rules. In this method the
area of each stiffened panel in the deck from the initial design Ad is reduced to Ad,eff ,
based on the ratio between its ultimate capacity σc calculated using the advanced
buckling approach and the yield stress σyd; i.e.:
σc
Ad ,eff = Ad
σ yd
1.4.3.b The sectional properties of the hull girder are modified correspondingly, and the
ultimate moment capacity is nominally computed to correspond to initial yield in
the deck of the modified section.
1.4.4 Initial design and Design Modification Factor DMF

1.4.4.a The initial designs used for the analysis are based on the “target scantlings”. The
net thickness approach is applied; i.e. applying 50% tcorr reduction to all members.
1.4.4.b In the calibration, as illustrated in Figure 9.1.2, a design modification factor DMF is
applied as a means of adjusting the moment capacity. The following assumptions
are made:
(a) The hull girder moment capacity is adjusted by modifying the deck design only,
keeping dimensions of sides, bulkheads and bottom structure constant.
(b) The change in the deck design is implemented by changing the size of the
stiffeners and the plate thickness only, keeping the spacing and the number of
stiffeners constant.

(c) The change in stiffener size follows a “smoothed curve” fitted to available
profile sizes.
(d) The thickness of the deck plating is assumed to change in proportion to the
change in thickness of the stiffener flange
(e) Loads are assumed remain unchanged by the design modification.
1.4.4.c The outlined procedure for deck modification is simple, and does not necessarily
lead to optimum designs. For small variations around the initial design, it is
considered a reasonable approach for the purpose of calibration.
1.4.5 Characteristic capacity as a function of the Design Modification Factor

(DMF)
1.4.5.a The implemented design modification factor represents relative changes in the gross
area of the deck following the recipe outlined in Section1.4.4. The input sectional
properties and typical deck panel dimensions for the deck structure are given in
Section 1.7.1. The capacity determined using the single step procedure, ref. Appendix
A/2 of the Rules, is illustrated in Figure 9.1.3 as a function of DMF.
Figure 9.1.3
Characteristic capacity as a function of DMF
25000000
20000000
SUEZMAX
Capacity (kNm)
15000000
PRODUCT
VLCC 1
VLCC 2
10000000 AFRAMAX
5000000
0
0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25
Design Modificaton Factor
1.4.6 Reliability Analysis

1.4.6.a In a structural reliability analysis the design criterion may be stated by requiring the
probability of failure to be less than the target probability of failure. Failure is

defined when the load exceeds the capacity, where the uncertainties in both load
and capacity are accounted for.
1.4.6.b The setup of the analysis is illustrated in Figure 9.1.4, and described further in the
following subsections. The probability of failure is calculated by the general
probabilistic analysis program PROBAN, SESAM (1996), using the First Order
Reliability Method (FORM).
Figure 9.1.4
Hull girder collapse, outline of the reliability analysis
Load Analysis Reliability Analysis Capacity Analysis
Geometry &
Hydrodynamic material
analysis
Joint Still water
environment moment Geometry, Dummy
Transfer
material load
functions for
wave moment
PROBAN
Load > Capacity Panel buckling
analysis
• Pf
Capacity
• Importance
• Sensitivity
1.5 Uncertainty modelling
1.5.1 Environmental conditions

1.5.1.a A joint environmental model; i.e. a probabilistic model for the significant wave
height and the zero-crossing period, for the North Atlantic environmental
conditions is used. This model is developed from the scatter diagram used by the
hydro group, and implies some smoothing and extrapolation to unobserved
conditions. The significant wave height Hs of a 3-hours sea state is modelled as a 3-
parameter Weibull distribution:
β −1 ⎡ ⎛ h − γ ⎞β ⎤
β ⎡ hs − γ ⎤
f H s ( hs ) = exp ⎢− ⎜ s ⎟ ⎥
α ⎢⎣ α ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎝ α ⎠ ⎥⎦
with scale parameter α=2.721 m, shape parameter β=1.401 and location parameter
γ=0.866 m.
1.5.1.b The zero-crossing wave period Tz is conditional on the significant wave height, and
a log-normal distribution has been applied:
1 ⎡ (ln t z − µ )2 ⎤
f Tz |H s (t z | hs ) = exp ⎢ ⎥
2π σt z ⎢⎣ 2σ
2
⎥⎦
Where:
µ = E (ln Tz ) = 0.623 + 1.356 ⋅ hs 0.123

σ = Var (ln Tz ) = 0.146 + 0.044 ⋅ e −1.712⋅h s

1.5.2 Wave moment

1.5.2.a The structural response due to waves is based on the linear hydrodynamic analysis
results for the five test vessels. Results in terms of transfer functions for the selected
midship bending moment are used. The long-term response is computed inside
PROBAN. The basic assumption is a narrow banded Gaussian response in each sea
state. This assumption implies Rayleigh distributed maxima for a given sea state,
for which a Gumbel type extreme value distribution can be derived. Finally, the
annual extreme value distribution is obtained assuming independence between sea
states. This approach to use transfer functions with PROBAN is documented by
Mathisen and Birknes (2003).
1.5.2.b The distribution using this approach has been verified versus a conventional
Weibull distribution as obtained based on the standard long term response
calculation procedure as applied by the hydro group.
1.5.2.c The probability of sagging failure in ballast condition may be neglected since the
still water moment in ballast generally gives hogging and leads to a significant
reduction in the total sagging moment. See also Section 1.5.3. The loaded conditions
at sea are considered, and wave loads corresponding to scantling draught are used.
The annual probability of failure is calculated taking into account the relevant
fraction of the year for which the vessel is assumed to be in loaded condition at sea;
i.e. 42.5% of the year as defined. The ship is in port or sailing in ballast the rest of
the time.
1.5.2.d One principal difference between a structural reliability analysis and a rule criterion
is that in the reliability analysis one must aim at representing the physics of the
modelled mode of failure as accurately as possible, whereas in the rule criteria one
may be allowed to do simplifications for practical reasons. Here we focus on hull
girder collapse, and in such severe conditions the ship is most likely to operate in
head sea, or nearly head sea. In extreme sea states the waves tend to be more long-
crested; e.g. cos4 directional function or with an even higher exponent.
1.5.2.e Some test runs for calculation of the wave moment distribution were carried out. A
triangular distribution of the main heading between 150º and 210º (head sea is 180º)
was assumed together with a cos4 spreading function. This was found to be almost
equivalent to head sea and a spreading using cos2. For this reason, the structural
reliability analyses are carried out for head sea with a short-crested representation
corresponding to cos2.
1.5.2.f The Pierson Moskowitz (PM) spectrum has been applied in the analyses. Some
sensitivity results using Jonswap are included. All results are for zero ship speed.
1.5.2.g A model uncertainty for the response calculation has been applied in terms of a
normally distributed uncertainty factor with a mean value of 1.0 and a coefficient of
variation of 0.1. This uncertainty is assumed to cover the uncertainty in the linear
results itself, including the effect of uncertainty in the wave spectrum. Reference is
made to DNV Classification Note 30.6.
1.5.2.h Furthermore, to use a linear analysis for the bending moment response in extreme
weather is a simplification that is difficult to justify. ISSC 2000 Volume 2 Special
Task Committee VI.1 “Extreme Hull Girder Loading” discusses direct calculation
procedures for extreme wave loads on ship hull girders. It is stated that:
(a) No robust and exact non-linear hydrodynamic wave load procedure exists
today, and almost all ship motion and wave load codes rely on potential theory.

(b) The validity of linear potential theory is well documented and it is widely used
for both ships and offshore structures, and is accurate up to fairly large wave
slopes.
(c) The difficulties arise in extreme seas.
1.5.2.i The problems are inherently non-linear dealing with large-amplitude non-linear
wave fields and the variable geometry of the ship’s hull as it comes in and out of the
water as well as with, slamming, wave breaking and green water on deck. Results
concerning comparative calculations using different simplified non-linear analyses
methods are discussed for a test container ship (S175). For the present work,
considering tankers over 150m and zero speed, there appears not to be any directly
applicable results in terms of nonlinear correction factors.
1.5.2.j Other sources have been investigated in order to find a measure for non-linear
correction on the linear results. Results show a large scatter. In ISSC 1991 a bias
factor of 1.15 is suggested for sagging (0.85 for hogging) and with a rather low
standard deviation of 0.03. Hovem and Aasbø (1999) show a comparison of results
using a non-linear strip theory program (NV 1418) and a linear 3D sink-source
theory program (WADAM). Results are calculated for a 125dwt tanker, 290 000dwt
VLCC and a 165 000dwt Bulk Carrier. Nonlinear correction factors near unity are
obtained for the tankers; i.e. between 0.97 and 1.05, and between 0.91 and 0.96 for
the Bulk carrier.
1.5.2.k The design wave amplitude has been varied (9.8m-11.8), and the lowest corrections
factors are obtained for the higher wave amplitudes. Finally, the DNV
Classification Note 30.6 has been reviewed, where a general bias of 0.92 is given.
1.5.2.l The paper Pastoor, W., et. al. “Direct Nonlinear Hydrodynamic Analyses For High
Speed Craft”, HIPER '02, Bergen, Norway, pp. 469-484 provides some results
showing that the non-linear effect first increases with increasing severity of the
weather, but may then decrease again when the severity further increases beyond
some limit. Numerical results applicable for the tankers studied in the present
project are not available, but the tendency of first increasing then decreasing is
interesting.
1.5.2.m From the available data it is difficult to conclude on a “correct” model uncertainty
to account for non-linear effects. A wide scatter in the results appears. An
uncertainty factor with a mean value of 1.0 and a coefficient of variation of 0.1 has
been applied in the present analyses, applied to the total wave bending moment.
Some sensitivity analyses have been performed to show the effect of different
assumptions; i.e. analyses with bias factors of 1.1 or 0.9 and one analysis using a
coefficient of variation of 0.2.
1.5.3 Still water moment

1.5.3.a In general for tankers ballast conditions represent hogging and loaded conditions
represent sagging. Also, the wave induced moment has been found to be greater in
loaded than in ballast condition. For this reason the chance of sagging failure in
ballast condition has been ignored.
1.5.3.b The calibration has been performed using the assumptions as outlined below.
(a) Identify all seagoing loaded conditions in the loading manual
(b) Emergency ballast and segregated/transitory/group load conditions (that often
gives hogging) are omitted

(c) Calculate the mean value and the standard deviation based on numbers for the
identified conditions, assuming equal weight for each condition
1.5.3.c This has been done for the five test vessels together with three additional vessels,
and the results are included in Table 9.1.3.
Table 9.1.3
Still water statistic for the 5 test vessels and additional 3 vessels. Moments in MNm
Mean Std.dev. Max Mean/max Std.dev/Max. (Max-
mean)/
Std.dev
SUEZMAX 1805 192 2120 85 % 9% 1.64
PRODUCT 337 140 565 60 % 25 % 1.63
VLCC 1 3059 780 4440 69 % 18 % 1.77
VLCC 2 2856 969 4858 59 % 20 % 2.07
AFRAMAX 831 365 1435 58 % 25 % 1.66
AFRAMAX (2) 1030 321 1448 71 % 22 % 1.30
PRODUCT (2) 157 90 288 55 % 31 % 1.45
PRODUCT (3) 86 61 175 49 % 35 % 1.46
Average 63 % 23 % 1.62
1.5.3.d It is seen that the mean value is between 49% and 85% of the maximum value of the
conditions identified. When the mean value is relatively high, the standard
deviation is relatively small. There is a tendency for the shorter vessels to have a
relatively lower mean and a higher standard deviation than the longer vessels.
1.5.3.e On average, the maximum value is 1.6 times the standard deviations above the
mean value. A conventional definition of a characteristic value is to use a consistent
fractile of its associated distribution. For example the characteristic yield stress is
usually defined as the 5% fractile of its distribution which, in fact, corresponds to
1.64 times the standard deviation below the mean value, if a normal distribution is
used.
1.5.3.f The model that is used in the present work assumes that the still water moment is
normally distributed with a mean value of 0.7 times the maximum value in the
loading manual, and with a standard deviation of 0.2 times the maximum value.
This distribution has been applied in the analyses of all 5 test vessels. There has not
been implemented any upper threshold to the distribution. In other words, there is
a chance that the still water moment may attain a value that exceeds the maximum
value in the loading manual, although the probability of this is small; i.e. 7%.
1.5.3.g A model uncertainty factor on the still water moment has also been applied in terms
of a normally distributed variable with a mean value of 1.0 and a coefficient of
variation of 0.1.
1.5.4 Combination of wave and still water moment

1.5.4.a The still-water bending moment MS will be added to the wave moment MW by
linear superposition. Two different combinations, following Turkstra’s combination
rule, Tursktra (1970), are evaluated:
(a) An annual extreme value of the wave induced moment with a random value of
the still water moment.

(b) An annual extreme value of the still water moment together with an extreme
value of the wave moment during one voyage.
1.5.4.b Depending on the magnitude, the variability and the duration of a voyage, either of
these combinations may be governing. However, for the present tanker study, it
appears that the extreme wave load is dominating, and combination 1 is governing
for the probability of failure. This has also been found in the present study and in
other studies; e.g. Bach-Gansmo and Lotsberg (1989) and Kaminski (1997).
1.5.5 Moment capacity

1.5.5.a The physical model applied in the capacity calculation is similar to the model used
for the computation of the characteristic capacity as defined in Section 1.4.3; i.e. the
HULS-1 model. The uncertainties accounted for are the yield strength, which is
modelled by a lognormal distribution, and a model uncertainty to reflect
uncertainty in the calculation model. Geometrical dimensions are modelled as
deterministic values.
1.5.5.b The results are conditional on the applied net thicknesses, hence, time variant
corrosion is not considered. Initial imperfections are not modelled as such, but
accounted for in the applied model uncertainty. The stiffness is modelled as a
deterministic value since the associated uncertainty is rather small and has
negligible influence on the results.
1.5.5.c The distribution of the yield strength is derived from its characteristic value which
represents the lower 5% fractile. A coefficient of variation of 0.08 is used for normal
grade steel (used for the PRODUCT tanker), and 0.06 has been applied for high
strength steel used in the remaining cases.
1.5.5.d These values are taken from the DNV Classification Note 30.6 and by Skjong et. al
(1995), and are commonly applied. In ISSC 2000 Volume 2 Special Task Committee
VI.2 “Ultimate Hull Girder Strength” comparable coefficients of variation of 0.09
and 0.07 are given respectively. The distribution parameters are included in Table
9.1.4. The spatial variation of the material strength has not been considered. There
is likely to be some averaging effects since one would expect some degree of
independency in the steel properties for different plates and stiffeners around the
hull section. For this reason, the applied distribution model is likely to be
somewhat pessimistic.
1.5.5.e The magnitude of the model uncertainty is chosen with some basis in the obtained
nonlinear finite element analysis results for the SUEZMAX, ref. Törnqvist (2004).
The HULS-1 prediction model provides comparable results to the non-linear
analysis when rather pessimistic imperfections are applied. Somewhat higher
capacity is obtained when a more realistic imperfection model is applied (“hungry
horse”). These results are summarised in Table 9.1.4.
1.5.5.f The numbers indicated a model uncertainty factor with a bias higher than 1.0. A
value of 1.05 with a standard deviation of 0.1 has been applied, assumed to reflect
the difference between the HULS-1 model and the non-linear result as well as the
difference between the non-linear result and real life.
1.5.5.g Additional non-linear analyses results for other vessels are demanded in order to
gain further confidence in the simplified approach.

Table 9.1.4
Comparison of non-linear ABAQUS analyses results and HULS-1 calculations (GNm), from
Törnqvist (2004)
Change -
50% tcorr Target Change - Change -
" as built" 3
relative to scantlings, 1 yield 2 yield
scantlings small
"as built" gross stress 235 stress 355
stiffener
Fixed deck area = Target scantlings, gross
Huls-1 11.240 9.923 12.179 9.169 13.571 11.251
ABAQUS:
Imp. model 1 11.300 9.810 12.560
Imp. model 2 11.500 9.990 12.640 9.980 13.890 12.370
Imp. model 3 12.200 10.400 13.550 10.620 14.930 13.060
Imp. model 4 13.200
Imp. model 5 13.300 11.600 14.410
Imp. model 6 13.820
Imp. model 7 12.900
Abaqus/Huls-1
Imp. model 1 1.01 0.99 1.03
Imp. model 2 1.02 1.01 1.04 1.09 1.02 1.10
Imp. model 3 1.09 1.05 1.11 1.16 1.10 1.16
Imp. model 4 1.17
Imp. model 5 1.18 1.17 1.18
Imp. model 6 1.13
Imp. model 7 1.06
Note
ABAQUS imperfection model.
1. deck and ship side - harmonic and regular up-down (eigenmode close), - tolerance
level
2. deck only - harmonic and regular up-down (eigenmode close)- tolerance level
3. deck - 0.80 plate hungry horse + 0.2 plate short waved harmonic- tolerance level
4. deck and ship side - Global single span, tolerance level
5. perfect
6. Hungry Horse - 50% of tolerance level
7. Hungry Horse - 200% of tolerance level
1.5.6 Summary of the uncertainties

1.5.6.a Summary of the applied uncertainties are included in Table 9.1.5.

Table 1.1.5
Summary of applied uncertainties
Variable name Distribution Parameters
Response variables:
Significant wave height Weibull Ref. Section 1.5.1
Zero-crossing wave period Log-normal Function of Hs, ref. Section 1.5.1
Short term extreme wave Gumbel Function of sea state
moment
Annual extreme wave moment Numerically Ref. Section 1.5.2
computed
Still water moment Normal Mean=0.7 times max of manual
Std.dev=0.2 times max of manual
(+ sensitivity)
Capacity variables:
Yield strength (normal grade) Lognormal Mean=269MPa, CoV=0.08, Low
limit=0
Yield strength (High strength) Lognormal Mean=348MPa, CoV=0.06, Low
limit=0
Model uncertainties:
Wave moment, unc. in linear Normal Mean=1.0, Std.dev.=0.1
result
Wave moment, nonlinear effects Normal Mean=1.0, Std.dev.=0.1 (+ sensitivity)
Still water moment Normal Mean=1.0, Std.dev.=0.1
Capacity calculation Normal Mean=1.05, Std.dev.=0.1
1.6 Calibration results
1.6.1 Annual probability of failure

1.6.1.a First, the annual probability of failure was calculated for the initial design with
target scantling. Analyses using gross and net scantlings with both (t=toff-0.5 tcorr)
and (t=toff-1.0 tcorr) applied to all structural members were performed.
1.6.1.b The results are illustrated in Figure 9.1.5. The following notes are made:
(a) The probability of failure increases by a factor near 10 going from gross to net
scantling (t=toff-0.5 tcorr), and another factor near 10 to net scantlings with (t=toff-
1.0 tcorr). The highest consequence of corrosion on the reliability is seen in the
PRODUCT tanker. This is reasonable since it has the lowest plate thickness,
and consequently the highest relative reduction in steel area due to tcorr
deduction.
(b) Considering net scantling (t=toff-0.5 tcorr) for which the rule applies, the lowest
probability of failure is obtained (2·10-4) for the PRODUCT tanker, and the
highest (1.5⋅10-3) for SUEZMAX.
1.6.1.c Please note that for overall hull girder strength the degradation of properties
associated with 100% tcorr is not permitted; repair is required when the overall hull
girder strength degradation of properties reaches those associated with 50% tcorr.

Figure 9.1.5
Annual probability of failure (-log(Pf)), target scantling, gross and net
5.0
4.0 SUEZMAX
-log(Pf)
PRODUCT
3.0 VLCC 1
VLCC 2
2.0 AFRAMAX
1.0
Gross Gross - 50% Gross - 100%
tcorr tcorr
Structural condition
1.6.1.d Thereafter, the probability of failure was calculated using net scantling (t=toff-0.5 tcorr)
with varying design modification factors. These results are illustrated in Figure 9.1.6.
Figure 9.1.6
Probability of failure as a function of design modification factor
5.0
4.0 SUEZMAX
PRODUCT
-log(Pf)
3.0 VLCC 1
VLCC 2
2.0 AFRAMAX
1.0
0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25
Design Modification Factor
Note The design modification factor represents the ratio between actual cross-sectional
area of the deck and the initial target scantlings cross-sectional area using gross values.
The procedure for deck modification is described in Section 1.4.4.
1.6.2 Design points values versus characteristic values

1.6.2.a The design point values come from the structural reliability analysis when a First
Order or Second Order Reliability Method is used (FORM or SORM), and represent
the most likely outcome of variables at failure. Using the design point values for the
still water and wave moment and the moment capacity, one may compute the
corresponding partial safety factors for each individual case in the test set,
according to the illustration given in Figure 9.1.1. This has been done for different
values of the design modification factor, and the results are illustrated in Figure 9.1.7
as function of the annual probability of failure.
1.6.2.b The results provided in the figure indicate reasonable partial safety factors; however,
the procedure illustrated in Figure 9.1.2 will be used for the final calibration.
1.6.2.c Comments to the Figures 9.1.7:

(a) The partial safety factors for the still water bending moment in Figure 9.1.7
appear to be less than unity, and show relatively small scatter between the
various cases. The physical interpretation of this is that the characteristic value
(maximum in the loading manual) is higher than the value that is most likely to
occur at failure. A slight increase with increasing target level is seen. To
conform with normal practice and an intuitive understanding of partial safety
factors, it may be wise to set this partial safety factor to unity, although the
results indicate a lower value.
(b) The partial safety factors for the capacity are near 1.1 at target probability levels
between 10-3 and 10-4 and the scatter between the cases is small. This result
indicates that the randomness in the capacity is less than in the wave moment;
i.e. the lower tail of the capacity distribution has a smaller area than the upper
tail of the wave load distribution.
(c) The partial safety factors for the wave moment show some scatter between the
cases, and are increasing more than the other safety factors with increasing
safety level.
Figure 9.1.7
Partial safety factors as a function of target probability of failure, based on “single
test case” calibration as outlined in Figure 9.1.1.
1.70
SUEZMAX gamma_SW
1.60 SUEZMAX gamma_WV
1.50 WAVE SUEZMAX gamma_R
Partial safety factor
1.40 PRODUCT gamma_SW

PRODUCT gamma_WV
1.30
PRODUCT gamma_R
1.20
CAPACITY VLCC 1 gamma_SW
1.10 VLCC 1 gamma_WV
1.00 VLCC 1 gamma_R
0.90 STILL VLCC 2 gamma_SW
VLCC 2 gamma_WV
0.80 WATER
VLCC 2 gamma_R
0.70
AFRAMAX gamma_SW
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
AFRAMAX gamma_WV
-log(Pf) AFRAMAX gamma_R
1.6.3 Partial safety factors

1.6.3.a In this section partial safety factors obtained following the procedure as outlined in
Figure 9.1.2 are reported. In this optimisation the deviation in annual failure
probability from target is computed. This deviation is squared, and summed over
the test set according to the objective function given in the equation below. This
sum is minimised in the calibration by changing the safety factors.
1.6.3.b This type of objective function implies a very high penalty on under-design. The N
value may also serve as a weight factor if one wishes to assign different weight to
the various cases in the test set. Here the same weight is assumed for each of the 5
vessels in the test set. The calibration is performed using an EXCEL spreadsheet.

r N
r 2
∆( PT , γ ) = ∑ (PT − Pi (γ ) )
i =1
Where:
PT is the target annual probability of failure
r
γ is the vector of partial safety factors subjected to calibration
Pi is the annual probability of failure for case i associated with the calibrated
partial safety factors
N the number of cases included in the calibration analysis
1.6.3.c The partial safety factors following the “single test case” procedure in Figure 9.1.1
are included in Figure 9.1.7 for several target safety levels. Here the safety factor for
the still water moment is set to 1.0, to confirm with normal practice. A value from
1.1 or 1.15 has then been set for the capacity, based on the results provided in Figure
9.1.7. Finally, the safety factor for the wave moment is optimised using the penalty
function as given above. The results are included in Table 9.1.6. Two alternative sets
of partial safety factors are given at the target safety level of 3.2·10-4.
Table 9.1.6
Calibrated partial safety factors
Target Pf γSW γWV γR
10-3 1.00 1.35 1.10
3.2·10-4 (i) 1.00 1.47 1.10
3.2·10-4 (ii) 1.00 1.39 1.15
10-4 1.00 1.50 1.15
Figure 9.1.8
Probability of failure obtained after calibration.
4.50
4.25
4.00 SUEZMAX
3.75 PRODUCT
-log(Pf)
VLCC 1
3.50
VLCC 2
3.25
AFRAMAX
3.00
2.75
2.50
s ig
n 01 2(
i) ( ii )
l de t=0.0 0 03 0 032
tita ge 0.0 0.0
Ini t ar e t= e t=
Pf, rg rg
ta ta
Pf, Pf,
1.6.3.d Figure 9.1.8 shows the resulting probability of failure for the various cases in the test
set when the rule criteria is applied using the partial safety factors as reported in
Table 9.1.6. The reliability of the initial design (target scantlings – 50% tcorr) is
included for reference.

1.6.4 Consequence evaluations

1.6.4.a The consequences of the proposed hull girder ultimate strength requirement have
been evaluated against the target scantlings which have been input to the analysis.
The changes have been evaluated in terms of:
(a) Required ultimate moment capacity by the hull girder ultimate strength
criterion, Figure 9.1.9.
(b) Required change in the deck cross-sectional area to achieve the required
ultimate moment capacity in a), Figure 9.1.10.
1.6.4.b Figures 9.1.9 shows the required MU in percentage of MU for target scantling
corresponding to the target safety level of 10-3. The required MU is evaluated for the:
(a) design point (most likely value) from the reliability analysis at target
probability of failure (first column in group)
(b) calibrated rule requirement (second column in group)
1.6.4.c The safety factors applied in the rule check are taken from Table 9.1.6.
1.6.4.d The required MU, at target level 10-3, for the “Suezmax” and “VLCC 2” cases is equal
to or higher than MU corresponding to target scantlings, whereas the MU for target
scantlings is more than sufficient for the remaining cases. The deviation between
the first column (design point at target Pf) and the second column indicates how
well the rule performs relative to the target safety level. E.g., it may be seen that the
two VLCC cases are somewhat over-designed, which correspond to the results in
Figure 9.1.8 where these cases show lower probability of failure than the annual
target Pf of 10-3.
1.6.4.e Figure 9.1.10 shows comparable results as those in Figures 9.1.9. Here the required
value of the design modification factor (DMF) is given rather than the required
change in MU. In the cases where DMF is less or equal to unity, the hull girder ULS
check is not governing; i.e. the initial “target scantlings” design meets the
requirement.
1.6.4.f In the cases where DMF is greater than unity, a reinforcement of the deck relative to
the initial design is required to meet the criteria. The first column for each case
indicates DMF at the target reliability level based on the reliability analysis results.
The second column shows the DMF obtained when the rule check using the
calibrated partial safety factors is performed
1.6.4.g If the rule column is greater than the design point, the rule provides a conservative
design, which is most significant for the two VLCC cases (as also mentioned above
when comparing MU).
1.6.4.h By comparing Figure 9.1.9 and 9.1.10 it may be seen that the required change in
percentage of MU can be obtained by changing the deck cross-sectional area with
almost the same percentage.

Figure 9.1.9
Required MU at target Pf and by rule (Pf,target=10-3). Relative to MU for target scantling.
120 %
Mu_dpt/Mu_target scantling
115 % Mu_rule/Mu_target_scantling
Mu_rule/Mu_target
110 % Target scantling

_scantling
105 %
100 %
95 %
90 %
85 %
80 %
X CT 1 2 AX
ZMA DU CC CC AM
UE O VL VL AF
R
S PR
Figure 9.1.10
Required DMF at target Pf and by rule (Pf,target=10-3). Relative to DMF for target
scantling.
1.20 DMF at target Pf
1.15 Calibrated rule
1.10 Target scantling
1.05
DMF
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
X CT 1 2 AX
MA DU CC CC AM
EZ O VL VL FR
SU PR A
1.6.5 Target reliability level

1.6.5.a This is probably the most difficult part of the calibration work. In the previous
section, partial safety factors are calibrated for different target probability levels. A
target level based on existing structures should be somewhere between 10-3 and 10-4.
1.6.5.b A target level based on tabulated values, such as those used in DNV Classification
Note 30.6 as included in Table 9.1.7 indicates a stricter target level. One should,
however, keep in mind that the calculated probability of failure is a nominal value
which is rather sensitive to the reliability model and uncertainties applied. It
should also be kept in mind that the probability of failure using “net thickness” is
near 10 times higher than the gross result.
1.6.5.c North Atlantic environmental conditions are more severe than most other
environmental conditions, and any benefit of weather routing has not been
considered.
1.6.5.d A review of historical data may add some value to the discussion around target, but
this has not yet been performed.

1.6.5.e Cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis is a rational approach to set the target,

according to the FSA methodology given in the IMO guideline. Such analysis has
not been performed.
Table 9.1.7
Acceptable annual probability of failure
Class of failure Consequence of failure
Less serious Serious
I - Redundant structure 10-3 10-4
II – Significant warning before the occurrence of 10-4 10-5

failure in a non-redundant structure
III – No warning before the occurrence of failure in 10-5 10-6
a non-redundant structure
1.6.6 Some sensitivity results

1.6.6.a Sensitivity results in terms of annual probability of failure under different
assumptions than those reported above have been carried out for the PRODUCT
tanker. The results are included in Table 9.1.8.
(a) Jonswap spectrum results in more than twice the probability of failure using
PM spectrum.
(b) Using the World Wide environmental model instead of the North Atlantic leads
to a significant reduction in the probability of failure; i.e. by a factor of 0.07.
Table 9.1.8
Sensitivity results, annual probability of failure, Product tanker
Case description Pf Pf/Pf-B.C.
Base case (B.C.) 2.1·10-4 1.0
Jonswap spectrum 4.7·10-4 2.3
World wide environment 1.5·10-5 0.07
Fixed MSW=564960 kNm (max. sagging value in manual) 4.0·10-4 1.9
Fixed MSW =756351 kNm (permissible limit value) 1.8·10-3 8.5
MSW distribution, mean=50% of max, std.dev=35% of max. 1.7·10-4 0.83
Model uncertainty, non-linear effects: Normal(µ=1.1, σ=0.1) 5.9·10-4 2.8
By modelling the still water moment as a deterministic value, equal to the maximum value in
the loading manual and without any model uncertainty, the probability of failure doubles. If
the specified permissible limit value (for this particular ship) is applied as deterministic, the
probability of failure increases by a factor of 8.5. A minor reduction in the probability of
failure was obtained when a wider distribution (std.dev. 35% of max) with a lower mean
value (50% of max) was used for the still water bending moment. The still water distribution
applied for the base case is illustrated together with the maximum sagging value from the
loading manual and the specified permissible limit in Figure 9.1.11. The distribution as
obtained based on the loading manual for the PRODUCT tanker is also included, and so is
the distribution used for the sensitivity calculation. (The distributions are not truncated at
zero, but extend into the hogging range which is not included in the figure.)

Figure 9.1.11
Illustration of the distribution versus the fixed values and alternative distribution as
used for MSW in the sensitivity study results given in Table 9.1.9.
2.5
Probability density
2
PRODUCT
1.5
Applied model
1 Sensitivity
Max manual, 2
0.5
Sagging limit, 2
0
0% 50 % 100 % 150 % 200 %
Still water bending moment, in % of max in load manual
1.7 Geometrical input
1.7.1 General
1.7.1.a The cross-sectional data and panel input used as basis for the analyses are
summarised in the Table 9.1.9.
Table 9.1.9
Sectional data and panel input
SUEZMAX PRODUCT VLCC 1 VLCC 2 ARFAMAX

LAN target LAN t-50% LAN target LAN t-50% LAN target LAN t-50% LAN target LAN t-50% LAN target LAN t-50%
Sectional data
Moment of inertia, elastic (mm4) 5.55E+14 5.02E+14 1.55E+14 1.37E+14 1.45E+15 1.32E+15 1.38E+15 1.25E+15 3.80E+14 3.40E+14
Total hull girder crossectional area (mm2) 6830400 6177000 3199200 2830800 10419800 9475000 10565600 9610200 5414500 4853400
Height, base line to deck (mm) 22400 22400 17600 17600 31000 31000 29700 29700 21000 21000
Neutral axis (from base line), elastic (mm) 10061 10090 7590 7612 13577 13583 12605 12549 9270 9284
Total deck area, plates + stiffeners (mm2) 1380800 1249250 581880 508068 1675500 1510136 1637820 1466122 1028944 919794
Height difference, deck centerline to side 1150 1150 600 600 1300 1300 1400 1400 1050 1050
Typical deck panel data (for PULS)

Panel length (mm) 5450 5450 5360 5360 5120 5120 5600 5600 3700 3700
Plate thickness (mm) 22.5 20.5 15 13 21 19 19.5 17.5 19.5 17.5
Stiffener spacing (mm) 900 900 800 800 911 911 853 853 891 891
Stiffener height (mm) 400 400 350 350 418 418 418 418 300 300
Web thickness (mm) 11.5 10 12 10.5 12 10.5 12 10.5 11 9.5
Flange width (mm) 100 100 100 100 150 150 110 110 90 90
Flange thickness (mm) 16 14.5 17 15.5 18 16.5 18 16.5 16 14.5
Flange eccenticity (mm) 44.25 44.25 44 44 0 0 0 0 39.5 39.5
Modulus of elasticity (MPa) 208000 208000 208000 208000 208000 208000 208000 208000 208000 208000
Poissons ratio 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Yield strength plate (MPa) 315 315 235 235 315 315 315 315 315 315
Yield strength stiffener (MPa) 315 315 235 235 315 315 315 315 315 315
Breadth moulded, B 48000 48000 27400 27400 58000 58000 60000 60000 42000 42000
Total number of stiffeners 50 50 30 30 61 61 69 69 46 46
Note The number of stiffeners defined in the buckling check was set to 6.
1.8 References
/1/ Bach-Gansmo, O., Lotsberg, I., “Structural design criteria for a ship type
floating production vessel” PRADS 1989.
/2/ DNV, Classification Note 30.6, "Structural Reliability Analysis of Marine
Structures", July 1992.

/3/ Hovem, L., Aasbø, G., “Hull Integrity-Implicit Beta, Load Calculations”,
DNV report no. 97-0520, 1999-11-19.
/4/ IMO (2002) Guidelines for the Use of Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) in the
IMO Rule Making Process, MSC Circ 1023/MEPC Circ. 392, April 2002.
/5/ ISSC 2000 Volume 2 Special Task Committee VI.1 “Extreme Hull Girder
Loading”.
/6/ ISSC 2000 Volume 2 Special Task Committee VI.2 “Ultimate Hull Girder
Strength”.
/7/ Kaminski L.K., “Reliability Analysis of FPSO’s Hull Girder Cross-sectional
Strength” OMAE 1997 – Volume II, Safety and Reliability ASME 1997.
/8/ Mathisen, J., Birknes, J., “Statistics of Short Term Response to Waves First
and Second Order Modules for Use With PROBAN” DNV report no. 2003-
0051 Rev. no. 02, 2003-11-07.
/9/ Sesam, (1996), “User’s manual, PROBAN, General Purpose Probabilistic
Analysis Program,” DNV Software report no.92-7049, rev.no.1, Høvik.
/10/ Skjong, R., Bitner-Gregersen, E., Cramer, E., Croker, A., Hagen, Ø.,
Korneliussen, G., Lacasse, S., Lotsberg, I., Nadim, F., and Ronold, K.O.,
(1995) “Guidelines for Offshore Structural Reliability Analysis – General”
Det Norske Veritas Report No 95 - 2018.
/11/ Törnqvist, R., “ Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of Hull Girder Collapse
of a Double Hull Tanker,“ DNV Report No. 2004-0505, rev. 00, 2004-05-13.
/12/ Turkstra, C. J.(1970),”Theory of Structural Safety”, SM Study No 2 Solid
Mechanics Division, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.
2 STRENGTH ASSESSMENT (FEM)

2.1 General
2.1.1 Application
2.1.1.a The finite element strength assessment is applicable to double hull oil tankers
greater or equal to 150m in length.
2.1.1.b See 1.2.1 and 1.3.1
2.1.1.c The detailed requirements of the structural assessment are given in Appendix B of
these Rules. The acceptance criteria are given in 1.2.5 and 1.2.6 of this section.
2.1.2 Submission of results

2.1.2.a No additional information to that of the Rules is provided.
2.1.3 Computer programs

2.1.3.a No additional information to that of the Rules is provided.

2.2 Global Cargo Tank Structural Strength Analysis
2.2.1 Objective and scope

2.2.1.a Yield and buckling are two main failure modes of structure under static and
dynamic loads related to Serviceability Limited State. The structural strength
capability against these two modes of failure is verified by the strength assessment.
In addition, the relative deflection of the primary supporting structural members is
limited in order to control the stress level induced in the longitudinal stiffeners, also
see 2.2.5.5.
2.2.2 Structural modelling

2.2.2.a See Appendix B/2.2
2.2.3 Loads and loading conditions

2.2.3.a See Appendix B/2.3
2.2.4 Load applications and boundary conditions

2.2.4.a See Appendix B/2.4, 2.5 and 2.6
2.2.5 Acceptance criteria

2.2.5.a See Appendix B/2.7.
2.2.5.b See Appendix B/2.7.
2.2.5.c The stress criteria are based on membrane stress of elements, which represents the
stress due to hull girder effect and deflection of primary support members but does
not include local bending stress caused by lateral pressure load. Criteria based on
von Mises stress only, are considered adequate.
The maximum allowable yield stress utilisation factor for internal structure in tanks
(i.e. non-tight structure), which are not subjected to lateral pressure loads, is equal
1.0.
The maximum allowable yield stress utilisation factor for structure at tank
boundaries (i.e. tight structure), which are subjected to lateral pressure loads, is set
to a value less than 1.0. This is to account for the stress induced by the lateral
pressure loads, which are not included in the membrane stress obtained by the FE
analysis. The allowable stress due to local pressure load is controlled by the
prescriptive rule requirements.
For the assessment of buckling of local panels, the combined interaction of bi-axial
compressive stresses, shear stress and lateral pressure loads is considered, see
Appendix B/2.7.3. The maximum buckling utilisation factor for both internal tank
structure and tank boundary structure is set to 1.0.
For harbour conditions, lower acceptance criteria equal to 80% of the criteria for
seagoing conditions is applied in conjunction with the application of only static
loads to the structure.
2.2.5.d See Section 2/6 and Appendix B/2.7.3.
2.2.5.e As an alternative to controlling the stress level in the longitudinal stiffeners by
limiting the relative deflection between adjacent primary transverse supporting

members, a local fine mesh analysis of the longitudinal end connections can be used
to show that the stress level is within the acceptable limit.
2.3 Local Fine Mesh Structural Strength Analysis
2.3.1 Objective and scope

2.3.1.a The objective of the local fine mesh analysis is to verify that detailed stress,
including effect due to local structural geometry, at critical locations is within the
acceptable limit.
2.3.1.b See Appendix B/3.1.
2.3.2 Structural modelling

2.3.3 Loads and loading conditions

2.3.4 Load applications and boundary conditions


2.3.5.a Stress criteria based on von Mises stress only are considered adequate. For harbour
conditions, the acceptance criteria are equal to 80% of the criteria for seagoing
conditions as only static loads are applied to the structure in the analysis.
2.3.5.b In general, in finite element analysis, element stress level increases with the
reduction of mesh size until a convergence is reached (for localised high stress area
this is likely to require a mesh size much finer than 50mm x 50mm). The stress
acceptance criteria are therefore necessary to be set against a particular mesh size.
These criteria should not be used in conjunction with stress obtained from a model
with mesh size larger than that is intended as this will lead to non-conservative
scantling requirement. For models with mesh size smaller than that intended, an
average scheme can be used to calculate the equivalent stress.
A linear finite element analysis is used, the stress level of very localised area is
allowed to go beyond yield level, i.e. plasticity is acceptable in very localised area.
3 FATIGUE STRENGTH
3.1 Fatigue Evaluation
3.1.1 General
3.1.1.a Fatigue strength shall be verified according to the procedure outlined below and
described in detail in Appendix C.
3.2 Fatigue Criteria
3.2.1 Corrosion model

3.2.1.a See Section 4/2 and 4/3.
3.2.2 Loads
3.2.2.a See Section 7/3.
3.2.2.b The main contribution to the cumulative fatigue damage is from the smaller waves;
therefore, the dynamic load for fatigue is based on a 10-4 probability level.

3.2.3.a The design basis described in Section 2 in the Rules specifies the requirement for 25
years design life. The fatigue damage, D, of 1.0, represent a probability of survival
of 97.5% based on selection of design S-N curves, which is 2 standard deviations
below the mean S-N curves, and the assumption that all the other parameters in D
calculations are deterministic. All details covered by the scope of this Rule are
given the same safety margin with respect to the probability of fatigue cracks.
3.3 Locations to Apply
3.3.1 General
3.3.1.a For standard type of oil tankers, the scope described in the Rule Section 9/2.3.2 and
9/2.3.3 is sufficient as a minimum requirement to cover the intention of requirement.
3.3.2 Longitudinal structure

3.3.2.a This is the same scope as in current Classification Society requirements.
3.3.3 Transverse structure

3.3.3.a This is the same scope as in current Classification Society requirements.
3.4 Fatigue Assessment Methods
3.4.1 Nominal stress approach

3.4.1.a Traditional fatigue calculations are based on the nominal stresses and the use of
geometry dependent S-N curves. S-N curves may also be developed based on the
concept of hot spot stresses saying that the effect of the notch stress due to the local
weld detail is imbedded in the curve, or alternatively, based on the notch stress
where the influence of the weld is included. All concepts have their advantages and
disadvantages:
(a) Advantages: inherent in the S-N curves for classified details accounts for both
the notch stress and the stress field over the crack growth area.
(b) Disadvantages: It is difficult in practical design of ship structural details to
define the nominal stress level to be applied together with the geometry specific
S-N curves. Further, the use of a limited number of established S-N curves in
fatigue design complicates the utilisation of improved local design and
workmanship in the fatigue life assessment.
3.4.2 Hot spot stress approach

3.4.2.a Geometric (hot spot) 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 are geometric stresses.
However, effects caused by fabrication imperfections such as misalignment of

structural parts are not normally included in the FEM analyses and must be
separately accounted for. The peak value of the geometric stress extrapolated to the
weld toe immediately outside the region affected by the geometry of the weld is
commonly denoted as hot spot stress:
(a) Advantages: Using the hot spot stress method the local notch effect is
embedded in the S-N curve, and one may say that the large variation in local
notch geometry is accounted for in the scatter of the S-N data. Only one SN
curve is used for welded connections.
(b) Disadvantages: The hot spot stress has to be determined by extrapolation of
stresses outside the notch region. The finite element mesh has to be fine
enough to represent the geometric stress in this region. Strict consistency in FE
modelling is required. Extrapolation should be performed from points at least
0.3t outside the notch. Practice for extrapolation has varied as its basis is
founded on experience from test measurements and numerical analysis of
stress distributions at the hot spot region.
3.4.3 Direct calculation approach

3.4.3.a Not included in this Rule for standard oil tankers.


Section 09 14 09 04 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 09 14 09 04 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Common Structural Rules for

Double Hull Oil Tankers, June 2004

SECTION 9 – DESIGN VERIFICATION

Version: 14 September 2004

© American Bureau of Shipping, Det Norske Veritas and Lloyd’s Register

SECTION 9 – DESIGN VERIFICATION ................................................................................................... 3

1 HULL GIRDER ULTIMATE STRENGTH.................................................................... 3

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

SECTION 9 – DESIGN VERIFICATION

1.2 Calibration procedure

1.2.3 Test set

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

Rule Reliability Analysis

Wave moment, MWV Probability

Moment capacity, MU - random material

Safety factors, γS, γW, γR Design Points (DP)

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

(e) Calibration completed.

a Characteristic Initial trial

1.3 Rule criteria

1.3.1 Rule format

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

1.4 Characteristic load

1.4.1 Still water moment

1.4.2 Wave moment

1.4.3 Characteristic moment capacity

1.4.4 Initial design and Design Modification Factor DMF

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

1.4.5 Characteristic capacity as a function of the Design Modification Factor

1.4.6 Reliability Analysis

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

1.5 Uncertainty modelling

1.5.1 Environmental conditions

µ = E (ln Tz ) = 0.623 + 1.356 ⋅ hs 0.123

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

1.5.2 Wave moment

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

1.5.3 Still water moment

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

1.5.4 Combination of wave and still water moment

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

1.5.5 Moment capacity

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

1.5.6 Summary of the uncertainties

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

1.6 Calibration results

1.6.1 Annual probability of failure

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

1.6.2 Design points values versus characteristic values

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

1.40 PRODUCT gamma_SW

1.6.3 Partial safety factors

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

1.6.4 Consequence evaluations

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

110 % Target scantling

1.6.5 Target reliability level

COMMON STRUCTURAL RULES FOR TANKERS

1.6.5.e Cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis is a rational approach to set the target,

II – Significant warning before the occurrence of 10-4 10-5

1.6.6 Some sensitivity results