Ocean Engineering 196 (2020) 106829

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Prismatic pressure vessel with stiffened-plate structures for fuel storage in

LNG-fueled ship
Younseok Choi a, Junkeon Ahn b, Choonghee Jo c, Daejun Chang a, *
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34141, Republic of Korea
b
Plant Engineering Center, Institute for Advanced Engineering (IAE), Yongin, Gyeonggi-do, 17180, Republic of Korea
c
R&D Center, LATTICE Technology Co., N28 Building, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34141, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, the design and strength of prismatic pressure vessels with new geometries for use as fuel tanks in
Prismatic pressure vessel LNG-fueled ships were assessed. The plate-stiffened prismatic pressure vessel had a rectangular cross-section
Plate-stiffened unlike that of the conventional cylindrical pressure vessel; furthermore, its structure was capable of with­
ASME
standing load by using a plate inside. ASME, and IGC/IGF codes were analyzed and the design procedure for a
IGC
IGF
novel shaped pressure vessel was confirmed. A case study of an LNG fuel tank on a LNG fueled crude oil tanker
LNG-Fueled ship was conducted. The design feasibility of the plate-stiffened prismatic pressure vessel was evaluated by con­
ducting strength analysis at the design pressure and test vapor pressure. Furthermore, ultimate strength, dynamic
acceleration, buckling, and thermal/fatigue analyses were conducted. As a result of the analyses, it was
confirmed that a plate-stiffened prismatic pressure vessel could be used as a fuel tank in LNG fueled ships, ac­
cording to the design regulations.

LNG as a fuel has been confirmed, LNG-fueled vessels have been

1. Introduction
With the emergence of marine environmental pollution, the Inter­
national Maritime Organization (IMO) began regulating ship emissions.
The emissions of GHG, NOx, SOx, and fine dusts are representative of the
emissions, and the regulations for these emissions were framed in 1997
(Annex VI). Annex VI Regulation 13, stipulates, in the case of NOx
emissions, ECA should reduce by 80% or more from ships produced after
2016, compared with that of ships produced after 2000. According to
Annex VI Regulation 14, the SOx included in the present fuels is limited
to 3.5% m/m (mass by mass), 1.5% in ECA since 2000, and the amount
of sulfur contained in the total fuel from 2015 should be within 0.1%.
Regulations on greenhouse gas emissions are also becoming stricter to
prevent global warming. According to the EEDI regulation, a reduction
in CO2 emissions of 10% at the design stage, 20% after 2020, and 30%
after 2025 is required before 2015 [IMO, 2009].
These regulations cannot be satisfied with the HFO currently used in
ships. As a result, the need for new environmentally friendly alternative
fuels has increased, and LNG has become an alternative fuel [Bernatik
et al., 2011; Wang and Notteboom, 2014; Ammar and Seddiek, 2017].
Globally, the use of LNG has increased and thus, the number of ships
capable of transporting LNG has increased. As the possibility of using
developed as eco-friendly vessels [Schinas and Butler, 2016; Wang and
Notteboom, 2014]. Currently, 143 LNG-fueled vessels are in operation
and this number is expected to continue to increase [Sharples, 2019].
Unlike conventional fuels, natural gas has a boiling point of 163 � C.
In the gas phase, it has a volume of more than 600 times than that of the
liquid phase. As a result, its temperature should be lowered to a cryo­
genic temperature for storage and transportation [Bernatik et al., 2011;
Kumar et al., 2011; Wang and Notteboom, 2014]. Thus, the design and
production of storage vessels remain the greatest challenge as the ma­
terial selected for the storage vessel must withstand extremely low
temperatures. When the temperature of the storage tank rises while the
ship is moving, BOG is generated and the pressure inside the storage
tank is increased. As a rule, it is not possible to discharge the BOG; thus,
the storage tank must be able to withstand the increase in pressure due
to the BOG, or an additional system capable of handling the BOG must
be installed [Shin and Lee, 2009; Kwak et al., 2018; Tu et al., 2019].
The LNG storage tanks onboard vessels are defined in the IGC code
[IMO, 2014]. Type A/B/C/membrane tanks are used. Type C tanks
currently use cylinder type tanks. As they have a low volume efficiency,
they are rarely used except in small-sized gas carriers. However, as the
design vapor pressure is higher than that of other types of tanks,
generally Type C tanks are used as the fuel tank in LNG-fueled ships

* Corresponding author. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Republic of Korea.
E-mail address: djchang@kaist.ac.kr (D. Chang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106829
Received 3 July 2019; Received in revised form 6 December 2019; Accepted 6 December 2019
Available online 18 December 2019
0029-8018/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Y. Choi et al.
Nomenclature
P0 Design vapor pressure
Pgd Design liquid pressure
PMAWP Maximum allowable working pressure
PD Design pressure
PS Static pressure
PT Hydrostatic test pressure
ST Allowable stress at test temperature
S Allowable stress at design temperature
σm Primary membrane stress
σL Primary local membrane stress
σb Primary bending stress
σy Yield stress
σu Ultimate stress
σa Allowable stress
Δσ A Allowable dynamic membrane stress
ρr Relative density of the cargo
A Cross-sectional area of a plate
tp Thickness of plate
a Length of plate edge 1
because they can withstand BOG [Harperscheidt, 2011; Tu et al., 2019].
When using a Type C LNG storage tank, there are issues with volume
efficiency and cost due to dead space [Fricke and Bronsart, 2012], which
need to be solved technically [Wang and Notteboom, 2014; Chryssakis
et al., 2015]. Several studies have been conducted with the aim to in­
crease the volume efficiency of storage tank. Studies on circular-shape
cylinder-like bi-lobe tanks with two overlapping cylinders [Senjanovi�c
et al., 2005], multi-lobe tanks using cellular structures [Bergan and
Madsen, 2006], and cubic-shaped pressure vessels with 12 cylinders
[Rammo et al., 2011] have been performed.
In addition, various studies have been conducted on non-circular
shaped tanks like non-circular pressure vessels at 20 psig [Starczew­
ski, 1981], non-circular vessels for waste storage at 3 barg [Rezvani
et al., 1993], rectangular pressure vessels using external reinforcement
[Zeng et al., 1987], a new type of prismatic pressure vessel capable of
withstanding high pressures using internal structures [Chang and Ber­
gan, 2012], fuel storage tanks that can be used in LNG-filled ships using
X-beam type supports [Ahn, 2012; Ahn et al., 2017], a non-stiffened
prismatic pressure vessel [Lee et al., 2017], and a prismatic pressure
vessel using a plate-stiffened structure [Choi et al., 2018].
In this study, we performed strength assessment for a plate-stiffened
prismatic pressure vessel, which is a new type of pressure vessel. In
particular, ASME and IGC/IGF codes were followed to ensure that these
vessels can be used as fuel tanks for LNG fueled ships. The ASME, IGC/
IGF codes were analyzed, and the design sequence for fuel tanks on-
board the ship is listed in Section 2. Section 3 describes the design
principles of the new type of plate-stiffened prismatic pressure vessel,
and Section 4 presents the design and analysis of the fuel tank in a crude
oil tanker based on the information provided in Sections 2 and 3. The
results of various finite element analyses are examined and discussed in
Section 5, and the conclusions are described in Section 6.
2. Design regulation and procedure for ship application
This paper describes the design of a prismatic pressure vessel using a
new type of stiffened plate structure. Prismatic pressure vessels can
withstand internal pressures of more than 0.2 barg, so they can be
viewed as type C in the IGC/IGF code [IMO, 2014, 2015]. In this section,
we explore the design criteria for designing a type C equivalent tank
with a novel shape as a fuel tank for an LNG fueled ship. In addition, we
have summarized the parts that need to be applied when reflecting on
2
Ocean Engineering 196 (2020) 106829
b Length of plate edge 2
ni Number of plates in the i-direction (i ¼ x, y)
p Internal pressure
Barg Unit of gauge pressure
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ISO International Organization for Standardization
IMO International Maritime Organization
MSC Maritime Safety Committee
IGC International Code for the Construction and Equipment of
Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk
IGF International Code of Safety for Ships using Gases or Other
Low-flashpoint Fuels
DBA Design Based Analysis
MAWP Maximum Allowable Working Pressure
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
FEM Finite Element Method
ECA Emission Control Area
EEDI Energy Efficiency Design Index
BOG Boil-off Gas
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
the design.
ABS [ABS, 2017], DNVGL [DNVGL, 2016a; 2016b], and Lloyd’s [LR,
2016, 2018] classification society have specified the rules for LNG
fueled ships or LNG carriers, and these rules must be met in order to
certify the ship. The rules covered by the classification are the IGC code
for LNG carriers [IMO, 2014] and IGF code for LNG fueled ships [IMO,
2015]. Fuel tanks that can be used in LNG fueled ships are covered in the
IGC/IGF code, and generally, type C tanks are used [Harperscheidt,
2011; Tu et al., 2019]. According to the United States Coast Guard, when
using type C independent tanks in gas fuel storage, it is necessary to
satisfy the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code as well as the IGC/IGF
code [USCG, 2012, 2017]. Therefore, in order to use the type C tanks in
all regions, they should be designed according to the ASME and IGC/IGF
codes.
Methods for designing pressure tanks are listed in the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII. A prismatic pressure vessel with
a stiffened-plate structure is a new type of pressure tank design. It cannot
be designed with division 1 and 3 as it is not a high-pressure tank with a
pressure higher than 70 MPa. Division 2 consists of a pressure tank for
on-board transport and a section for a pressure tank that does not have a
round shape. Therefore, in order to design this pressure tank, the parts
shown in division 2 should be used [ASME, 2010a]. For the DBA, several
conditions must be analyzed. Design loads consist of internal/external
pressure, dead load of the components, piping loads such as pressure
thrust, and wind/thermal/wave action loads. This complex load is
applied in the analysis and the acceptance criterion is judged.
The IGC/IGF code describes the tank design method and the condi­
tions to be met for the cargo containment system to load LNG, or the fuel
containment system to use LNG as fuel. Cargo tank installation, ship
arrangements, cargo (fuel) containment system, material, and design
conditions are presented for each type of tank in the IGC/IGF code. A
prismatic pressure vessel with a stiffened-plate structure does not belong
to general type A/B/C or membrane type pressure vessels. For the cargo
(fuel) containment system with novel configuration, IGC (Part F) and
IGF (Part A-1 ANNEX) are proposed as standard [IMO, 2014, 2015].
Table 1 shows the load conditions for the design in ASME and IGC/
IGF codes. When comparing the two codes, it can be confirmed that
there are some differences between the names and the degree of seg­
mentation, but they have almost the same conditions. The ASME and
IGC/IGF codes differ significantly with respect to obtaining the design
pressure, which consists of the vapor pressure and liquid pressure by
Y. Choi et al. Ocean Engineering 196 (2020) 106829

Table 1
Comparison of ASME and IGC/IGF code [ASME, 2010a; IMO 2014, 2015].
ASME BPVC Ⅷ IGC/IGF code

Design loads Internal/external pressure Internal/external pressure

Static head Tank and liquefied fuel weight
Dead weight Insulation weight
Live load Loads in way of towers and other attachments
Earthquake loads* Dynamic loads due to motion
Wind loads Sloshing loads (IGF only*)
Wind load at pressure test Loads corresponding to ship deflections
Snow loads Static heel loads
Self-restraining loads Environmental loads (IGF only*)
(wind impact, wave impacts and green sea effect)
Test loads*
Thermal loads
Vibration
Design pressure 1. Specific design pressure (2.2.2.1(d)(1)) 1. Design pressure (IGF 6.4.9.3.3.1.4.3)
P0 � PMAWP Peq ¼ P0 þ ðPgd Þmax
2. MAWP (2.2.2.1(d)(1)) 2. Design liquid pressure (IGF 6.4.9.3.3.1.4.5)
Estimate through a process simulation Pgd ¼ αβ Zβ
ρ
3. Design pressure (4.1.5.2 (a)) 1:02 � 105
PD ¼ P0 þ PS 3. Design vapor pressure (IGF 6.4.15.3.1.2)
P0 ¼ 0:2 þ ACðρr Þ1:5
Test pressure (8.2.1) (IGF 16.5.4.1)
PT ¼ 1:43 � PMAWP PT ¼ 1:5P0
� �
ST
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ or ​ 1:25 � PMAWP �
S
Design allowable stress Design condition (4.1.6.1) (IGF 6.4.15.3.3.1)
σm � S σm � f
σm þ σb � 1:5S σL � 1:5f
σb � 1:5F
σL þ σb � 1:5F
σm þ σb � 1:5F
σm þ σb þ σg � 3:0F
σL þ σb þ σg � 3:0F
Re Re
f ¼ ;F ¼
γs1 ⋅γm ⋅γc γs2 ⋅γm ⋅γc
Test condition (4.1.6.2(a)) (IGF 16.5.4.1)
σm � 0:95Sy σm � 0:9Sy
σm � 0:67Sy
→σm þ σb � 1:43Sy
0:67Sy < σm � 0:95Sy
→σm þ σb � ð2:43Sy 1:5σm Þ
Material Allowable stress (9% Ni) σ
σa ¼ u ​ or ​
σy Re Re
2:4 2 σa ¼ ​ ​ or ​ ​
γs1 ⋅γm ⋅γc γs2 ⋅γm ⋅γc
B
γs1 ¼ 0:76
κ1
D
γs2 ¼ 0:76
κ2
� �
Rm B
κ1 ¼ min ⋅ ; 1:0
Re A
� �
Rm D
κ2 ¼ min ⋅ ; 1:0
Re C

liquid static head. For the ASME code, process simulation is used to
calculate the vapor pressure. In contrast, the vapor pressure in the IGC/
IGF code is calculated using the shape-based equation. For the static
head part, the ASME code only calculates the static head, but in the IGC/
IGF code, storage tanks are installed on the ship, thus it contains an
additional dynamic load part [ASME, 2010a; IMO, 2014, 2015]. Table 1
shows that the IGC/IGF code is slightly more conservative than the
ASME code in terms of the test pressure analysis and acceptance criteria.
Material selection for storage tanks is important for loading LNG. The
ASME code provides many materials that can be used at cryogenic
temperatures [ASME, 2010b; ASTM, 1996, 1999]. The IGC/IGF codes
limit the materials that can be used for fuel containment or piping sys­
tems among these materials [IMO, 2014, 2015]. As shown in Table 1, the
ASME code has a safety factor of 2.4 and that of the IGC/IGF code varies
from 2.3 to 2.5, depending on various factors (IGC 6.4/IGF 7.4).
3. Design concept and principles of a prismatic pressure vessel
with stiffened-plate structures
The demand for natural gas is increasing as natural gas is spotlighted
as an environmentally friendly fuel. However, as the volume occupied
by the natural gas in its gas phase is 600 times the volume in its liquid
state, it is usually liquefied and transported in the form of LNG [Bernatik
et al., 2011; Kumar et al., 2011; Wang and Notteboom, 2014]. There are
two ways to store LNG: increasing the pressure or lowering the tem­
perature. In the case of lowering the temperature, the temperature must
be continuously kept very low up to the LNG vaporization point of 163
�
C. In this case, cryogenic storage tanks and regasification equipment
are required. If the temperature rises during transportation, problems
such as increase in volume and BOG may occur. In addition, in order to
use LNG as fuel, temperature and pressure conditions have to be
adjusted to ensure that the engine can be used. Therefore, when using
LNG as a fuel in general, the fuel is stored using a type C tank according
to the IGC code.
Fig. 1 shows a commonly used type C tank. A typical pressure vessel

3
Y. Choi et al.
is a cylinder, and the maximum volumetric efficiency is about 0.785
when it is used (the volumetric efficiency of a sphere type pressure vessel
is about 0.52). Volumetric efficiency is an important factor in storage
tank design. To improve this, new types of pressure vessels such as bi-
lobe and tri-lobe, which are made by stacking several cylinders, have
been designed and manufactured. These include bi-lobe tanks with two
overlapping cylinders [Senjanovi�c et al., 2005], multi-lobe tanks using
cellular structures [Bergan and Madsen, 2006], and cubic-shaped pres­
sure vessels with 12 cylinders [Rammo et al., 2011]. In the case of the
bi-lobe type pressure vessel, the volumetric efficiency is 0.84, which is
different from that of the membrane or type B prismatic tank
(0.95–0.98).
In addition, many studies have been conducted on pressure tanks
with non-circular shapes like non-circular pressure vessel at 20 psig
[Starczewski, 1981], non-circular vessel for waste storage at 3 barg
[Rezvani et al., 1993], rectangular pressure vessel using external rein­
forcement [Zeng et al., 1987], prismatic pressure vessel with internal
structures [Chang and Bergan, 2012; Ahn, 2012; Choi, 2016], X-beam
type supports prismatic pressure vessel [Ahn, 2012; Ahn et al., 2017], a
non-stiffened prismatic pressure vessel [Lee et al., 2017], and a pris­
matic pressure vessel with plate-stiffened structure [Choi et al., 2018].
When considering a fuel tank for LNG, the fuel tank can be installed
on deck or under deck as shown in Fig. 1. In case of using the lower part
of the deck, like on a tanker, an on-deck type fuel tank is mainly used.
The under-deck type fuel tank is used when there is only a small space on
the deck by using the upper part of the deck, like on a container ship. If
an on-deck type fuel tank is used, there is no reduction in cargo capacity,
but the size of the tank is limited as the visibility needs to be considered.
In the case of the under-deck type, the cargo capacity is reduced.
Therefore, when using LNG as a fuel, it was found that the dimensions of
the fuel tank is a very important factor in the design of both the on-deck
and the under-deck type of fuel tanks. In particular, when used in
container ships, an annual financial loss occurs due to the volume of the
fuel tank. Therefore, the volumetric efficiency of the tank is directly
related to economics and remains a challenge.
Fig. 1. Configuration of pressure vessel installation locations and various alternatives.
4
Ocean Engineering 196 (2020) 106829
Cylindrical and prismatic pressure vessels can be installed on deck or
under deck when used as fuel tanks. Assuming 4261 m3 of LNG [Ahn
et al., 2017] as fuel for AFRAMAX tanker operation, in the case of the
on-deck installation, the occupied area and the side area of the prismatic
fuel tank were approximately twice that of the cylindrical one. If we
assume the same amount of LNG as fuel for a container ship, the fuel
tank is installed in under deck. In this case, the cylindrical tank occupied
1.4 times more volume than the prismatic one when considering the
volume of the fuel tank as the container TEU. Assuming 5 round trips per
year and an income of $ 750/TEU per transfer, we can see a financial loss
of about $ 228 000 occurring annually.
In addition, cylinder pressure vessels use several pressure vessels
instead of one large pressure vessel, such as prismatic pressure vessels,
due to low volumetric efficiency and height constraints. This increases
the number of instruments and piping required to accommodate the
pressure vessels being added. Therefore, if a prismatic pressure vessel is
used instead of the conventional cylindrical pressure vessel, an eco­
nomic advantage may be achieved [Ahn et al., 2017].
A Plate-stiffened prismatic pressure vessel is a type of pressure tank,
which is composed of a parallel plate, a vertical plate, and an inter
stiffener to withstand pressure. Plate-stiffened cells are repeated to form
a whole lattice pressure vessel. When the desired size is changed, the size
of the plate-stiffened cell or the number of repetition times can be
expanded. Fig. 2 shows the configuration of a plate-stiffened prismatic
pressure vessel. It is possible to maximize the volume efficiency by
deforming the cylinder shape to the rectangular shape [Ahn, 2012; Ahn
et al., 2017; Choi, 2016; Lee et al., 2017; Choi et al., 2018].
The prismatic pressure vessel consists of three parts: a shell structure
capable of storing the whole fluid, a plate stiffener as a load carrying
structure capable of withstanding tensile load in the height direction,
and a shell stiffener reinforcing a shell structure. The plate stiffener has
an open structure to ensure that the fluid can move freely, and the shape
is reinforced slightly to withstand the up and down or right and left shell
structures only in the open structure near the corner.
The inner stiffener helps the external shell to withstand internal
Y. Choi et al.
pressure. The parallel and vertical plates endure the buckling stress
caused by tensile stress of the outer shell due to internal pressure and
self-weight of the external shell and pressure vessel. The external shell is
designed to withstand the internal pressure by using a plate, and the
plate thickness can be obtained through force equilibrium.
Fig. 2 shows the force equilibrium between the parallel plate and the
vertical plate. When the parallel plate or vertical plate has nx pieces in
the x direction and ny pieces in the y direction, if the plate thickness is
tpp , the force equilibrium is as follows.
A ¼ a � tpp � ny þ b � tpp � nx (1)
If a constant pressure p acts on the outer shell, the tensile stress is
given by Eq. (2). If a ¼ b, the thickness of the plate can be obtained from
Eq. (3).
σ�A ¼ p �a �b (2)
p�a
tpp ¼ � (3)
σ a nx þ ny
4. Case study: AFRAMAX LNG fueled tanker
This section describes a case where a plate-stiffened prismatic
Fig. 2. Configuration of plate-stiffened prismatic pressure vessel.
Fig. 3. Plate-stiffened prismatic pressure vessel.
5
Ocean Engineering 196 (2020) 106829
pressure vessel (PPV) is used as a fuel tank in an AFRAMAX LNG fueled
tanker. Fig. 3 shows the use of a PPV as a fuel tank in an AFRAMAX LNG
fueled tanker. The PPV is composed of a load carrying parallel plate,
vertical plate, and stiffeners. The shell thickness is determined to with­
stand the overall load, and it is composed of insulation to prevent
temperature increase. The target tanker has a length of 234 m, breadth
of 42 m, depth of 21 m, and draft of 15 m, and when it sails at a speed of
12 knots, 4261 m3 LNG is required for 30 days of sailing [Ahn et al.,
2017]. In order to load this amount of LNG, the dimensions of the fuel
tank are required to be L ¼ 15 m, B ¼ 33 m, and H ¼ 9 m. The design
vapor pressure is set at 6 barg based on the discussion in Section 2 and
the hydrostatic test pressure is required to be 9 barg, which is 1.5 times
the design vapor pressure according to the ASME code. To satisfy this
requirement, the shell thickness of PPV was 30 mm, the thickness of
vertical/horizontal plate was 45 mm, and the thickness of stiffener was
45 mm. The material of the PPV was 9% nickel steel, which can be used
at cryogenic temperatures, and the mechanical properties are shown in
Table 2. This material was used for design and analysis.
Based on the design procedure, structure assessment was performed.
Based on Section 2, the following tasks were undertaken.
✓ design vapor pressure/test pressure condition analysis
Y. Choi et al. Ocean Engineering 196 (2020) 106829

Table 2 confirmed to be within the allowable strength of the material. The basic
Mechanical properties of the 9% nickel steel material [Ahn et al., 2017; ASME design vapor pressure condition and the hydrostatic pressure condition
2010b]. were analyzed. In each analysis, the fluid was set as LNG and water.
Classification Unit Value The ultimate strength analysis determined the extent to which the
Density kg/m3 8,000
designed PPV could withstand pressure loads and analyzed the weak
Ultimate strength MPa 690 points under specific load conditions. To perform this analysis, the curve
Yield strength MPa 585 values of 9% nickel steel were entered using the stress-strain curve
Allowable stress MPa 230 formulas provided in ASME code Section VIII Division 2 [ASME, 2010a].
Safety factor 3
–
When the AFRAMAX tanker is operating, dynamic motion of the ship
Elastic modulus GPa 185
Poisson’s ratio – 0.3 is caused by waves. The same motion is generated in the LNG fuel tank
Thermal conductivity W/m2 � C 21 installed onboard, and dynamic analysis of the acceleration condition in
three axial directions should be performed in order to consider safety.
Fig. 4 shows the manner in which acceleration works in the PPV on the
✓ ultimate strength analysis ship. In the IGC/IGF code, the accelerations in the vertical and hori­
✓ dynamic acceleration analysis zontal directions can be calculated using Eqs. (4), (5) and (6). The ac­
✓ buckling analysis celeration load in the draught condition was calculated by the following
✓ thermal analysis equation and the results are shown in Table 3 [IMO, 2014, 2015]. Using
✓ fatigue analysis these calculated results, the acceleration load caused by ship motion is
✓ crack propagation analysis analyzed.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
The finite element analysis was performed using ABAQUS CAE 6.12, Longitudinal ​ ax ¼ � a0 0:06 þ A2 0:25A (4)
a commercial program, and was designed based on a 3D shell. The mesh sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uses S8R, an eight-node shell element for structural analysis, and S8RT, x
2 � z �2
an eight-node coupled temperature-displacement element for thermal Transverse ​ ay ¼ � a0 0:6 þ 2:5 þ 0:05 þ K 1 þ 0:6K (5)
L0 B
analysis. The basic mesh size was set to a 100 mm based on the DNVGL
Guidelines for Finite Element Analysis: “a minimum of three elements Vertical ​ az ¼
between the elementary lengths and a minimum of three longitudinal sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
� �2 � �2 � �1:5 � �2
elements” [DNVGL, 2015]. 45 x 0:6 0:6yK 1:5
� a0 1 þ 5:3 þ 0:05 þ (6)
In the ASME code and IGC/IGF code, the stress is divided into pri­ L0 L0 CB B
mary and secondary stresses; the stress should be designed to have low
value compared with design allowable strength in Table 1. Primary In the case of PPV, which constitutes an internal load bearing
stress is divided into membrane stress and bending stress. Obtain the structure using a plate, these internal structures have columnar shapes
membrane stress and bending stress values generated by the forces and under compression load. If the compression member is thin, buckling
moments acting on the pressure tank and check whether it is within the analysis should be performed because the entire structure may be
allowable strength of the material shown in Table 2. Based on the results
from the structural analysis using the basic shell model, the sum of the
membrane stress and the bending stress is expressed, and the bending Table 3
stress, which is the difference between the top and bottom of the shell Accelerations acting on the prismatic pressure vessel.
(results are expressed in SNEG and SPOS in ABAQUS), is eliminated. Draught condition Loaded at deep draught
Membrane stress was also determined to be within the allowable Metacentric height 0.12B
strength. Vertical acceleration �0.460 g
The basic static analysis was conducted by considering the self- Transverse acceleration �0.593 g
Longitudinal acceleration �0.125 g
weight due to internal pressure and gravity, and the results were

Fig. 4. Ship acceleration conditions in dynamic analysis.

6
Y. Choi et al.
Fig. 5. Equivalent stress under design vapor pressure and test pressure condi­
tion (in MPa).
damaged due to lateral deflection. The buckling analysis of the entire
structure provided the critical buckling stress at which buckling failure
occurred.
LNG fueled tanks are loaded with LNG at 163 � C, which causes
temperature imbalance throughout the pressure tank due to the outside
high temperature. This causes thermal stresses in the whole structure,
Fig. 6. Ultimate strength analysis.
7
Ocean Engineering 196 (2020) 106829
which may hamper the stability of the structure. In this analysis, the
temperature distribution and thermal analysis when loading LNG were
used to determine the stress distribution of the pressure tank structure.
In the case of the LNG tank, an insulation layer is installed to reduce the
temperature difference. In this analysis, the insulation is assumed to be
made of commonly used polyurethane foam (PUF), and temperature
distribution and stress analysis are conducted with 60% filling ratio
under various loading conditions. The initial temperature was assumed
to be 163 � C for LNG, 100 � C for LNG vapor, and 45 � C for outside air.
In the cases of many PPVs, the stiffener and plate are welded to each
other. Therefore, these PPVs are expected to be vulnerable to fatigue;
thus, fatigue and crack propagation analysis were conducted. In this
study, fatigue strength was determined using the IGC/IGF code and
classification rule [IMO, 2014, 2015; ABS 2017]. To obtain the fatigue
strength, we make the following assumptions [ABS, 2017].
✓ A linear cumulative damage model has been used in connection with
the S–N data.
✓ Cyclic stresses due to wave-induced loads have been used.
✓ The target design life of the vessel is taken at 25 years.
5. Results and discussion
The results of the structural analysis were analyzed based on the
ASME and IGC/IGF codes as mentioned in Section 2. The general
membrane stress was 230 MPa, the bending stress was 345 MPa, and the
secondary stress was 690 MPa for 9% nickel steel, which is the main
constituent material of the LNG fuel tank. We confirmed that the results
of the overall analyses satisfied the allowable stress criteria shown in
Table 1.
Fig. 5 (a) shows the result when the load is 6 barg. In the prismatic
pressure vessel, the shell structure was inflated by the internal pressure
and displacement occurred. In the overall shell structure, the equivalent
von Mises stress value was found to be within the allowable stress, and
Y. Choi et al. Ocean Engineering 196 (2020) 106829

Fig. 7. Equivalent stress distribution in dynamic analysis (in MPa).
the largest stress distribution was observed in the open structure where
the vertical/horizontal plate and the shell were joined. In the stiffener
structure, it is confirmed that the stress applied to the shell structure is
shared, as shown in the analysis results, when the internal pressure is
applied. When the pressure was applied to the shell structure, it was
confirmed that high stress occurred at the edge portion where the plate
was joined. A higher stress distribution was observed on the longer sides
of the PPV.
Fig. 5. (b) shows the result when the load is a test pressure of 9 barg,
which is 1.5 times the design vapor pressure of 6 barg. The overall stress
distribution tendency was the same as that in the normal design con­
dition shown in Fig. 5. (a), but it was confirmed that the stress value
increased due to the increase of the internal pressure as a whole and of
the hydrostatic pressure due to the fluid conversion from LNG to water.
Overall, the stress was within the allowable stress; furthermore, the
secondary parts were found to satisfy the criteria. Through this analysis,
it was confirmed that the designed PPV was safe even under the test
pressure condition.
Fig. 6 (a) shows the ultimate strength analysis results of the pressure
vessel with increasing internal pressure up to the design vapor pressure.
When the pressure exceeds the design vapor pressure of 6 barg, the
stress-strain curve of the material passes through the plastic region
beyond the elastic region, and plastic deformation occurs at the portion
where stress concentration occurs. Fig. 6. (b) shows the hot-spot area,
and Fig. 6. (c) shows the change in stress with increasing pressure up to
25 barg. At a pressure of 21 barg or more, the stress of the plate stiffener
exceeded the yielding strength of 9% nickel steel at 585 MPa and
yielding began to occur. In the rest of the area except this hot-spot area,
the structure was confirmed to be safe even under 4 times higher pres­
sure than the design vapor pressure of 6 barg.
Next, we verified that the pressure vessel meets the acceleration
criterion under the motion of the ship. The analysis was performed using
the three acceleration conditions calculated in the previous section. The
results are as follows.
Fig. 7. (a) shows the stress distribution in the pressure vessel when
transverse acceleration is applied. This condition has the largest accel­
eration value among the three acceleration conditions; therefore, it was
expected to have the largest stress distribution. When the acceleration is
applied in the -x direction, an additional fluid hydrostatic pressure is
generated in the same direction in the inner fluid, and it is confirmed

Fig. 8. Buckling analysis at critical mode (18 barg).

8
Y. Choi et al. Ocean Engineering 196 (2020) 106829

that the stress distributions in the positive and negative directions are
different. The stress distribution was slightly larger in the acceleration
direction and the largest stress occurred at the edge of the vertical plate.
The overall stress was confirmed to be within the allowable stress. The
stress was high at some secondary stresses but was smaller than 690
MPa, which is the standard value. Thus, it was confirmed that the
criteria are met even in the transverse acceleration condition.
Fig. 7. (b) shows the result of longitudinal acceleration analysis. The
acceleration in the longitudinal direction is expected to have the
smallest stress distribution in the dynamic analysis because it is smaller
than that in the other directions. It was confirmed to be within the
allowable stress, which is the standard in the whole part.
Fig. 7. (c) shows the result when acceleration is applied in the ver­
tical direction. It is expected to have a moderately higher stress distri­
bution because it has a smaller value than the acceleration in the
transverse direction but a larger value than that in the longitudinal di­
rection. As a result of the analysis, it was confirmed that the total area
has a smaller value than the standard, as in the longitudinal direction.
Through the dynamic analysis, it was confirmed that the pressure vessel
satisfies the criteria sufficiently even under the acceleration condition.
Next, the critical buckling mode was obtained by conducting a
buckling analysis to determine whether bending as a result of deflection
due to self-weight and external pressure occurred. The analytical results
are shown in Fig. 8. The critical buckling mode occurred at 18 barg and Fig. 10. Fatigue crack growth at the tank skin plate.
buckling occurred at the edge of the vertical plate with the largest stress
distribution in the static analysis. However, in the critical buckling result is shown in Fig. 9. (b). The stress due to pure heat had a maximum
mode, buckling is expected to have no effect during normal operation value of 45 MPa, and when the thermal load and the design vapor
because it has a pressure 3 times higher the design vapor pressure. pressure are simultaneously applied, it is confirmed that the structure is
Fig. 9 (a) shows the heat distribution in the PPV due to the LNG safe because stress below 345 MPa is generated. In the case of the overall
loading, and it was confirmed that the external heat is blocked due to the thermal deformation, the contraction expansion due to the pure heat
effect of the insulation. When the temperature distribution in the PPV is was large in the part where the temperature difference was large, but
the same as that in Fig. 9. (a), the analysis was conducted with when the design vapor pressure was additionally applied, the influence
increasing pressure to 6 barg, which is the design vapor pressure. The of the heat-induced deformation was reduced because the effect of in­
ternal pressure was large. The maximum deformation amount was 26.5
mm as shown in Fig. 9. (c), and the deformation was less than 0.08% of
the total length of PPV.
Fatigue analysis was performed on the area where the PPV structure
shell and stiffener were welded due to repeated loading/unloading.
Fatigue analysis consists of analysis of high cycle fatigue damage caused
by internal pressure change due to the movement of ship and low cycle
fatigue damage due to loading/unloading of liquid cargo. We confirmed
whether each cumulative fatigue damage value was less than 1 or 0.5
and satisfied the criterion for fatigue. High cycle fatigue damage was
analyzed, and the cumulative fatigue damage value was found to be
much smaller than 1, and it was confirmed that high cycle fatigue was
satisfied. When including low cycle fatigue damage analysis, which
added the fatigue damage value by loading and unloading, this value
was found to be less than 0.5, and it was confirmed that the criterion was
satisfied for fatigue as a whole.
The fracture analysis was performed for the critical location due to
high dynamic stress. Fatigue crack propagation analysis was performed
on the part connecting the tank shell to the stiffener and Fig. 10 shows
the result. If the initial crack depth is 2 mm, the maximum crack size
reaches 2.004 mm and the maximum crack height reaches 5,015 mm for
5 mm even if the crack progresses during the design life of 25 years.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, we propose a plate-stiffened type prismatic pressure

vessel with higher volume efficiency and analyze the code that the
proposed pressure vessel should satisfy to be used as a fuel tank in a ship.
The ASME and IGC/IGF codes were analyzed to obtain the design con­
ditions. The IGC/IGF code has been proposed to conduct the design and
analysis as it uses more conservative conditions than those of the ASME
code.
Fig. 9. Temperature (in � C) and thermal stress distribution (in MPa). The IGC/IGF code has proposed a design procedure for a novel

9
Y. Choi et al.
concept cargo/fuel containment system, which has an unusual shape.
Using this, we conducted the pressure-loading, ultimate strength, dy­
namic acceleration, buckling, thermal, and fatigue analyses of the plate-
stiffened type prismatic pressure vessel in accordance with the IGC/IGF
code.
According to the analysis results of the design pressure, it was
confirmed that the pressure vessel is below the allowable stress in the
overall stress distribution, and that it is safe in operation. It was also
confirmed that the pressure vessel does not face any problems when
handling a test pressure that is 1.5 times the design pressure, which is
the experimental condition when the actual design and manufacture are
performed. Furthermore, ultimate strength analysis showed that even at
pressures greater than 4 times the design pressure, the entire pressure
vessel can be operated without local failure.
In the dynamic acceleration, buckling, thermal, and fatigue analyses,
the results were found to satisfy the IGC/IGF code, and it was confirmed
that the plate-stiffened type prismatic pressure vessel, a novel shaped
pressure fuel tank, could be used in LNG fueled ships.
Author contribution section
Younseok Choi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.
Junkeon Ahn: Validation, Formal analysis, Visualization.
Choonghee Jo: Validation, Formal analysis.
Daejun Chang: Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
ABS, 2017. Guide for Building and Classing Liquefied Gas Carriers with Independent
Tanks. American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, TX.
Ahn, J., 2012. Concept Design of Pressurized LNG Fuel Storage Tank for Large Carriers.
Master’s Thesis. Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon,
South Korea.
Ahn, J., Choi, Y., Jo, C., Cho, Y., Chang, D., Chung, H., Bergan, P.G., 2017. Design of a
prismatic pressure vessel with internal X-beam structures for application in ships.
Ships Offshore Struct. 12, 781–792.
Ammar, N.R., Seddiek, I.S., 2017. Eco-environmental analysis of ship emission control
methods: case study RO-RO cargo vessel. Ocean Eng. 137, 166–173.
ASME, 2010. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII. Division 2. ASME, New
York, NY.
ASME, 2010. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II. Part D. ASME, New York,
NY.
ASTM, 1996. Standard Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, Carbon Steel, for
Moderate- and Lower-Temperature Service. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM, 1999. Standard Specification for Carbon Structural Steel. ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA.
Bergan, P., Madsen, H., 2006. Cellestruktur for Bruk I Trykksatte Tanker Og
Fremgangsmåte for Å Tilveiebringe Cellestruktur [Cell Structure for Use in
10
Ocean Engineering 196 (2020) 106829
Pressurized Tanks Method for Providing Cell Structure], Norge Patentstyret [Norway
Patent Office]. Patent No.: 321892.
Bernatik, A., Senovsky, P., Pitt, M., 2011. LNG as a potential alternative fuel - safety and
security of storage facilities. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 24, 19–24.
Chang, D.J., Bergan, P.G., 2012. U.S. Patent Application 14/110, 580.
Choi, Y., 2016. A study on prismatic pressure vessel. J. Korea Air Force Acad. 67,
176–188.
Choi, Y., Ahn, J., You, H., Jo, C., Cho, Y., Noh, Y., Chang, D., Chung, H., Bergan, P.G.,
2018. Numerical and experimental study of a plate-stiffened prismatic pressure
vessel. Ocean Eng. 164, 367–376.
Chryssakis, C., Brinks, H., King, T., 2015. The Fuel Trilemma: Next Generation of Marine
Fuels. DNV GL, Oslo, Norway.
DNVGL, 2015. Class Guideline Finite Element Analysis. DNVGL-CG-0127, DNVGL, Oslo,
Norway.
DNVGL, 2016. Class Guideline: Liquefied Gas Carriers with Independent Cylindrical
Tanks of Type C. DNVGL-CG-0135. DNVGL., Oslo, Norway.
DNVGL, 2016. Rules for Classification of Ships, Part 5, Chapter 7: Liquefied Gas Tankers.
DNVGL, Oslo, Norway.
Fricke, W., Bronsart, R., 2012. Natural gas storage and transportation. In: 18th
International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress. ISSC 2012, pp. 67–112.
Harperscheidt, J., 2011. Bunkering, infrastructure, storage and processing of LNG. Ship
Offshore 1, 12–15.
IMO, 2009. Regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships, revis. MARPOL
Annex. VI).
IMO, 2014. MSC. International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships
Carrying Liquefied Gasses in Bulk (IGC Code), vol 370. IMO, London, UK (93).
IMO, 2015. MSC. Adoption of the International Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or
Other Low-Flash Point Fuels (IGF Code), vol 391. IMO, London, UK (9).
Kumar, S., Kwon, H.-T., Choi, K.-H., Lim, W., Cho, J.H., Tak, K., Moon, I., 2011. LNG: an
eco-friendly cryogenic fuel for sustainable development. Appl. Energy 88 (12),
4264–4273.
Kwak, D.-H., Heo, J.-H., Park, S.-H., Seo, S.-J., Kim, J.-K., 2018. Energy-efficient design
and optimization of boil-off gas (BOG) re-liquefaction process for liquefied natural
gas(LNG)-fuelled ship. Energy 148, 915–929.
Lee, J., Choi, Y., Jo, C., Chang, D., 2017. Design of a prismatic pressure vessel: an
engineering solution for non-stiffened-type vessels. Ocean Eng. 142, 639–649.
LR, 2016. Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Natural Gas Fuelled Ships.
Lloyd’s Register, London, UK.
LR, 2018. Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships Using Gases or Other Low-
Flashpoint Fuels. Lloyd’s Register, London, UK.
Rammo, R., Parthasarathy, M., Lamb, T., 2011. A new concept for CNG carriers and
floating CNG/oil processing and storage offshore platforms. Altair Product Des.
Rezvani, M., Ziada, H., Shrrab, M., 1993. Stress analysis and evaluation of a rectangular
pressure vessel. In: Nat. Design Eng. Show Conf., 1993 Mar 7–11, Chicago, IL.
Schinas, O., Butler, M., 2016. Feasibility and commercial considerations of LNG-fueled
ships. Ocean Eng. 122, 84–96.
Senjanovi�c, I., Slapni�car, V., Mravak, Z., Rudan, S., Lju�stina, A.M., 2005. Structure design
of cargo tanks in liquefied gas carriers. In: Proc. Int. Cong. Mar. Res. Trans., ICMRT
’05, Ischia, Naples, Italy.
Sharples, J., 2019. LNG Supply Chains and the Development of LNG as a Shipping Fuel in
Northern Europe, OIES PAPER NG 140. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, UK.
Shin, Y., Lee, Y.P., 2009. Design of a boil-off natural gas reliquefaction control system for
LNG carriers. Appl. Energy 86, 37–44.
Starczewski, M., 1981. Non-circular pressure vessels. Br. Engine Tech. Rep. 14, 62–85.
Tu, H., Fan, H., Lei, W., Zhou, G., 2019. Options and evaluations on propulsion systems
of LNG carriers. Intech 1–18.
USCG, 2012. Equivalency Determination - Design Criteria for Natural Gas Fuel Systems,
CG-521 Policy Letter No. 01-12. United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC.
USCG, 2017. Design Criteria for Natural Gas Fuel Systems, CG-ENG Policy Letter No. 01-
12, CH-1. United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC.
Wang, S., Notteboom, T., 2014. The adoption of liquefied natural gas as a ship fuel: a
systematic review of perspectives and challenges. Transp. Rev. 34 (6), 749–774.
Zeng, Z.J., Gao, J.J., Gu, Q.S., 1987. The stress analysis of rectangular pressure vessels
having thin-walled reinforcing members. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 30, 193–204.