CN34 1

CLASSIFICATION NOTES
DET NORSKE VERITAS AS

The content of this service document is the subject of intellectual property rights reserved by Det Norske Veritas AS (DNV). The user
accepts that it is prohibited by anyone else but DNV and/or its licensees to offer and/or perform classification, certification and/or
verification services, including the issuance of certificates and/or declarations of conformity, wholly or partly, on the basis of and/or
pursuant to this document whether free of charge or chargeable, without DNV's prior written consent. DNV is not responsible for the
consequences arising from any use of this document by others.
The electronic pdf version of this document found through http://www.dnv.com is the officially binding version
No. 34.1
CSA - Direct Analysis of Ship Structures
JANUARY 2013
FOREWORD
DNV is a global provider of knowledge for managing risk. Today, safe and responsible business conduct is both a license
to operate and a competitive advantage. Our core competence is to identify, assess, and advise on risk management. From
our leading position in certification, classification, verification, and training, we develop and apply standards and best
practices. This helps our customers safely and responsibly improve their business performance. DNV is an independent
organisation with dedicated risk professionals in more than 100 countries, with the purpose of safeguarding life, property
and the environment.
Classification Notes
Classification Notes are publications that give practical information on classification of ships and other objects. Examples
of design solutions, calculation methods, specifications of test procedures, as well as acceptable repair methods for some
components are given as interpretations of the more general rule requirements.
Det Norske Veritas AS January 2013
Any comments may be sent by e-mail to rules@dnv.com
If any person suffers loss or damage which is proved to have been caused by any negligent act or omission of Det Norske Veritas, then Det Norske Veritas shall pay compensation to
such person for his proved direct loss or damage. However, the compensation shall not exceed an amount equal to ten times the fee charged for the service in question, provided that
the maximum compensation shall never exceed USD 2 million.
In this provision "Det Norske Veritas" shall mean the Foundation Det Norske Veritas as well as all its subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, agents and any other acting on behalf
of Det Norske Veritas.
Classification Notes - No. 34.1, January 2013

Changes Page 3
CHANGES
General
This document supersedes Classification Notes No. 34.1, January 2011.
Text affected by the main changes in this edition is highlighted in red colour. However, if the changes involve
a whole chapter, section or sub-section, normally only the title will be in red colour.
Main Changes
Sec.5 Ultimate Limit State Assessment
The bottom damage extent in Figure 5-6 has been changed from B/15 to B/20.
A comment in the paragraph after Table 5-4 has been included.
The safety factor in Table 5-5 has been reduced from 1.30 to 1.25 and a reference to a new section 5.3.5
has been included.
New Section 5.3.5 has been added.
In addition to the above stated main changes, editorial corrections may have been made.
Editorial Corrections

Contents Page 4
CONTENTS
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Objective...................................................................................................................................................5
1.2 General ......................................................................................................................................................5
1.3 Definitions.................................................................................................................................................5
1.4 Programs ...................................................................................................................................................6
2. Overview of CSA Analysis ................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 General ......................................................................................................................................................7
2.2 Scope and acceptance criteria ...................................................................................................................7
2.3 Procedures and analysis ............................................................................................................................7
2.4 Documentation and verification overview................................................................................................9
3. Hydrodynamic Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 9
3.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................9
3.2 Hydrodynamic model..............................................................................................................................10
3.3 Roll damping...........................................................................................................................................12
3.4 Hydrodynamic analysis...........................................................................................................................12
3.5 Design waves for ULS............................................................................................................................13
3.6 Load Transfer..........................................................................................................................................14
4. Fatigue Limit State Assessment.......................................................................................................... 16
4.1 General principles ...................................................................................................................................16
4.2 Locations for fatigue analysis .................................................................................................................17
4.3 Corrosion model......................................................................................................................................21
4.4 Loads.......................................................................................................................................................21
4.5 Component stochastic fatigue analysis ...................................................................................................22
4.6 Full stochastic fatigue analysis ...............................................................................................................25
4.7 Damage calculation.................................................................................................................................28
5. Ultimate Limit State Assessment........................................................................................................ 30
5.1 Principle overview..................................................................................................................................30
5.2 Global FE analyses local ULS.............................................................................................................30
5.3 Hull girder collapse - global ULS...........................................................................................................38
6. Structural Modelling Principles ......................................................................................................... 41
6.1 Overview.................................................................................................................................................41
6.2 General ...................................................................................................................................................43
6.3 Global structural FE-model.....................................................................................................................44
6.4 Sub models..............................................................................................................................................46
6.5 Mass modelling and load application .....................................................................................................47
7. Documentation and Verification ........................................................................................................ 49
7.1 General ....................................................................................................................................................49
7.2 Documentation........................................................................................................................................49
7.3 Verification .............................................................................................................................................50
8. References............................................................................................................................................. 56
Appendix A.
Relative Deflection Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 57
Appendix B.
DNV Program Specific Items ........................................................................................................................ 60
Appendix C.
Simplified Hull Girder Capacity Model - M
U
............................................................................................. 63
Appendix D.
Hull Girder Capacity Assessment Using Non-linear FE Analysis............................................................. 66
Appendix E.
PULS Buckling Code Design Principles Stiffened Panels .................................................................... 67

Sec.1 Introduction Page 5
1 Introduction
1.1 Objective
This Classification Note for Computational Ship Analysis, CSA, provides guidance on how to perform and
document analyses required for compliance with the classification notations CSA-FLS1, CSA-FLS2, CSA-1
and CSA-2 as described in the DNV Rules for Classification of Ships, Pt.3 Ch.1. The aim of the class notations
is to ensure that all critical structural details are adequately designed to meet specified fatigue and strength
requirements.
1.2 General
CSA-FLS1, CSA-FLS2, CSA-1 and CSA-2 are optional class notations for enhanced structural calculations of
ships. All calculations are based on direct calculation of load and response. CSA-FLS1 and CSA-FLS2 cover
fatigue analyses, while CSA-1 and CSA-2 additionally covers fatigue and ultimate strength analyses.
The CSA notations have requirements for the structural parts and details of the ship hull. Tank systems and
their supports are not a part of the scope for CSA. Likewise, structural details connected to moorings or offshore
loading systems are outside the scope of CSA.
Loads caused by slamming, sloshing and vibration are not included in the CSA notations.
This Classification Note describes the following steps of the CSA analyses:
scope of analysis (areas/details to be considered)
procedures for:
- modelling
- hydrodynamic analyses
- structural analysis
- ULS post processing
- FLS post processing.
acceptance criteria
documentation and verification of the analyses.
The CSA notations are applicable to all ship types. Details to be analysed is specified for the following ship types:
Tankers
LNG carriers (Moss type and membrane type)
LPG carriers
Container ships
Ore carrier.
For other ship types the details are selected on case by case basis.
The notations are especially relevant for vessels fulfilling one or more of the following criteria:
novel vessel design
increased size compared to existing vessel design
operating in harsh environment
operational challenges different from similar ships
high requirements for minimizing off-hire.
1.3 Definitions
1.3.1 Abbreviations
The following abbreviations and definitions are used in this Classification Note.
FLS Fatigue Limit State
ULS Ultimate Limit State
DNV Det Norske Veritas
CSA Computational Ship Analysis
CSA-FLS1 Computational Ship Analysis - Fatigue Limit State with limited scope
CSA-FLS2 Computational Ship Analysis Fatigue Limit State with full scope
CSA-1 Computational Ship Analysis - Fatigue Limit State with limited scope and Ultimate Limit State
CSA-2 Computational Ship Analysis Fatigue Limit State with full scope and Ultimate Limit State
CSR Common Structural Rules
PLUS Class Notation covering additional fatigue requirements based on rule loads
CN Classification Note
SCF Stress concentration factor

Sec.1 Introduction Page 6
1.3.2 Symbols
The following symbols are used in this Classification Note:
1.4 Programs
The CSA procedure requires programs with possibility for direct application of pressures and inertia from a 3D
non-linear hydrodynamic program to a finite element (FE) analysis program with suitable applications and
post-processing tools to ensure good documentation and verification possibilities for a third party to review.
The Nauticus programs provided by DNV are well suited for these analyses. Relevant Nauticus applications
are described in Appendix B. Other programs may also be accepted.
D Moulded depth
B Moulded breadth
T
act
Actual draught
K Stress concentration factor
hot spot
Stress at hotspot
nominal
Nominal stress in structure
Roll-angle
Wave amplitude
r
p
Correction factor for external pressure in waterline region
p
d
Dynamic pressure amplitude
z
wl
Water head due to external wave pressure at waterline
N Number of cycles
a constant related to mean S-N curve
m S-N fatigue parameter
Stress range
f
m
Factor taking into account mean stress ratio
f
Yield stress of material
f
1
Material factor
e
Nominal Von Mises stress
Nominal stress
g
Nominal stress from global bending/axial force
2
Nominal stress from secondary bending (e.g. double bottom bending)
Nominal shear stress
Usage factor
A
W
Effective shear area
A
Wmod
Modelled shear area
t thickness
p Pressure
Density
a
v
Vertical acceleration
p
n
Fraction of time at sea in the different loading conditions
g Gravitational constant
M
S
is the still water vertical bending moment
M
W
is the wave vertical bending moment
M
UI
is the ultimate moment capacity of the intact hull girder
M
UD
is the ultimate moment capacity of the damaged hull girder
S
Partial safety factors reflecting uncertainties and ensuring the overall required target safety margin
with respect to the still water vertical bending moment
D
with respect to the wave vertical bending moment
M
with respect to the ultimate moment capacity
V maximum service speed in knots, defined as the greatest speed which the ship is designed to main-
tain in service at her deepest seagoing draught

Sec.2 Overview of CSA Analysis Page 7
2 Overview of CSA Analysis
2.1 General
The requirements for the CSA notations are given in the Rules for Classification of Ships, Pt.3 Ch.1.
CSA notations require compliance with NAUTICUS (Newbuilding) or CSR, whichever is applicable.
For class notation CSR this implies that all CSR requirements are to be complied with and documented.
For NAUTICUS (Newbuilding) the ULS analysis are to be complied with independent of CSA. However
requirements for FLS need not be performed if compliance with CSA is documented and confirmed.
All details except the stiffener-frame connections as defined by the PLUS notation shall also be included in
CSA-FLS2 but only the details in 2.2 are to be included in the scope of CSA-FLS1.
In case PLUS notation in addition to CSA is specified, calculations for stiffener frame connections have to be
performed according to the procedure specified by the PLUS notation including low cycle fatigue
requirements, while other requirements are documented and confirmed as part of CSA.
2.2 Scope and acceptance criteria
The CSA procedure includes the following analysis and checks:
CSA-FLS1
Fatigue of critical details in cargo hold area:
- knuckles
- discontinuities
- deck openings and penetrations.
CSA-FLS2
Fatigue of longitudinal end connections and frame connection in cargo hold area.
Fatigue of bottom and side-shell plating connection to frame/stiffener in the cargo hold area.
Fatigue of critical details in cargo hold area:
- knuckles
- discontinuities
- deck openings and penetrations.
CSA-1
FLS - Fatigue requirements as for CSA-FLS1.
Local ULS - Yield and buckling strength of structure in the cargo hold area.
Global ULS - Hull girder capacity of the midship section in intact and two damaged conditions.
CSA-2
FLS - Fatigue requirements as for CSA-FLS2.
Local ULS - Yield and buckling strength of structure in the cargo hold area.
Global ULS - Hull girder capacity of the midship section in intact and two damaged conditions.
Each project should together with the Society define the total scope of the calculations. Note that fatigue and
strength analyses may also be required outside the cargo hold area if deemed necessary by the Society. Some
details outside the cargo hold area are already specified in the Rules.
The design life basis for CSA-analysis, is the minimum design life as defined by class notation NAUTICUS
(Newbuilding) or CSR whichever is relevant, as defined in the Rules for Classification of Ships, Pt.3 Ch.1. The
acceptance criteria for fatigue is stated in Section 4.7.1, while the acceptance criteria for Local-ULS and
Global-ULS is given in Section 5.2.5 and Section 5.3.4 respectively.
2.3 Procedures and analysis
The flowchart in Figure 2-1 shows the typical analysis procedure for a typical CSA.

Sec.2 Overview of CSA Analysis Page 8
Figure 2-1
CSA calculation procedure
All calculations shall be based on direct calculated wave loads using a 3D hydrodynamic program including
effect of forward speed. The pressures and inertia loads from the hydrodynamic analysis shall be transferred to
the FE-models maintaining the phasing definitions.
For FLS two principal fatigue calculation methodologies are used to comply with CSA requirements:
full stochastic (spectral) fatigue analysis (Section 4.6)
DNV component stochastic method (Section 4.7).
CSA-FLS1 require analysis with full stochastic analysis, while for CSA-FLS2 both analysis procedures are
needed.
Two types of ULS analyses are to be carried out, i.e.
1) Global FE analyses local ULS (Section 5.2)
Is required for all structural members in the cargo hold area.
Linear FE stress analyses are performed for verification of plating, stiffeners, girders etc. against buckling
and material yield. The buckling and ultimate strength limits are evaluated using PULS buckling code. This
is required for all structural members in the cargo hold area; however buckling is in general only performed
for longitudinal members.
2) Hull girder collapse global ULS (Section 5.3)
This ULS assessment is based on separate hull girder strength models accounting for buckling and non-
linear structural behaviour of plating, stiffeners, girders etc. in the cross-section. The purpose is to control
and ensure sufficient overall hull girder strength preventing global collapse and loss of vessel. Simplified
structural models (HULS) or advanced non-linear FE analyses may be used. Both intact and damaged hull
sections are to be assessed.

Sec.3 Hydrodynamic Analysis Page 9
The CSA analysis is based on a set of different structural FE-models, (Section 6). A global FE-model is
required for the analyses in addition to models with element definition applicable for evaluation of yield/
buckling strength and fatigue strength respectively.
2.4 Documentation and verification overview
The analysis shall be verified in order to ensure accuracy of the results. Verification shall be documented and
enclosed with the analysis report.
The documentation shall be adequate to enable third parties to follow each step of the calculations. For this
purpose, the following should, as a minimum, be documented or referenced:
basic input (drawings, loading manual, weather conditions, etc.),
assumptions and simplifications made in modelling/analysis,
models,
loads and load transfer,
analysis,
results (including quality control),
discussion, and
conclusion.
Checklists for quality assurance shall also be developed before the analysis work commences. It is suggested
that project-specific checklists be defined before the start of the project and to be included in the project quality
plan. These checklists will depend on the engineering practices of the party carrying out the analysis, and
associated software.
3 Hydrodynamic Analysis
3.1 Introduction
Sea keeping and hydrodynamic load analysis for CSA-FLS1, CSA-FLS2, CSA-1 and CSA-2 shall be carried
out using 3-D potential theory, with possibility of forward speed, with a recognized computer program. Non-
linear theory needs to be used for design waves for ULS assessment, where non-linear effects are considered
important. The program shall calculate response amplitude operators (RAOs, transfer functions) and time
histories for motions and loads in regular waves. The inertia loads and external and internal pressures calculated
in the hydrodynamic analysis are directly transferred to the structural model.
For FLS the reference loads shall represent the stresses that contribute the most to the fatigue damage, e.g.
typical loading conditions with forward speed in typical trading routes. It is assumed that the loads contributing
most to fatigue damage have short return periods and are therefore small but frequent waves. It is therefore
sufficient to use linear analysis for fatigue assessments, since the linear wave loads give sufficient
approximation of the loads for waves with small amplitudes or when ship sides are vertical. For linearization
and documentation purposes, a reference load level of 10
-4
is to be used, representing a daily load level.
For ULS the loads representing the condition that leads to the most critical response of the vessel shall be found.
Normally a design wave, representing the most critical response (load or stress), is applied, and the
simultaneous acting loads (inertia and pressures) at the moment when maximum response is achieved, is
transferred to the structural model. Several design waves are defined, representing different structural
responses. In general the hydrodynamic loads should be represented by non-linear theory for design waves
where the response is dominated by vertical bending moment and shear force. Other design waves may be
based on linear theory, since the non-linear effects are negligible, or difficult to capture.
Figure 3-1 shows a schematic overview of the work flow for the hydrodynamic analysis as part of the CSA-
FLS1, CSA-FLS2, CSA-1 and CSA-2 calculations.
Section 4.4 and Section 5.2.2 defines loading conditions, environment conditions, etc. applicable for FLS and
ULS hydrodynamic analysis, respectively.

Figure 3-1
Flow chart of a hydrodynamic analysis for CSA
This section describes the procedure for the hydrodynamic analysis.
3.2 Hydrodynamic model
3.2.1 General
There should be adequate correlation between hydrodynamic and structural models, i.e. both models should
have:
equal buoyancy and geometry
equal mass, balance and centre of gravity.

The hydrodynamic model and the mass model should be in proper balance, giving still water shear force
distribution with zero value at FP and AP. Any imbalance between the mass model and hydrodynamic model
should be corrected by modification of the mass model.
3.2.2 Hydrodynamic panel model
The element size of the panels for the 3-D hydrodynamic analysis shall be sufficiently small to avoid numerical
inaccuracies. The mesh should provide a good representation of areas with large transitions in shape, hence the
bow and aft areas are normally modelled with a higher element density than the parallel midship area. The
hydrodynamic model should not include skewed panels. The number of elements near the surface needs to be
sufficient in order to represent the change of pressure amplitude and phasing, since the dynamic wave loads
increases exponentially towards the surface. This is particularly important when the loads are to be used for
fatigue assessment. In order to verify that the number of elements is sufficient, it is recommended to double the
number of elements and run a head sea analysis for comparison of pressure time series. The number of panels
needed to converge differs from code to code.
Figure 3-2 shows an example of a panel model for the hydrodynamic code WASIM.
Figure 3-2
Example of a panel model
The panels should, as far as possible, be vertical oriented as indicated to the right in Figure 3-3. This is to ease
the load transfer. For component stochastic fatigue analysis transverse sections with pressures are input to the
assessment, which is easier with the model to the right.
Figure 3-3
Schematic mesh model
3.2.3 Mass model
The mass of the FE-model and hydrodynamic model has to be identical in order to obtain balance in the
structural analysis. Therefore the hydrodynamic analysis shall use a mass-model based on the global FE
structural model. In many cases, however, the hydrodynamic analysis will be performed prior to the completion
of the structural model. A simplified mass model may then be used in the initial phase of the hydrodynamic
analysis. The structural mass model shall be used in the hydrodynamic analysis that establishes the pressure
loads and inertia loads for the load transfer.
3.2.3.1 Simplified Mass model
If the structural model is not available a simplified mass model shall be made. The mass model shall ensure a
proper description of local and global moments of inertia around the longitudinal, transverse and vertical global
ship axes. The determination of sectional loads can be particularly sensitive to the accuracy and refinement of
the mass model. Mass points at every meter should be sufficient.
3.2.3.2 FE-based Mass model
The FE-based mass model is described in Section 6.5.

3.3 Roll damping
The roll damping computed by 3-D linear potential theory includes moments acting on the vessel hull as a result
of the waves created when the vessel rolls. At roll resonance, however, the 3-D potential theory will under-
predict the total roll damping. The roll motion will, consequently, be grossly over-predicted. To adequately
predict total roll damping at roll resonance, the effect from damping mechanisms not related to wave-making,
such as vortex-induced damping (eddy-making) near sharp bilges, drag of the hull (skin friction), skegs and
bilge keels (normal forces and flow separation), should be included. Such non-linear roll damping models have
typically been developed based on empirical methods, using numerical fitting to model test data. Example of
non-linear roll damping methods for ship hulls includes those published by Tanaka /6/ and Kato /9//10/.
Results from experiments indicate that non-linear roll damping on a ship hull is a function of roll angle, wave
frequency and forward speed. As the roll angle is generally unknown and depends on the scatter diagram
considered, an iteration process is required to derive the non-linear roll damping.
The following 4-step iteration procedure may be used for guidance:
a) Input a roll angle,
x
input
, to compute non-linear roll damping.
b) Perform vessel motion analysis including damping from a).
c) Calculate long-term roll motion,
x
update
, with probability level 10
-4
for FLS or 10
-8
for ULS, using design
wave scatter diagram.
d) If
x
update
from c) is close to
x
input
in step a), stop the iteration. Otherwise, set
x
input
as the mean value
of
x
update
and
x
input
, and go back to a).
Viscous effects due to roll are to be included in cases where it influences the result. Roll motion can affect
responses such as acceleration, pressure and torsion. Viscous damping should be evaluated for beam and
quartering seas. The viscous roll damping has little influence in cases where the natural period of the roll mode
is far away from the exciting frequencies. For fatigue it is sufficient to calibrate the viscous damping for beam
sea and use the same damping for all headings.
3.4 Hydrodynamic analysis
3.4.1 Wave headings
A spacing of 30 degree or less should be used for the analysis, i.e. at least twelve headings.
3.4.2 Wave periods
The hydrodynamic load analysis shall consider a sufficient range of regular wave periods (frequencies) so as
to provide an accurate representation of wave energies and structural response.
The following general requirements apply with respect to wave periods:
The range of wave periods shall be selected in order to ensure a proper representation of all relevant
response transfer functions (motions, sectional loads, pressures, drift forces) for the wave period range of
the applicable scatter diagram. Typically wave periods in the range of 5-40 seconds can be used.
A proper wave period density should be selected to ensure a good representation of all relevant response
transfer functions (motions, sectional loads, pressures, drift forces), including peak values. Typically 25-
30 wave periods are used for a smooth description of transfer functions.
Figure 3-4 shows an example of a poor and a good representation of a transfer function. For the transfer
function with a poor representation, the range of periods does not cover the high frequency part of the transfer
function and the period density is not high enough to capture the peak.

Figure 3-4
Poor representation of a transfer function on the left and on the right a transfer function where peak and
shorter wave periods are well represented
3.5 Design waves for ULS
3.5.1 General
A design wave is a wave which results in a design load at a given reference value (e.g. return period). Using a
design wave, the phasing between motions and loads will be maintained giving a realistic load picture.
Normally it is assumed that maximising the load will result in also the maximised stress response.
However some responses are correlated and the combined effect may give higher stresses than if each load is
maximised. In such cases it is recommended to transfer the load RAOs and perform a full stochastic analysis. The
stress RAOs of the most critical regions can then be used as basis for design waves.
In case of linear design waves the response of the response variable shall be the same as the long term response
described in Section 3.5.2.
For non-linear design waves, e.g. for vertical bending moment, the non-linear maximum response is not
necessarily at the same location as the maximum linear response. Several locations need to be evaluated in
order to locate the non-linear maximum response. The linear and non-linear dynamic response shall be
compared, including the non-linear factor defined as the ratio between the maximum non-linear and linear
dynamic response.
Water on deck, also called green water, might occur during ULS design conditions. If the software does not
handle water on deck in a physical way it is conservative to remove the elements and pressures from the deck.
In a sagging wave the bow will be planted into a wave crest. Applying deck pressures in such case will reduce
the sagging moment.
There are several ways of generating design waves. The following presents two acceptable ways:
regular design wave
conditioned irregular extreme wave.
3.5.2 Regular design wave
A regular design wave can be made such that a linear simulation results in a dynamic response equal to the long
term response. The wave period for the regular wave shall be chosen as the period corresponding to the maximum
value of the transfer function, see Figure 3-5. The wave amplitude shall be chosen as:
Transfer Function for Vertical Bending Moment
0.00E+00
1.00E+05
2.00E+05
3.00E+05
4.00E+05
5.00E+05
6.00E+05
7.00E+05
8.00E+05
9.00E+05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Wave Period
V
B
M

/

W
a
v
e

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
0.00E+00
1.00E+05
2.00E+05
3.00E+05
4.00E+05
5.00E+05
6.00E+05
7.00E+05
8.00E+05
9.00E+05
0 10 20 30 40 50 Wave Period
V
B
M

/

W
a
v
e

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
[ ]
[ ]
(
=
m
Nm
Nm
peak function Transfer
response erm t Long
m

Figure 3-5
Example of transfer function
The wave steepness shall be less than the steepness criterion given in DNV-RP-205 /3/. If the steepness is too
large, a different wave period combined with the corresponding wave amplitude should be chosen. The regular
response shall converge before results can be used.
3.5.3 Conditioned irregular extreme waves
Different methods exist to make a conditioned irregular extreme wave (ref. /11/, /12/, /13/). In principle an
irregular wave train which in linear simulations returns the long term response after short time is created. The
same wave train can be used for non linear simulations in order to study the non-linear effects.
3.6 Load Transfer
3.6.1 General
The hydrodynamic loads are to be taken from the hydrodynamic load analysis. To ensure that phasing of all
loads is included in a proper way for further post processing, direct load transfer from the hydrodynamic load
analysis to the structural analysis is the only practical option. The following loads should be transferred to the
structural model:
inertia loads for both structural and non-structural members
external hydro pressure loads,
internal pressure loads from liquid cargo, ballast
1)
viscous damping forces (see below).
1)
The internal pressure loads may be exchanged with mass of the liquid (with correct center of gravity)
provided that this exchange does not significantly change stresses in areas of interest (the mass must be
connected to the structural model).
Inertia loads will normally be applied as acceleration or gravity components. The roll and pitch induced fluctuating
gravity component (gsin() g) in sway and surge shall be included.
Pressure loads are normally applied as normal pressure loads to the structural model. If stresses influenced by
the pressure in the waterline region are calculated, pressure correction according to the procedure described in
Section 3.6.2.2 need to be performed for each wave period and heading.
Viscous damping forces can be important for some vessels, particularly those vessels where roll resonance is
in an area with substantial wave energy, i.e. roll resonance periods of 6 to 15 seconds. The roll damping may,
depending on Metocean criteria, be neglected when the roll resonance period is above 20 to 25 seconds. If
torsion is an important load component for the ship, the effect of neglecting the viscous damping force should
be investigated.
0.00E+ 00
1.00E+ 05
2.00E+ 05
3.00E+ 05
4.00E+ 05
5.00E+ 05
6.00E+ 05
7.00E+ 05
8.00E+ 05
9.00E+ 05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Wa ve Peri od
V
B
M

/

W
a
v
e

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

3.6.2 Load transfer FLS
The loads from the hydrodynamic analysis are used in the fatigue analysis.
For the full stochastic analysis the inertia is applied to the FE model and the inertia pressure of tank liquids and
wave-pressures are transferred to the global FE model for all frequencies and headings of the hydrodynamic
analysis.
For the component stochastic analysis the load transfer functions at the applicable sections and locations are
combined with nominal stress per unit load, giving nominal stress transfer functions. The loads of interest are
the inertia pressures in the tanks, the sea-pressures, and the global hull girder loads, i.e. vertical and horizontal
bending moment and axial elongation.
3.6.2.1 Inertia tank pressures
The transfer functions for internal cargo and ballast pressures due to acceleration in x-, y- and z-direction are
derived from the vessel motions. The acceleration transfer functions are to be determined at the tank centre of
gravity and include the gravity component due to pitch and roll motions.
Based on the free surface and filling level in the tank, the pressure heads to the load point in question is
established, and the total internal transfer function is found by linear summation of pressure due to acceleration
in x, y and z-direction for the load point in question (FE pressure panel for full stochastic and load point for
component stochastic.)
3.6.2.2 Effect of intermittent wet surfaces in waterline region
The wave pressure in the waterline region is corrected due to intermittent wet and dry surfaces, see Figure 3-
6. This is mainly applicable for details where the local pressure in this region is important for the fatigue life,
e.g. longitudinal end connections and plate connections at the ship side.
Figure 3-6
Correction due to intermittent wetting in the waterline region
Since panel pressures refer to the midpoint of the panel, the value at waterline is found from extrapolating the
values for the two panels closest to the waterline. Above the waterline the pressure should be stretched using
the pressure transfer function for the panel pressure at the waterline combined with the r
p
-factor.
Using the wave-pressure at waterline, with corresponding water-head, at 10
-4
probability level as basis, the
wave-pressure in the region limited by the water-head below the waterline, is given linear correction, see Figure
3-6. The dynamic external pressure amplitude (half pressure range), p
e
,

for each loading condition, may be
taken as:
where:
p
d
is dynamic pressure amplitude below the waterline
r
p
is reduction of pressure amplitude in the surface zone
Pressures at 10
4
probability
p r p
e p d
=

Sec.4 Fatigue Limit State Assessment Page 16
In the area of side shell above z = T
act
+ z
wl
it is assumed that the external sea pressure will not contribute to
fatigue damage.
Above waterline the wave-pressure is linearly reduced from the waterline to the water-head from the wave-
pressure.
3.6.3 Load transfer ULS
In case of load transfer for ULS, the pressure and inertia forces are transferred at a snapshot in time. Every
wetted pressure panel on the structural FE model shall have one corresponding pressure value while inertia
forces in six degrees of freedoms are transferred to the complete model.
4 Fatigue Limit State Assessment
4.1 General principles
4.1.1 Methodology overview
The following defines fatigue strength analysis based on spectral fatigue calculations. Spectral fatigue
calculations are based on complex stress transfer functions established through direct wave load calculations
combined with subsequent stress response analyses. Stress transfer functions then express the relation between
the wave heading and frequency and the stress response at a specific location and may be determined by either:
component stochastic analysis
full stochastic analysis.
Component stochastic calculations may in general be employed for stiffeners and plating and other details with
a well defined principal stress direction mainly subjected to axial loading due to hull girder bending and local
bending due to lateral pressures. Full stochastic calculations can be applied to any kind of structural details.
Spectral fatigue calculations imply that the simultaneous occurrence of the different load effects are preserved
through the calculations and the uncertainties are significantly reduced compared to simplified calculations.
The calculation procedure includes the following assumptions for calculation of fatigue damage:
wave climate is represented by a scatter diagram
Rayleigh distribution applies for the response within each short term condition (sea state)
cycle count is according to zero crossing period of short term stress response
linear cumulative summation of damage contributions from each sea state in the wave scatter diagram, as
well as for each heading and load condition.
The spectral calculation method assumes linear load effects and responses. Non-linear effects due to large
amplitude motions and large waves are neglected, assuming that the stress ranges at lower load levels
(intermediate wave amplitudes) contribute relatively more to the cumulative fatigue damage. Where
linearization is required, e.g. in order to determine the roll damping or intermittent wet and dry surfaces in the
splash zone, the linearization should be performed at the load level representing stress ranges giving the largest
contribution to the fatigue damage. In general a reference load or stress range at 10
-4
probability of exceedance
should be used.
Low cycle fatigue and vibrations are not included in the fatigue calculations described in this Classification
Note.
4.1.2 Classification Note No. 30.7
Fatigue calculations for the CSA notations are based on the calculation procedures as described in
Classification Note No. 30.7 /4/. This Classification Note describes details and procedures relevant for the
CSA-notation. For further details reference is made to CN 30.7. In case of conflicting procedure, the procedure
as given in CN 30.7 has precedence.
= 1.0 for z < T
act
z
wl
= for T
act
z
wl
< z < T
act
+ z
wl
= 0.0 for T
act
+ z
wl
< z
z
wl
is distance in m measured from actual water line to the level of zero pressure, taken equal to water-head
from pressure at waterline.
=
p
dT
is dynamic pressure at waterline T
act
T z z
z
act wl
wl
+
2
g
p
dT
4
3

4.2 Locations for fatigue analysis
4.2.1 General
Fatigue calculations should in general be performed for all locations that are fatigue sensitive and that may have
consequences for the structural integrity of the ship. The locations defined by NAUTICUS (Newbuilding) or
CSR, whichever is relevant, and PLUS, shall be documented by CSA fatigue calculations. The general
locations are shown in Table 4-1 with some typical examples given in Figure 4-1 to Figure 4-7.
For the stiffener end connections and shell plate connection to stiffeners and frames it is normally sufficient to
perform component stochastic fatigue analysis using predefined load/stress factors and stress concentration
factors. All other details, including those required by ship type, need full-stochastic analysis with use of stress
concentration models with txt mesh (element size equal to plate thickness).
Figure 4-1
Longitudinal end connection
Table 4-1 General overview of fatigue critical details
Detail Location Selection criteria
Stiffener end connection one frame amidships
one bulkhead amidships
one frame in fwd. tank
one frame in aft tank*
)
All stiffeners included
Bottom and side shell plating
connection to stiffener and
frames
one frame amidships
one frame in fwd. tank
one frame in aft tank*
)
All plating to be included
Stringer heels and toes one location amidships
one location in fwd hold*
)
other locations*
)
Based on global screening analysis and
evaluation of details
Panel knuckles one lower hopper knuckle amidships
other locations identified*
)
Discontinuous plating structure between hold no. 1 and 2*
)
between Machinery space and cargo
region*
)
Deck plating, including stress
concentrations from openings,
scallops, pipe penetrations and
attachments.
*
)
Global screening and evaluation of design in discussion with the Society to be basis for selection

Figure 4-2
Plate connection to stiffener and frame
Figure 4-3
Stringer heel and toe


Figure 4-4
Example of panel knuckles
Figure 4-5
Example of discontinuous plating structure

Figure 4-6
Example of discontinuous plating structure
Figure 4-7
Hotspots in deck-plating
4.2.2 Details for fine mesh analysis
In addition to the general positions as described in Section 4.2.1, fine mesh full stochastic fatigue analysis for
defined ship specific details also need to be performed, see the Rules for Classification of Ships, Pt.3 Ch.1. The
ship specific details are details either found to be specially fatigue sensitive and/or where fatigue cracks may
have an especially large impact on the structural integrity.
Typical vessel specific locations that require fine mesh full stochastic analysis are specified in the following.
In the following the mandatory locations in need of fine mesh full stochastic analysis are listed for different
vessel types. For vessel-types not listed, details to be checked need to be evaluated for each design.
Tankers
lower hopper knuckle
upper hopper knuckle
stringer heels and toes
one additional critical location found on transverse web-frame from global screening of midship area.

Membrane type LNG carriers
upper hopper knuckle
dome opening and coaming
lower and upper chamfer knuckles
longitudinal girders at transverse bulkhead
trunk deck at transverse bulkhead
termination of tank no. 1 longitudinal bulkhead
aft trunk deck scarfing.
Moss type LNG carriers
tank cover to deck connection
tank skirt connection to foundation deck
inner side connection to foundation deck in the middle of the tank web frame
longitudinal girder at transverse bulkhead.
LPG carriers
dome opening and coaming
lower and upper side bracket
longitudinal girder at transverse bulkhead.
Container vessel
top of hatch coaming corner (amidships, in way of E/R front bulkhead, and fore-ship)
upper deck hatch corner (amidships in way of E/R front bulkhead, and fore-ship
hatch side coaming bracket in way of E/R front bulkhead
scarfing brackets on longitudinal bulkhead in way of E/R
critical stringer heels in fore-ship
stringer heel in way of HFO deep tank structure (where applicable).
Ore carrier
inner bottom and longitudinal bulkhead connection
horizontal stringer toe and heel in ballast tank
cross-tie connection in ballast tank
hatch corner
hatch coaming brackets
upper stool connection to transverse bulkhead
additional critical locations found from screening of midship frame.
4.3 Corrosion model
4.3.1 Scantlings
All structural calculations are to be carried out based on the net-scantlings methodology as described by the
relevant class notation. This yields for both global and local stresses. E.g. for oil tankers with class notation
CSR 50% of the corrosion addition is to be deducted for local stress and 25% of the corrosion addition is to be
deducted for global stress. For other class notations the full corrosion addition is to be deducted.
4.4 Loads
4.4.1 Loading conditions
Vessel response may differ significantly between loading conditions. Therefore the basis of the calculations
should include the response for actual and realistic seagoing loading conditions. Only the most frequent loading
conditions should be included in the fatigue analysis, normally the ballast and full load condition, which should
be taken as specified in the loading manual. Under certain circumstances, other loading conditions may be
considered.
4.4.2 Time at sea
For vessels intended for normal, world wide trading, the fraction of the total design life spent at sea, should not
be taken less than 0.85. The fraction of design life in the fully loaded and ballast conditions, p
n
, may be taken
according to the Rules for Classification of Ships, Pt.3 Ch.1, summarised in Table 4-2.

Other fractions may be considered for individual projects or on owners request.
4.4.3 Wave environment
The wave data should not be less severe than world wide or North Atlantic for vessels with NAUTICUS
(Newbuilding) notation or CSR notation, respectively. The scatter-diagrams for World Wide and North
Atlantic are defined in CN 30.7. Other wave data may also be considered in addition, if requested by owner.
This could typically be a sailing route typical for the specific ship.
Fatigue is governed by the daily loads experienced by the vessel, hence the reference probability level for
fatigue loads and responses shall be based on 10
-4
probability level. Weibull fitting parameters are normally
taken as 1, 2, 3 and 4.
A Pierson-Moskowitz wave spectrum with a cos
2
wave spreading shall be used.
If a different wave data is specified, it is recommended to perform a comparative analysis to advice which of
the scatter diagram gives worse fatigue life. If one yields worse results, this scatter diagram may be used for all
analysis. If the results are comparative, fatigue life from both wave environments may need to be established.
4.4.4 Hydrodynamic analysis
A vessel speed equal to 2/3 of design speed should be used, as an approximation of average ship speed over the
lifetime of the vessel.
All wave headings (0 to 360) should be assumed to have an equal probability of occurrence and maximum
30 spacing between headings should be applied.
Linear wave load theory is sufficient for hydrodynamic loads for FLS, since the daily loads contribute most to
the fatigue damage.
Reference is made to Section 3 for hydrodynamic analysis procedure.
4.4.5 Load application
The loads from the hydrodynamic analysis are used in the fatigue analysis.
For the full stochastic analysis the following hydrodynamic loads are applied to the global structural model for
all headings and frequencies:
external panel pressures
internal tank pressures
inertia loads due to rigid body accelerations.
For the component stochastic analysis the loads at the applicable sections and locations are combined with
stress transfer functions representing the stress per unit load. The loads to be considered are:
inertial loads (e.g. liquid pressure in the tanks),
sea-pressure
global hull girder loads:
- vertical bending moment
- horizontal bending moment and
- axial elongation.
Details are described in Section 3.
4.5 Component stochastic fatigue analysis
Component stochastic fatigue analysis is used for stiffener end connections and plate connection to stiffeners
and frames, see Section 4.2.1.
The component stochastic fatigue calculation procedure is based on linear combination of load transfer
functions calculated in the hydrodynamic analysis and stress response factors representing the stress per unit
load. The nominal stress transfer functions for each load component is combined with stress concentration
factors before being added together to one hot spot transfer function for the given detail.
The flowchart shown in Figure 4-8 gives an overview of the component stochastic calculation procedure giving
a hot-spot stress transfer function used in subsequent fatigue calculations. If the geometry and dimensions of
Table 4-2 Fraction of time at sea in loaded and ballast condition
Vessel type Tanker Gas carrier Bulk carrier Container vessel Ore carrier
Loaded condition 0.425 0.45 0.50 0.65 0.50
Ballast condition 0.425 0.40 0.35 0.20 0.35

the given detail does not have predefined SCFs, the stress concentration factor need to be found through a stress
analysis using a stress concentration model for the detail, see CN 30.7 /4/. In such cases the procedure and
results shall be documented together with the results from the fatigue analysis.
A short overview of the procedure for stiffener end connections and plate connections is given in Section 4.5.2
and Section 4.5.3, respectively.
Figure 4-8
DNV component stochastic fatigue analysis procedure
4.5.1 Considered loads
The loads considered normally include:
vertical hull girder bending moment
horizontal hull girder bending moment
hull girder axial force
internal tank pressure
external (panel) pressures.
In the surface region the transfer function for external pressures should be corrected by the r
p
factor as
explained in Section 3.6.2.2, and as given in CN 30.7 /4/, to account for intermittent wet and dry surfaces. The
tank pressures are based on the procedure given in Section 3.6.2.1.

4.5.2 Stiffener end connections
Fatigue calculations for stiffener end connections are to be carried out for end connections at ordinary frames
and at transverse bulkheads.
Note that the web-connection of longitudinals (cracks of web-plating) is not covered by the CSA-notations.
This is covered by PLUS notation only, and shall follow the PLUS procedure.
4.5.2.1 Nominal stress per unit load
The stresses considered are stress due to:
global bending and elongation
local bending due to internal and external pressure
relative deflections due to internal and external pressure.
Stress from double side or double bottom bending may be neglected in the CSA analyses since these stresses are
relative small and varies for each frame. The stress due to relative deflection is only assessed for the bulkhead
connections, where the stress due to relative deflection will add on to the stress due to local bending and hence
reduce the fatigue life. A description of the relative deflection procedure is given in Appendix A.
Formulas for nominal stress per unit load are given in CN 30.7. They may alternatively be found from FE-
analysis.
4.5.2.2 Hotspot stress
The nominal stress transfer function is further multiplied with stress concentration factors as defined in CN 30.7.
For end connections of longitudinals, they are typically defined for axial elongation and local bending.
The total hotspot stress transfer function is determined by linear complex summation of the stresses due to each
load component.
4.5.3 Plating
Fatigue calculations for plating are carried out for the plate welds towards stiffeners/longitudinals and frames
as illustrated in Figure 4-3.
The stress in the weld for a plate/frame connections consist of the following responses:
local plate bending due to external/internal pressure
global bending and elongation.
For a plate/longitudinal connection the global effects may be disregarded and only the contributions from
stresses in transverse directions are included. The total stress in the welds for a plate/longitudinal connection
is mainly caused by the following responses:
local plate bending
relative deflection between a stringer/girder and the nearby stiffener
rotation of asymmetrical stiffeners due to local bending of stiffener.
These three effects are illustrated in Figure 4-9.
Figure 4-9
Nominal stress components due to local bending (left), relative deflection between stiffener and stringers/
girders (middle) and rotation of asymmetrical stiffeners (right)
The local plate bending is the dominating effect, but relative deflection and skew bending may increase the
stresses with up to 20%. This effect should be considered and investigated case by case. As guidance, the
following factors can be used to correct the stress calculations for a plate/longitudinal connection:
The combined nominal stress transfer function is determined by linear complex summation of the stresses due
to each load component.
plate weld towards stringer/girder 1.15
plate weld towards L-stiffener 1.1

4.5.3.1 Hotspot stress
The nominal stress transfer function is further multiplied with stress concentration factors as defined in CN
30.7. The total hotspot stress transfer function is determined by linear complex summation of the stresses due
to applicable load components.
4.6 Full stochastic fatigue analysis
4.6.1 General
A full stochastic fatigue analysis is performed using a global structural model and local fine-mesh sub-models.
This method requires that the wave loads are transferred directly from the hydrodynamic analysis to the
structural model. The hydrodynamic loads include panel pressures, internal tank pressures and inertia loads due
to rigid body accelerations. By direct load transfer the stress response transfer functions are implicitly described
by the FE analysis results, and the load transfer ensures that the loads are applied consistently, maintaining
load-equilibrium.
Quality assurance is important when executing the full stochastic method. The structural and hydrodynamic
analysis results should have equal shape and magnitude for the bending moment and shear force diagrams.
Also, the reaction forces due to unbalanced loads in the structural analysis should be minimal.
Figure 4-10 shows a flow chart for the full stochastic fatigue analysis using a global model. References to
relevant sections in this CN are given for each step.
Figure 4-10
Full stochastic fatigue analysis procedure
The analysis is based on a global finite element model including the entire vessel in addition to local models
of specified critical details in the hull. Local models are treated as sub models to the global model and the
displacements from the analysis are transferred to the local model as boundary displacements. From local stress
concentration models the geometric stress transfer functions at the hot spots are determined by the t x t elements
that pick up the stress increase towards the hotspot.

The hotspot transfer functions are combined with the wave scatter diagram and S-N data and the fatigue
damage is summarised from each heading for all sea states in the scatter diagram (wave period and wave
height).
4.6.2 Global screening analysis
The global screening analysis is a full stochastic fatigue analysis performed on the global model, or parts of the
global model, using a SCF typical for the details investigated. The global screening analysis generally has four
different purposes:
calculate allowable stress concentrations in deck
find the most fatigue critical detail from a number of similar or equal details
establish a fatigue ratio between identical details
evaluate if there are fatigue critical details that are not covered in the specification.
Note that the global screening analysis only includes global effects as global bending and double bottom
bending. Local effects from stiffener bending, etc. are not included.
4.6.2.1 Allowable stress concentration in deck
A significant part of the total fatigue cracks occur in the deck region. This is mainly due to the large nominal
stresses in parts of this area and the fact that there are many cut-outs, attachments, etc. leading to local stress
increases.
A crack in the deck is considered critical since a crack propagating in the deck will reduce the effective hull
girder cross section. Even if a crack in the deck will be discovered at an early stage due to easy inspection and
high personnel activity, it is important to control the fatigue of the deck area.
The nominal stress level in the deck varies along the ship, normally with a maximum close to amidships. Larger
openings, structural discontinuities, change in scantlings or additional structure will change the stress flow and
lead to a variation of stress flow both longitudinally and transversely.
The information from the fatigue screening analysis may be used together with drawing information about
details in the deck. Typical details that need to be taken into consideration are:
deck openings
butt weld in the deck (including effect of eccentricity and misalignment)
scallops
cut outs, pipe-penetrations and doubling plates.
The stress concentrations for each of these details need to be compared to the results from the global screening
analysis in order to show that the required fatigue life is obtained for all parts of the deck area.
4.6.2.2 Finding the most critical location for a detail
A ship will have many identical or similar details. It is not always evident which ones are more critical, since
they are subject to the same loads, but with different amplitudes and combinations. Through a global screening
analysis, the most critical location might be identified, by comparing the global effects.
Local effects, which may be of major importance for the fatigue damage, are not captured in the global
screening analysis. Element mesh must be identical for the positions that are compared; otherwise the effect of
changing the mesh may override the actual changes in loads.
An example of the result from a global screening for one detail type is shown in Figure 4-11 where relative
damage between different positions in a ship is shown for three different tanks.

Figure 4-11
Fatigue screening example relative damage between different positions
4.6.2.3 Fatigue ratio between different positions
The fatigue calculations used for relative damage between different positions for identical details helps
evaluate where reinforcements are necessary. E.g. if local reinforcements are necessary in the middle of the
cargo hold for the example shown in Figure 4-11, it may not be needed towards the ends of the cargo hold.
New detailed fatigue calculations should be performed in order to verify fatigue lives if different reinforcement
methods are selected.
4.6.2.4 Finding critical locations not specified for the vessel
By specifying a critical level for relative damage the model can be scanned for elements that exceed the given
limit, indicating that it may be a fatigue critical region. Since not all effects are included the results are not
reliable, but will give an overview of potential problem areas. This exercise will also help confirm assumed
critical areas from the specifications stage of the project in addition to point at new critical areas.
4.6.3 Local fatigue analysis
The full stochastic detailed analysis is used to calculate fatigue damages for given details. The analysis is
normally performed either for details where the stress concentration is unknown, or where it is not possible to
establish a ratio between the load and stress. Full stochastic calculations may also be used for stiffener end
connections and bottom/side shell plating, and will in that case overrule the calculations from the component
stochastic analysis.
Several types of models can be used for this purpose:
local model as a part of the global model
local shell element sub-model
local solid element model.
If sub-models are used, the solution (displacements) of the global analysis is transferred to the local models.
The idea of sub-modelling is in general that a particular portion of a global model is separated from the rest of
the structure, re-meshed and analysed in greater detail. The calculated deformations from the global analysis
are applied as boundary conditions on the borders of the sub-models, represented by cuts through the global
model. Wave loads corresponding to the global results are directly transferred from the wave load analysis to
the local FE models as for the global analysis.
It is not always easy to predefine the exact location of the hotspot, or the worst combination of stress
concentration factor and load level, and therefore the fine-mesh model frequently does not include fine mesh
in all necessary locations. The local model shall be screened outside the already specified hotspot to evaluate
Lower Chamfer Knuckle
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
100425 120425 140425 160425 180425 200425 220425
Distance from AP [mm]
F
a
t
i
g
u
e

D
a
m
a
g
e

[
-
]
Screening Results
TBHD Pos.
Local Model Result

if other locations in close proximity may be prone to fatigue damage, requiring evaluation with mesh size in
the order of t t. This can be performed according to the procedure shown in Section 4.6.2.
4.6.4 Determination of hotspot stress
4.6.4.1 General
From the results of the local structural analysis, principal stress transfer functions at the notch are calculated
for each wave heading. In general, quadratic shaped elements with length equal to the plate thickness are
applied at the investigated details, and the geometry of the weld is not represented in the model. Since the
stresses are derived in the element gauss points, it is necessary to extrapolate the stresses to the considered
point. The extrapolation procedure is given in CN30.7 /4/.
Alternatively to the extrapolation procedure, the stress at t/2 multiplied with 1.12 is also appropriate for the
stress evaluation at the hotspot.
4.6.4.2 Cruciform connections
At web stiffened cruciform connections the following fatigue crack growth is not linear across the plate, and
the stresses need to be specially considered. The procedures for the cruciform joints and extrapolation to the
weld toe are described in CN 30.7 /4/.
4.6.4.3 Stress concentration factor
The total stress concentration K is defined as:
Also other effects, like eccentricity of plate connections, need to be considered together with the stress-results
from the fine-mesh analysis.
This needs to be included in the post-processing.
4.7 Damage calculation
4.7.1 Acceptance criteria
Calculated fatigue damage shall not be above 1.0 for the design life of the vessel. Owner may require lower
acceptable damage for parts of the vessel.
The fatigue strength evaluation shall be carried out based on the target fatigue life and service area specified
for the vessel, but minimum 20 years world wide, for vessels with Nauticus (Newbuilding), or 25 years North
Atlantic, for vessels with CSR notation. The owner may require increased fatigue life compared to the
minimum requirement.
4.7.2 Cumulative damage
Fatigue damage is calculated on basis of the Palmgrens-Miner rule, assuming linear cumulative damage. The
damage from each short term sea state in the scatter diagram is added together, as well as the damage from
heading and load condition.
4.7.3 S-N curves
The fatigue accumulation is based on use of S-N curves that are obtained from fatigue tests. The design S-N
curves are based on the mean-minus-two-standard-deviation curves for relevant experimental data. The S-N
curves are thus associated with a 97.6% probability of survival.
Relevant S-N curves according to CN 30.7 /4/ should be used.
It is important that consistency between S-N curves and calculated stresses is ensured.
4.7.3.1 Effect of corrosive environment
Corrosion has a negative effect on the fatigue life. For details located in corrosive environment (as water ballast
or corrosive cargo) this has to be taken into account in the calculations.
For details located in water ballast tanks with protection against corrosion or where the corrosive effect is small,
the total fatigue damage can be calculated using S-N curve for non-corrosive environment for parts of the design
life and S-N curve for corrosive environment for the remaining part of the design life. Guidelines on which S-N
curve to use and the fraction in corrosive and non-corrosive environment are specified by CN 30.7 /4/.
For details without corrosion protection, a S-N curve for corrosive environment has to be used in the
calculations for the entire lifetime.
al no
spot hot
K
min
=

4.7.3.2 Thickness effect
The fatigue strength of welded joints is to some extent dependent on plate thickness and on the stress gradient
over the thickness. Thus for thickness larger than 25 mm, the S-N curve in air reads
where t is thickness (mm) through which the potential fatigue crack will grow. This S-N curve in general
applies to all types of welds except butt-welds with the weld surface dressed flush and with small local bending
stress across the plate thickness. The thickness effect is less for butt welds that are dressed flush by grinding or
machining.
The above expression is equivalent with an increase of the response with
.
4.7.4 Mean stress effect
The procedure for the fatigue analysis is based on the assumption that it is only necessary to consider the ranges
of cyclic principal stresses in determining the fatigue endurance. However, some reduction in the fatigue
damage accumulation can be credited when parts of the stress cycle are in compression.
A factor, f
m
, accounting for the mean stress effect can be calculated based on a comparison of static hotspot
stresses and dynamic hotspot stresses at a 10-4 probability level.
4.7.4.1 Base material
For base material, f
m
varies linearly between 0.6 when stresses are in compression through the entire load cycle
to 1.0 when stresses are in tension through the entire load cycle.
4.7.4.2 Welded material
For welded material, f
m
varies between 0.7 and 1.0.
4.7.5 Improvement of fatigue life by fabrication
It should be noted that improvement of the toe will not improve the fatigue life if fatigue cracking from the root
is the most likely failure mode. The considerations made in the following are for conditions where the root is
not considered to be a critical initiation point for fatigue cracks.
Experience indicates that it may be a good design practice to exclude this factor at the design stage. The
designer is advised to improve the details locally by other means, or to reduce the stress range through design
and keep the possibility of fatigue life improvement as a reserve to allow for possible increase in fatigue loading
during the design and fabrication process.
It should also be noted that if grinding is required to achieve a specified fatigue life, the hot spot stress is rather
high. Due to grinding a larger fraction of the fatigue life is spent during the initiation of fatigue cracks, and the
crack grows faster after initiation. This implies use of shorter inspection intervals during service life in order
to detect the cracks before they become dangerous for the integrity of the structure.
The benefit of weld improvement may be claimed only for welded joints which are adequately protected from
corrosion.
The following methods for fatigue improvement are considered:
weld toe grinding (and profiling)
TIG dressing
hammer peening.
Among these three, weld toe grinding is regarded as the most appropriate method, due to uncertainties
regarding quality assurance of the other processes.
The different fatigue improvements by welding are described in CN 30.7 /4/.
|
.
|
\
|
= log
25
log
4
log log m
t m
N a
4
1
25
|
.
|
\
|
=
t
resp

Sec.5 Ultimate Limit State Assessment Page 30
5 Ultimate Limit State Assessment
5.1 Principle overview
5.1.1 General
The Ultimate Limit State (ULS) analyses shall cover necessary assessments for dimensioning against material
yield, buckling and ultimate capacity limits of the hull structural elements like plating, stiffeners, girders,
stringers, brackets, etc. in the cargo region.
ULS assessments shall also ensure sufficient global strength in order to prevent hull girder collapse, ductile hull
skin fracture and compartment flooding.
Two levels of ULS assessments are to be carried out, i.e.
global FE analyses - local ULS
hull girder collapse - global ULS.
The basic principles behind the two types of assessments are described in more detail in the following.
5.1.2 Global FE analyses local ULS
The local ULS design assessment is based on a linear global FE model with automatic load transfer from
hydrodynamic wave load programs. The design of the structural elements in different areas of the ship, are
covered by different design conditions. Each design condition is defined by a loading condition and a governing
sea state/wave condition, which together are dimensioning for the structural element.
For each design condition the calculation procedure follows the flow chart in Figure 5-1, i.e. the static and
hydrodynamic wave loads for the loading condition are transferred to the structural FE model for a linear
nominal stress assessment. The nominal stresses are to be measured against material yield, buckling and
ultimate capacity criteria of individual stiffened panels, girders etc.
The material yield checks cover von Mises stress control using a cargo hold model, and for high peak stressed
areas using local fine-mesh models.
The local ULS buckling control follow two different principles, allowing and not allowing elastic buckling,
depending on the elements main function in the global structure, using PULS /8/.
The procedure for local ULS assessment is further described in Section 5.2.
5.1.3 Hull girder collapse - global ULS
The hull girder collapse criteria are used to check the total hull section capacity against the corresponding
extreme global loads. This is to be carried out for the mid-ship area for one intact and two damaged hull
conditions. Specially developed hull girder capacity models based on simplified non-linear theory or full-
blown FE analyses are to be used for assessing the hull capacity. The extreme loads are to be based on direct
calculations and the static + dynamic load combination giving the highest total hull girder moment shall be
used, including both the extreme sagging and hogging condition.
For some ship types other sections than the mid-ship area may be relevant to be checked, if deemed necessary
by the Society. This applies in particular to hull sections which are transversely stiffened, e.g. engine room of
container ships etc.
The procedure for the global ULS assessment is further described in Section 5.3.
5.1.4 Scantlings/corrosion model
All FE calculations shall be based on the net scantlings methodology as defined by the relevant class notations
NAUTICUS (Newbuilding) or CSR.
The buckling calculations are to be carried out on net scantlings.
5.2 Global FE analyses local ULS
5.2.1 General
The local ULS design assessment is based on a linear global FE analysis with automatic load transfer from
hydrodynamic programs, as schematically illustrated in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1
Flowchart for ULS analysis: Load transfer: Hydro Global FE model
Selection of design loads, and procedures for selection of stress and application of the yield and buckling
criteria is described in the following.
5.2.2 Designloads
5.2.2.1 General
This section is closely linked to Section 3, which explains how hydrodynamic analyses are to be performed.
5.2.2.2 Design condition and selection of critical loading conditions
The design loading conditions are to be based on the vessels loading manual and shall include ballast, full load
and part load conditions as relevant for the specific ship type. The loading conditions and dynamic loads are
selected such that they together define the most critical structural response. Depending on the purpose of the
design condition, e.g. the region to be analysed and failure mode (yield/buckling) for the structural elements,
different loading conditions and design waves are required to ensure that the relevant response is at its
maximum. Any loading condition in the loading manual that, combined with its hydrodynamic extreme loads,
may result in the design loads should be evaluated.
For each loading condition, hydrodynamic analysis shall be performed, forming the basis for selection of
design waves and stress assessment. For areas where non-linear effects are not necessary to consider (e.g. for
transverse structural members) a design wave need not be defined. The design stress is then based on long-term
stress, where the stress at 10
-8
probability level for the loading condition is found. A design wave is required
if non-linear effects need to be considered. The design wave may be defined based on structural response, or
wave load, depending on the purpose of the design condition.

Table 5-1 gives an overview of the design conditions that need to be evaluated, and should at a minimum be
covered. Additional design conditions need to be evaluated case by case, depending on the ships structural
configuration, trading/operational conditions, etc, which may require several design conditions to ensure that
all the structures critical failure modes are covered.
5.2.2.3 Hydrodynamic analysis
The hydrodynamic analyses are to be performed for the selected critical loading conditions. A vessel speed of
5 knots is to be used for application of loads that are dominated by head seas. For design conditions where the
driving response is dominated by beam or quartering seas, the speed is to be taken as 2/3 of design speed.
5.2.2.4 Design life and wave environment
Wave environment is minimum to be the North Atlantic wave environment as defined in the CN 30.7 /4/. If
other wave environment is required by design, it should not be less severe than the North Atlantic wave
environment.
The hydrodynamic loads are to be taken as 10
-8
probability of exceedance according to Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.3 B300
and Pt.8 Ch.1 Sec.2 for Nauticus (Newbuilding) and CSR respectively, using a cos
2
wave spreading function
and equal probability of all headings.
5.2.2.5 Design waves
The design waves used in the hydrodynamic analysis should basically cover the entire cargo hold area.
Different design waves are used to check the capacity of different parts of the ship. It is important that the
design waves are not used outside the area for which the design wave is valid, i.e. a design wave made for tank
no.1 must not be used amidships.
An overview of the relation between the design loads and areas they are applicable for should be checked
against the different design loads is given in Table 5-1. The design conditions together with its applicable
loading condition and design load need to be reviewed on project basis. It can be agreed with Classification
Society that some design conditions can be removed based on review of design together with loading
conditions and operational profile.
It is considered that only design waves which represents vertical bending moment and vertical shear force need
to be performed with non-linear hydrodynamic analysis.
5.2.2.6 Load transfer
A load transfer (snap-shot) from the hydrodynamic analysis to the structural analysis shall be performed when
the total load/response from the hydrodynamic time-series is at its maximum/minimum. The load transfer shall
include both gravitational and inertial loads, and the still water and wave pressures, see Section 3.6.
Table 5-1 Guidance on loading condition selection
Design Condition Loading condition & design loads
ID
Reference
load/response
(Dominant or max
load/response)
Design area Loading condition Typical loading
pattern
Design wave
(maximised re-
sponse/load)
1A
hogging bending
moment
Midship (global hull)
Max/large hogging
bending moment
Max hogging wave
moment
1B
Sagging bending
moment
Midship (global hull)
Max/large sagging
bending moment
Max sagging wave
moment
2A
Hogging + double
bottom bending
Midship double bot-
tom
Transverse bulk-
heads
Large hogging com-
bined with deep draft
Tanks/hold empty
across with adjacent
tanks/hold full
Max hogging wave
moment
2B
Sagging + double
bottom bending
Midship double bot-
tom
Large sagging com-
bined with shallow
draft
Tanks/hold full
across with adjacent
tanks/hold empty
Max sagging wave
moment
3A
Shear force at aft
quarter length
Aft hold shear ele-
ments
Max shear force aft
Max wave shear
force at aft quarter-
length
3B
Shear force at fwd
quarter length
Fwd hold shear ele-
ments
Max shear force fwd
Max wave shear
force at fwd quarter
length

5.2.3 Design stress
5.2.3.1 General
Based on the global FE analysis a nominal stress flow in the hull structure is available. This nominal stress flow
shall be checked against material yield and acceptable buckling criteria (PULS).
The nominal stresses produced from the FE analysis will be a combination of the stress components from
several response effects, which in a simplistic manner can be categorized as follows:
hull girder bending moment
hull girder shear force
hull girder axial loads (small)
hull girder torsion and warping effects (if relevant)
double side/bottom bending
local bending of stiffener
local bending of plates
transverse stresses from cargo and sea pressure
transverse and shear stresses from double hull bending
other stress effects due to local design issues; knuckles, cut-outs etc.
Guidelines for determining design stresses are given in the following.
5.2.3.2 Material yield assessment
In the material yield control all effects are to be included apart from local bending stress across the thickness
of the plating. This means that the yield check involves the von Mises stress based on membrane stresses and
shear stresses in the structure evaluated in the middle plane of plating, stiffener webs and stiffener flanges.
For cases where large openings are not modelled in the FE-analysis, either as cut-outs or by reduced thickness,
see Section 6.3.2.2, the von Mises stress should be corrected to account for this.
In areas with high peaked stress, where the von Mises stress exceeds the acceptance criteria, the structure
should be evaluated using a stress concentration model (t x t mesh). Frame and girder models (stiffener spacing
mesh or equivalent) that reflect nominal stresses should not be used for evaluation of strain response in yield
areas. Areas above yield from the linear element analysis may give an indication of the actual area of
plastification. Non-linear FE analysis may be used to trace the full extent of plastic zones, large deformations,
low cycle fatigue etc. but such analyses are normally not required.
For evaluation of large brackets, the stress calculated at the middle of a brackets free edge is of the same
magnitude for models with stiffener spacing mesh size as for models with a finer mesh. Evaluation of brackets
of well-documented designs, may be limited to a check of the stress at the free edge. When 4-node elements
4A
Internal pressure/
load in no.1 tank/hold
Tank no 1 double
bottom
Loaded at shallow
draft fwd
No.1 tanks/hold full
across with no.2
tanks/hold empty
Maximum vertical
accelerations at no.1
tanks/hold in head
sea
4B
External pressure at
no.1 tanks/hold
Tank no.1 double
bottom
Loaded at deep draft
fwd
No.1 tanks/hold emp-
ty across with no.2
tanks/hold full
Maximum bottom
wave pressure at no.1
tanks/hold in head
seas
5
Combined vertical,
horizontal and tor-
sional bending
Entire cargo region
Loaded condition
with large GM com-
bined with large hog-
ging for hogging
vessels or large sag-
ging for sagging ves-
sels
Design wave(s) in
quartering/beam sea
condition:
maximised
torsion
maximised
horizontal
bending
maximised stress
at hatch corners/
large openings
6
Maximum transverse
loading
Entire cargo region
Loaded with maxi-
mum GM
Maximum transverse
acceleration
Table 5-1 Guidance on loading condition selection (Continued)
Design Condition Loading condition & design loads
ID
Reference
load/response
(Dominant or max
load/response)
Design area Loading condition Typical loading
pattern
Design wave
(maximised re-
sponse/load)

are used, fictitious bar elements are to be applied at the free edge to give a straightforward read-out of the
critical edge stress. For brackets where the design needs to be verified, a fine mesh model needs to be used.
Figure 5-2
Bracket stress to be used
5.2.3.3 Buckling assessment
In order to be consistent with available buckling codes the nominal stress pattern has to be simplified, i.e. stress
gradients has to be averaged and the local bending stress due to lateral pressure effects has to be eliminated.
The membrane stress components used for buckling control shall include all effects listed in Section 5.2.3.1,
except for the stresses due to local stiffener and plate bending, since these effects are included in the buckling
code itself.
When carrying out the local ULS-buckling checks the nominal FE stress flow has to be simplified to a form
consistent with the local co-ordinate system of the standard buckling codes. In the PULS buckling code the bi-
axial and shear stress input reads (see Figure 5-3):
1
axial nominal stress in primary stiffener and plating (normally uniform*) (sign convention in buckling
code (PULS): positive stress in compression, negative stress in tension)
2
transverse nominal stress in plating. Normally uniform stress distribution, but it can vary linearly across
the plate length in the PULS code, also into the tension range;
2,1

2,2
at plate ends)
12
nominal in-plane shear stress in plating (uniform and as assessed by Section 5.3.3
p net uniform (average) lateral pressure from sea or cargo (positive pressure acting on flat plate side).
Figure 5-3
PULS nominal stress input for uni-axially or orthogonally stiffened panels (bi-axial + shear stresses)
=
Primary stiffeners direction
1 x -
Secondary stiffeners any) x2- direction (if

Note:
Varying stress along the plate edge can be considered by checking each stiffener for the stress acting at that
position. Since the PULS buckling model only consider uniform stresses, a fictive PULS model have to be
used with the actual number of stiffener between rigid lateral supports (girders etc.) or limited by maximum
5 stiffeners)
The local plate bending stress is easily excluded by using membrane stresses in the plating. The stiffener
bending stress can not directly be excluded from the stress results unless stresses are visualised in the combined
panel neutral axis. This is, for most program systems, not feasible.
Figure 5-4
Stiffener bending stress - mesh variations
The magnitude of the stiffener bending stress included in the stress results depends on the mesh division and
the element type that is used. This is shown in Figure 5-4 where the stiffener bending stress, as calculated by
the FE-model, is shown dependent on the mesh size for 4-node shell elements. One element between floors
results in zero stiffener bending. Two elements between floors result in a linear distribution with approximately
zero bending in the middle of the elements.
When a relatively fine mesh is used in the longitudinal direction the effect of stiffener bending stresses should
be isolated from the girder bending stresses for buckling assessment.
For the buckling capacity check of a plate, the mean shear stress,
mean
is to be used. This may be defined as
the shear force divided on the effective shear area. The mean shear stress may be taken as the average shear
stress in elements located within the actual plate field, and corrected with a factor describing the actual shear
area compared to the modelled shear area when this is relevant. For a plate field with n elements the following
apply:
where:
A
W
= effective shear area according to the Rules for Classification of Ships, Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.3 C503
A
Wmod
= shear area as represented in the FE model.
5.2.4 Local buckling assessment - plates, stiffeners, girders etc.
5.2.4.1 General
Buckling control of plating, stiffeners and girders/floors shall be carried out according to acceptable design
principles. All relevant failure modes and effects are to be considered such as
plate buckling
local buckling of stiffener and girder web plating
torsional/sideways buckling and global (overall) buckling of both stiffeners and girders
interactions between buckling modes, boundary effects and rotational restraints between plating and
stiffeners/girders
free plate edge buckling to be excluded by fitting edge stiffeners unless detailed assessments are carried out.

( )
W
Wmod n 2 1
mean
A
A
n
...

+ + +
=

The buckling design of stiffened panels follows two main principles, namely:
Method 1 Ultimate Capacity (UC):
The stiffened panels are designed against their ultimate capacity limit thus accepting elastic buckling of
plating between stiffeners and load redistributions from plating to stiffeners/girders. No major von Mises
yielding and development of permanent sets/buckles should take place.
Method 2 Buckling Strength (BS):
The stiffened panels are designed against the buckling strength limit. This means that elastic buckling of
neither the plating nor the stiffeners are accepted and thus redistribution of loads due to buckling are
avoided. The buckling strength (BS) is the minimum of the Ultimate Capacity (UC) and the elastic buckling
strength (minimum Eigenvalue).
The load bearing limits using Method 1 and Method 2 will be coincident for moderate to slender designs while
they will diverge for slender structures with the Method 1 giving the highest load bearing capacity. This is due
to the fact that Method 1 accept elastic plate buckling between stiffeners and utilize the extra post-buckling
capacity of flat plating (overcritical strength) while Method 2 cuts the load bearing capacity at the elastic
buckling load level.
From a design point of view Method 1 principle imply that thinner plating can be accepted than using Method
2 principle.
These principles are implemented in PULS buckling code /8/, which is the preferred tool for buckling
assessment, see Appendix E.
5.2.4.2 Application
Method 1 design principles are in general used for stiffened panels relevant for the longitudinal strength, or the
main elements that contribute to the hull girder, while Method 2 design principles are used for the primary
support members of the hull girder, e.g. panels that form the web-plating of girders, stringers and floors. Table
5-2 summarises which method to use for different structural elements.
For Method 1 the panel can be uni-axially stiffened or orthogonally stiffened. The latter arrangement is
illustrated in Figure 5-5.
In general the application of Method 1 versus Method 2 follows the same principles as IACS-CSR Tanker
Rules, see the Rules for Classification of Ships, Pt.8 Ch.1 App. D.5.2.
Table 5-2 Application of Method 1 and Method 2
Method 1 Method 2
1)
bottom-shell
side-shells
deck
inner bottom
longitudinal bulkheads
transverse bulkheads
girders
stringers
floors
1)
Webs that may be considered to have fixed in-plane boundary-conditions, e.g. girders below longitudinal bulkheads,
can utilize Method 1

Figure 5-5
Schematic illustration of elastic plate buckling (load in x
2
-direction); load shedding from plating towards
the stiffeners takes place when designing according to Method 1 principle (i.e. reduced effective plate
width/stiffness due to buckling)
5.2.4.3 Other structures Pillars, brackets etc
For designs where the buckling strength of structural members apart from the longitudinal material in cargo
region, the following guidelines may be used as reference for assessment:
Pillars, IACS/CSR Sec.10, Part 2.4.1.
Brackets, IACS/CSR Sec.10, Part 2.4.2.
Cut-outs, openings IACS/CSR Sec.10, Part 2.4.3 and Part 3.4.1.
Reinforcements of free edges, i.e. in way of openings, brackets, stringers, pillars etc. IACS/CSR Sec.10,
Part 2.4.3.
The buckling and ultimate strength control of unstiffened and stiffened curved panels (e.g. bilge) may be
performed according to the method as given in DNV-RP-C202, Ref. /2/.
5.2.5 Acceptance criteria
5.2.5.1 General
Acceptance requirements are given separately for material yield control and buckling control even though the
latter also includes yield checks locally in plate and stiffeners.
The yield check is related to the nominal stress flow in the structure, i.e. the local bending across the plate
thickness is not included.
The buckling check is also based on the nominal stress flow idealized as described in Section 5.2.3.3 to be
consistent with input to the PULS buckling code. The check includes secondary stress effects due to
imperfections and elastic buckling effects, thus preventing major permanent sets.
5.2.5.2 Material yield check
The longitudinal hull girder and main girder system nominal and local stresses derived from the direct strength
calculations are to be checked according to the criteria specified listed below.
Allowable equivalent nominal von Mises stresses (combined with relevant still water loading) are given in
Table 5-3:
Table 5-3 Allowable stress levels von Mises membrane stress
Seagoing condition
General
e
= 0.95
f
N/mm
2

For areas with pronounced geometrical changes local linear peak stresses (von-Mises membrane) of up to 400
f
1
may be accepted provided plastic mechanisms are not developed in the associated structural parts.
5.2.5.3 Buckling check
The ULS local buckling check for stiffened panels follows the guidelines as given in Section 5.2.4.2 using the
PULS buckling code. For other structures the guidelines in Section 5.2.4.3 apply.
The acceptance level is as follows:
the PULS usage factor shall not exceed 0.90 for stiffened panels, girder web plates etc. This applies for
Method 1 and Method 2 principle.
5.2.6 Alternative methods non-linear FE etc
Alternative non-linear capacity assessment of local panels, girders etc. using recognised non-linear FE
programs are acceptable on a case by case evaluation by the Society. In such cases, inclusion of geometrical
imperfections, residual stresses and boundary conditions needs careful evaluation. The models should be
capable of capturing all relevant buckling modes and interactions between them. The accept levels are to be
specially considered.
5.3 Hull girder collapse - global ULS
5.3.1 General
The hull girder collapse criteria shall ensure sufficient safety margins against global hull failure under extreme
load conditions and the vessel shall stay afloat and be intact after the incident. Buckling, yielding and
development of permanent sets/buckles locally in the hull section are accepted as long as the hull girder does
not collapse and break with hull skin cracking and compartment flooding.
The hull girder collapse criteria involve the vertical global bending moments in the considered critical section
and have the general format
S
M
S
+
W
M
W
M
U
/
M
where:
M
s
= the still water vertical bending moment
M
w
= the wave vertical bending moment
M
U
= the ultimate moment capacity of the hull girder
= a set of partial safety factors reflecting uncertainties and ensuring the overall required target safety
margin.
The actual loads M
s
and M
w
, giving the most severe combination in sagging and hogging respectively are to
be considered.
The hull girder capacity M
U
shall be assessed using acceptable methods recognized by the Society. Acceptable
simplified hull capacity models are given in Appendix C. Appendix D describes alternative methods based on
advanced non-linear FE analyses.
The hull girder collapse criteria shall be checked for both sagging and hogging and for the intact and two
damaged conditions, see Section 5.3.2. The ultimate sagging and hogging bending capacities of the hull girder
is to be determined for both intact and damaged conditions and checked according to criteria in Table 5-4.
Global ULS shear capacity is to be specially considered if relevant for actual ship type and operating loading
conditions.
5.3.2 Damage conditions
There are two different damaged conditions to be considered; collision and grounding. The damage extents are
shown in Figure 5-6 and further described in Table 5-4.

Figure 5-6
Damage extent collision (left) and grounding (right)
For grounding, the height of the damage should not be taken larger than 2 m (i.e. min(B/20, 2).
All structure within a breadth of B/16 is regarded as damaged for the collision case, while structure within a
height of B/20 is regarded as damaged for the grounding case. Structure within the boxes shown in Figure 5-6
should have no structural contribution when hull girder capacity is calculated for the collision or grounding
damage case.
When assessing the ultimate strength (M
U
) of the damaged hull sections the following principles apply:
damaged area as defined in Table 5-4 carry no loads and is to be removed in the capacity model
the intact hull parts and their strength depend on the boundary supports towards the damaged area, i.e. loss
of support for transverse frames at shipside etc. The modelling of such effects need special considerations
reflecting the actual ship design.
The changes in still-water and wave loads due to the damages are implicitly considered in the load factors
S
and
W
, see Table 5-5. No further considerations of such effects are needed.
5.3.3 Hull girder capacity assessment (M
U
) - simplified approach
Assuming quasi-static response the hull girder response is conveniently represented as a moment-curvature
curve (M - ) as schematically illustrated in Figure 5-7. The curve is non-linear due to local buckling and
material yielding effects in the hull section. The moment peak value M
U
along the curve is defined as the
ultimate capacity moment of the total hull girder section.
For ships with varying scantlings in the longitudinal direction, changing stiffener spans, etc. the moment-
curvature relation of the critical hull section should be analysed.
Critical sections are normally found within the mid-ship area, but for some ship designs, like container vessels,
critical sections can be outside 0.4 L, e.g. in the engine room area.
Table 5-4 Damage parameters
Damage extent
Single side/bottom Double side/bottom
Collision in ship side
Height: h/D 0.75 0.60
Length: l/L 0.10 0.10
Grounding in ship bottom
Breadth: b/B 0.75 0.55
Length: l/L 0.50 0.30
L - ship length, l - damage length

Figure 5-7
Moment-curvature (M-) curve for hull sections, schematic illustration in sagging (quasi static loads)
5.3.4 Accept criteria intact and damaged
The ultimate hull girder capacity is calculated according to the accept criteria and limits shown in Table 5-5.
5.3.5 Double bottom and local load effects
The beam model (HULS/PULS) applied for the calculation of the ultimate moment capacity M
U
does only
consider the vertical global hull girder response, i.e. local pressure/loadings, and double bottom effects and
their impact on the longitudinal hull girder capacity are neglected. This is normally a reasonable simplification,
but for some ship types and loading conditions it may be non-conservative. The double bottom response and
local cargo/sea pressure effects give additional longitudinal and bi-axial/shear stresses that can, in some
longitudinal sections, be of such a magnitude that the moment capacity M
U
can be reduced significantly. This
may typically be the case for wide and long span double bottom constructions such as in LNG Carriers, OBO
vessels, Bulk/Ore carriers and others. For instance, for empty holds in alternate loading conditions, the bi-axial/
shear stresses conditions in bottom area may be significant.
For ship design and loading conditions in which the local stresses are of such a magnitude that they will
significantly reduce the M
U
estimated from the simple beam model approach, the capacity knock down effects
can be accounted for by setting the material factor
M
= 1.25 (see Table 5-5).
For the damage condition, the additional stresses due to double bottom bending (i.e. double bottom effects) are
smaller and the safety factor is reduced to
M
= 1.10.
Table 5-5 Hull girder strength check: accept criteria required safety factors
Intact strength Damaged strength
M
S
+
W1
M
W
M
UI
/
M

S
M
S
+
W2
M
W
M
UD
/
M
where:
M
S
= maximum design sagging or hogging still water
moment according to the loading conditions from
the loading manual used in the wave load analysis
M
W
= design wave bending moment according to the
wave load analysis in Sec.3.5
M
UI
= hull girder bending moment capacity in intact
condition
W1
= 1.1 (partial safety factor on M
W
for environmental
loads)
M
= 1.15 (material factor) in general
M
= 1.25 (material factor) to be considered for
hogging checks of designs with bi-axial/shear
stresses conditions in bottom area of such a
magnitude that they will significantly reduce the
hull girder capacity. (see 5.3.5)
where:
M
S
= maximum design sagging or hogging still water
moment according to the loading conditions from the
loading manual used in the wave load analysis
M
W
= design wave bending moment according to the wave
load analysis in Sec.3.5
M
UD
= hull girder bending moment capacity in damaged
condition
S
= 1.1 (factor on M
S
allowing for moment increase with
accidental flooding of holds)
W2
= 0.67 (wave load reduction factor corresponding to 3
month exposure in world-wide climate).
M
= 1.0 (material factor) in general
M
= 1.10 (material factor) to be considered for hogging
checks of designs with bi-axial/shear stresses
conditions in bottom area of such a magnitude that
they will significantly reduce the hull girder
capacity. (see 5.3.5)

Sec.6 Structural Modelling Principles Page 41
6 Structural Modelling Principles
6.1 Overview
6.1.1 Model types
The CSA analysis is based on a set of different structural FE-models. This section gives an overview of the
structural (and mass) modelling required for a CSA analysis.
The structural models as shown in Table 6-1 are normally included in a CSA analyses.
Figure 6-1, Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3 show typical structural models used in a CSA analysis.
Figure 6-1
Global model example, with cargo hold model included (port side shown)l
Table 6-1 Structural models used in CSA analyses
Model type Characteristics Used for
Global structural model
The whole structure of the vessel
S S mesh (girder spacing mesh)
May include cargo hold model (stiffener
spacing mesh)
May include fine mesh (t t type mesh)
Includes mass-model
Global analysis (FLS and ULS)
Cargo systems
Buckling stresses
Cargo hold model
Part of vessel (typical cargo-hold model)
s x s mesh (stiffener spacing mesh)
May include fine mesh (t t type mesh)
Includes mass-model, particularly when
used as sub-model
Global fatigue screening
Yield stresses
Buckling stresses
Relative deflection analysis
Stress concentration model
Fine mesh, (t t type mesh)
Sub-model
Size such that boundary effects are
avoided
Mass-model normally not included
Detailed fatigue analysis
Yield evaluation

Figure 6-2
Stiffener spacing mesh (structural model of No.1 hold on left, and Midship cargo hold model on right)
Figure 6-3
Stress concentration model
6.1.1.1 Global structural model
The global structural model is intended to provide a reliable description of the overall stiffness and global stress
distribution in the primary members in the hull. The following effects shall be taken into account:
vertical hull girder bending including shear lag effects,
vertical shear distribution between ship side and bulkheads,
horizontal hull girder bending including shear lag effects,
torsion of the hull girder (if open hull type)
transverse bending and shear.
The mesh density of the model shall be sufficient to describe deformations and nominal stresses due to the
effects listed above. Stiffened panels may be modelled by a combination of plate and beam elements.
Alternatively, layered (sandwich) elements or anisotropic elements may be used.
Since it is required to use a regular mesh density for yield evaluation and for global fatigue screening, it is
recommended to model a region of the global model with stiffener spacing type mesh, by means of suitable
element transitions to the coarse mesh model, see Figure 6-1. Since a full-stochastic fatigue analysis may
include as much as 200 to 300 complex load cases the region of regular mesh density might need to be restricted
to reduce computation time. If it is unpractical to include all desired areas with a regular mesh density, the
remaining parts should be modelled as sub-models, see Section 6.4.

The fatigue analysis and high stress yield areas require even denser mesh than that provided by regular mesh
type. Including these meshes in the global model will increase the number of degrees of freedom and
computational time even more, resulting in a database that is not easy to navigate. It is therefore normal to have
separate sub-models with finer mesh regions complementing the global model.
Figure 6-4
Global model with stiffener spacing mesh in Midship/cargo region
6.1.1.2 Cargo hold model
The cargo hold model is used to analyse the deformation response and nominal stress in primary structural
members. It shall include stresses caused by bending shear and torsion.
The model may be included in the global model as mentioned in Section 6.1.1.1, or run separately with
prescribed boundary deformations or boundary forces from the global model.
The element size for cargo hold models is described in ship specific Classification Notes and in CN 30.7 /4/.
Vessels with CSR notation may follow the net-scantlings methodology of CSR, and the FE-model used for
CSR assessment may also be used during CSA analysis. It should however be noted that stiffeners modelled
co-centric for CSR shall be modelled eccentric for CSA.
6.1.1.3 Stress concentration model
The element size for stress concentration models is well described in ship specific Classification Notes and in
Classification Note No. 30.7. It is therefore not described here, even if it is a part of the global structural model.
6.2 General
6.2.1 Properties
All structural elements are to be modelled with net scantlings, i.e. deducting a corrosion margin as defined by
the actual notation.
6.2.2 Unit system
The unit system as given in Table 6-2 is recommended as this is consistent and easy to use in the DNV
programs.

6.2.3 Co-ordinate system
The following co-ordinate system is proposed; right hand co-ordinate system, with the x-axis positive forward,
y-axis positive to port and z-axis positive vertically from baseline to deck. The origin should be located at the
intersection between aft perpendicular, baseline and centreline. The co-ordinate system is illustrated in Figure
6-5.
Figure 6-5
Co-ordinate system
6.3 Global structural FE-model
6.3.1 Model extent
The entire ship shall be modelled including all structural elements. Both port and starboard side need to be
included in the global model
All main longitudinal and transverse structure of the hull shall be modelled. Structure not contributing to the
global strength of the vessel may be disregarded. The mass of disregarded elements shall be included in the
model.
The superstructure is generally not a part of the CSA scope and may be omitted. However, for some ships it
will also be required to model the superstructure as the stresses in the termination of the cargo area are
influenced by the superstructure. It is recommended to include the superstructure in order to easily include the
mass.
6.3.2 Model idealisation
6.3.2.1 Elements and mesh size of plates and stiffeners
Where possible, a square mesh (length to breadth of 1 to 2 or better) should be adopted. A triangular mesh is
acceptable to avoid out of plane elements, but not necessary since this can be handled by the analysis system.
Plate elements should be modelled with linear (4- and 3-node) or quadratic (8- and 6-node) elements. Stiffeners
may be modelled with two or three node elements (according to shell element type).
Table 6-2 Unit System
Measure Unit
Length Millimetre [mm]
Mass Metric tonne [Te]
Time Second [s]
Force Newton [N]
Pressure and stress 10
6
Pascal [MPa or N/mm
2
]
Gravitation constant 9.8110
3
[mm/s
2
]
Density of steel 7.8510
-9
[Te/mm
3
]
Youngs modulus 2.1010
5
[N/mm
2
]
Poissons ratio 0.3 [-]
Thermal expansion coefficient 0.0 [-]
baseline
x, fwd
z, up
y, port
A.P.
centreline

The use of higher level elements such as 8-node or 6-node shell or membrane elements will not normally lead
to reduced mesh fineness. 8-node elements are, however, less sensitive to element skewness than 4-node
elements, and have no out of plane restrictions. In addition, 6-node elements provide significantly better
stiffness representation than that of 3-node elements. Use of 6-node and 8-node elements is preferred but can
be restricted by computer capacity.
The following rules can be used as a guideline for the minimum element sizes to be used in a global/stiffness
structural model using 4-node and/or 8node shell elements (finer mesh divisions may be used):
General: One element between transverse frames/girders
Girders: One element over the height
Beam elements may be used for stiffness representation
Girder brackets: One element
Stringers: One element over the width
Stringer brackets: One element
Hopper plate: One to two elements over the height depending on plate size
Bilge: Two elements over curved area
Stiffener brackets: May be disregarded.
All areas not mentioned above should have equal element sizes. One example of suitable element mesh with
suitable element sizes is illustrated by the fore and aft-parts of Figure 6-1.
The eccentricity of beam elements should be included. The beams can be modelled eccentric, or the eccentricity
may be included by including the stiffness directly in the beam section modulus.
6.3.2.2 Modelling of girders
Girder webs shall be modelled by means of shell elements in areas where stresses are to be derived. However,
flanges may be modelled using beam and truss elements. Web and flange properties shall be according to the
actual geometry. The axial stiffness of the girder is important for the global model and hence reduced efficiency
of girder flanges should not be taken into account. Web stiffeners in direction of the girder should be included
such that axial, shear and bending stiffness of the girder are according to the girder dimensions.
The mean girder web thickness in way of cut-outs may generally be taken as follows for r
co
values larger than
1.2,
(r
co
> 1.2):
Figure 6-6
Mean girder web thickness
where:
For large values of r
co
(> 2.0), geometric modelling of the cut-out is advisable.
t
w
= web thickness
l
co
= length of cut-out
h
co
= height of cut-out
h = height of girder web
W
co
co
mean
t
r h
h h
t
=
( )
2
co
2
co
co
h h 2.6
l
1 r
+ =

6.3.3 Boundary conditions
The boundary conditions for the global structural model should reflect simple supports that will avoid built-in
stresses. A three-two-one fixation, as shown in Figure 6-7, can be applied. Other boundary conditions may be
used if desirable. The fixation points should be located away from areas of interest, as the loads transferred
from the hydrodynamic load analysis may lead to imbalance in the model. Fixation points are often applied at
the centreline close to the aft and the forward ends of the vessel.
Figure 6-7
Example of boundary conditions
6.3.4 Ship specific modelling
6.3.4.1 Membrane type LNG carrier
The stiffness of the tank system is normally not included in the structural FE-model. Pressure loads are directly
transferred to the inner hull.
6.3.4.2 Spherical LNG carriers
The spherical tanks shall be modelled sufficiently accurate to represent the stiffness. A mesh density in the
order of 40 elements around the circumference of a tank will normally be sufficient. However, the transition
towards the hull will normally have a substantially finer mesh.
The mesh density of the cover has to be consistent with the hull mesh. Special attention should be given to the
deck/cover interaction as this is a fatigue critical area.
6.3.4.3 LPG/LNG carrier with independent tanks
The tank supports will normally only transfer compressive loads (and friction loads). This effect need to be
accounted for in the modelling. A linearization around the static equilibrium will normally be sufficient.
6.4 Sub models
6.4.1 General
The advantage of a sub-model (or an independent local model), as illustrated in Figure 6-2, is that the analysis
is carried out separately on the local model, requiring less computer resources and enabling a controlled step
by step analysis procedure to be carried out. For this sub model, the mass data must be as for the global model
in order to ensure correct inertia loads.
The various mesh models must be compatible, i.e. the coarse mesh models shall produce deformations and/
or forces applicable as boundary conditions for the finer mesh models (referred to as sub-models).
Sub-models (e.g. finer mesh models) may be solved separately by use of the boundary deformations/ boundary
forces and local internal loads transferred from the coarse model. This can be done either manually or, if sub-
modelling facilities are available, automatically by the computer program.
The sub-models shall be checked to ensure that the deformations and/or boundary forces are similar to those
obtained from the coarse mesh model. Furthermore, the sub-model shall be sufficiently large that its boundaries
are positioned at areas where the deformation/ stresses in the coarse mesh model are regarded as accurate.
Within the coarse model, deformations at web frames and bulkheads are usually accurate, whereas
deformations in the middle of a stiffener span (with fewer elements) are not sufficiently accurate.
The sub-model mesh shall be finer than that of the coarse model, e.g. a small bracket is normally included in a
local model, but not in global model.

6.4.2 Principle
Sub-models using boundary deformations/forces from a coarse model may be used subject to the following
rules. The rules aim to ensure that the sub-model provides correct results. These rules can, however, vary for
different program systems.
The sub-model shall be compatible with the global (parent) model. This means that the boundaries of the sub-model
should coincide with those elements in the parent model from which the sub-model boundary conditions are
extracted. The boundaries should preferably coincide with mesh lines as this ensures the best transfer of
displacements / forces to the sub-model.
Special attention shall be given to:
1) Curved areas.
Identical geometry definitions do not necessarily lead to matching meshes. Displacements to be used at the
boundaries of the sub-model will have to be extrapolated from the parent model. However, only radial
displacements can be correctly extrapolated in this case, and hence the displacements on sub-model can
consequently be wrong.
2) The boundaries of the sub-model shall coincide with areas of the parent model where the displacements/
forces are correct.
For example, the boundaries of the sub-model should not be midway between two frames if the mesh size
of the parent model is such that the displacements in this area cannot be accurately determined.
3) Linear or quadratic interpolation (depending on the deformation shape) between the nodes in the global
model should be considered.
Linear interpolation is usually suitable if coinciding meshes (see above) are used.
4) The sub-model shall be sufficiently large that boundary effects, due to inaccurately specified boundary
deformations, do not influence the stress response in areas of interest. A relatively large mesh in the
parent model is normally not capable of describing the deformations correctly.
5) If a large part of the model is substituted by a sub model (e.g. cargo hold model), then mass properties must
be consistent between this sub-model and the parent model. Inconsistent mass properties will influence
the inertia forces leading to imbalance and erroneous stresses in the model.
6) Transfer of beam element displacements and rotations from the parent model to the sub-model should be
especially considered.
7) Transitions between shell elements and solid elements should be carefully considered. Mid-thickness nodes
do not exist in the shell element and hence special transition elements may be required.
The model shall be sufficiently large to ensure that the calculated results are not significantly affected by
assumptions made for boundary conditions and application of loads. If the local stress model is to be subject to
forced deformations from a coarse model, then both models shall be compatible as described above. Forced
deformations may not be applied between incompatible models, in which case forces and simplified boundary
conditions shall be modelled.
6.4.3 Boundary conditions
The boundary conditions for the sub-model are extracted from the parent model, as displacements applied to
the edges of the model, and pressures are applied to the outer shell and tank boundaries.
Sub-model nodes are to be applied to the border of the models which are given displacements as found in parent
model.
6.5 Mass modelling and load application
6.5.1 General
The inertia loads and external pressures need to be in equilibrium in the global FE-analysis, keeping the
reaction forces at a minimum. The sum of local loads along the hull needs to give the correct global response
as well as local response for further stress evaluation. Since the inertia and wave pressures are obtained and
transferred from the hydrodynamic analysis, using the same mass-model for both structural analysis and
hydrodynamic analysis ensure consistent load and response between structural and hydrodynamic analysis.
This means that the mass-model used need to ensure that the motion characteristics and load application is
properly represented.
In the hydrodynamic analysis the mass needs to be correctly described to produce correct motions and sectional
forces, while global/local stress patterns are affected by the mass description in the structural analysis. The
mass modelling therefore needs to be according to the loading manual, i.e. have the same:
total weight
longitudinal centre of gravity

vertical centre of gravity
transverse centre of gravity
rotational mass in roll and pitch.
Experience shows that the hydrodynamic analysis will give some small modification to the total mass and
centre of gravity, where the buoyancy is decided by the draft and trim of the loading condition in question.
Each loading condition analysed needs an individual mass-model. The lightship weight is consistent for all the
models, but the draft and cargo load/ballast distribution is different from one loading condition to another.
To obtain the correct mass-distribution in the FE model, an iteration process for tuning the mass distribution
has to be carried out in the initial phase of the global analysis.
6.5.2 Light weight
Light weight is defined as the weight that is fixed for all relevant loading conditions, e.g. steel weight,
equipment, machinery, tank fillings (if any), etc.
The steel weight should be represented by material density. Missing steel weight and distributed deadweight
can be represented by nodal masses applied to shell and beam elements.
The remaining lightweight should be represented by concentrated mass points at the centre of gravity of each
component, or by nodal masses, whichever is more appropriate for the mass in question.
The point mass representation should be sufficiently distributed to give a correct representation of rotational
mass and to avoid unintended results. Point masses should be located in structural intersections such that local
response is minimised.
6.5.3 Dead weight
Dead weight is defined as removable weight, i.e. weight that varies between loading conditions. The most
common are:
liquid cargo and ballast
containers
bulk cargo.
Different ship-types and tank/cargo types may need special consideration to ensure that the mass is modelled
in a way that both represent the motion characteristics of the vessel, at the same time as the inertia load is
properly applied.
The following contains some guidelines/best practice for some ship-types/mass-types. Other methods may also
be applicable.
6.5.3.1 Ballast and liquid cargo
In most cases liquid should be represented by distributed pressure in the FE-analysis, at least within the areas
of interest. In the hydrodynamic analysis the pressure is represented as mass-points distributed within the tank-
boundaries of the tank.
6.5.3.2 Container cargo
The weight of containers need to give the correct vertical forces at the container supports, but also forces
occurring in the cell guides due to rolling and pitching need to be included.
6.5.3.3 Bulk / ore cargo
For bulk cargo the correct centre of gravity and the roll radii of gyration need to be ensured. The forces need
to be applied such that the lateral forces, but also friction forces of the bulk cargo are correctly applied.
This can be achieved by modelling part of the load as mass-points and part of the load as pressure-loads, where
the pressure loads will ensure some lateral pressure on the transverse and longitudinal bulkheads and the mass-
points will ensure that most of the load is taken by the bottom structure.
The ratio between cargo modelled by mass-points and by pressure load depends on the inclination of the
supporting transverse/longitudinal structure.
6.5.3.4 Spherical tanks
For spherical tanks there are two important effects that need to be considered, i.e.;
the rotational mass of the cargo
cargo distribution has a correct representation of how the load from the cargo is transferred into the hull.
For spherical tanks, the inner side of the tank is without any stiffening arrangement, and only the friction

Sec.7 Documentation and Verification Page 49
between the tank surface and the liquid (in addition to the drag effect of the tower) will make the liquid rotate.
Hence the rotational mass from this effect can normally be neglected and only the Steiner contribution (mr
2
)
of the rotational mass should be included.
By neglecting the rotational mass, the roll Eigen period will be slightly under estimated from this procedure.
This is conservative since a lower Eigen period normally will give higher roll acceleration of the vessel.
Normally the weight of the cargo can be assumed to be uniformly distributed along the skirt of the tank.
7 Documentation and Verification
7.1 General
Compliance with CSA class notations shall be documented and submitted for approval. The documentation
shall be adequate to enable third parties to follow each step of the calculations. For this purpose, the following
should, as a minimum, be documented or referenced:
basic input
assumptions and simplifications made in modelling/analysis
models
loads and load transfer
analysis
results
discussion, and
conclusion.
The analysis shall be verified in order to ensure accuracy of the results. Verification shall be documented and
enclosed with the analysis report.
Checklists for quality assurance shall also be developed before the analysis work commences. It is suggested
that project-specific checklists are defined before the start of the project and are included in the project quality
plan. These checklists will depend on the shipyards or designers engineering practices and associated
software.
The following contains the documentation requirements to each step (Section 7.2) and some typical verification
steps (Section 7.3) that compiles the total delivery. Input files and result files may be accepted as part of the
verification.
7.2 Documentation
7.2.1 Basic input
The following basis for the analysis need to be included in the documentation:
basic ship information, including revision number
- drawings
- loading manuals
- hull-lines.
deviations, simplifications from ship information
assumptions
scope overview
- analysis basis
- loading conditions
- wave data
- design waves (including purpose)
- time at sea.
requirements/acceptance criteria.
7.2.2 Models
All models used should be documented, where the use and purpose of the model is stated. In addition the
following to be included:
units
boundary conditions
coordinate system.

7.2.3 Loads and hydrodynamic analysis
Typical properties to be documented are listed below and should be based on the selected probability level for
long-term analysis:
viscous damping level
mass properties (radii of gyration)
motion reference point
long term responses with corresponding Weibull shape parameter and zero-crossing period for
- motions
- sectional loads within cargo region
- accelerations within cargo region
- sea pressures.
design waves parameters with corresponding basis and non-linear results (if relevant).
It is recommended that the documentation of the hydrodynamic parameters is initiated in the start of the project
in order to have comparable numbers throughout the project.
7.2.4 Load transfer
The following to be documented, confirming that the individual and total applied loads are correct.:
pressures transfer
global loads (vertical bending moment and shear force) between hydro-model and structural model the
same.
7.2.5 Structural analysis
Overview of which structural analysis are performed.
7.2.6 Fatigue damage assessment
Following to be documented:
reference to or methodology used
welding effects included
factors accounting for effects not present in structural analysis (correction of stress)
SN curves used
damage, including mean stress effect if any
stress patterns
global screening.
7.2.7 Ultimate limit state assessment local yield and buckling
results showing compliance based on yielding criteria
results showing compliance based on buckling criteria
results from fine mesh evaluation
special considerations, corrections and assumptions made need to be summarized
amendments needed to achieve compliance.
7.2.8 Ultimate limit state assessment - hull girder collapse
reference to evaluation method
reference to special considerations
results showing compliance for intact conditions, including loads and capacity
results showing compliance for damaged conditions, including loads and capacity.
7.3 Verification
7.3.1 General
Each step of the procedure should be verified before next step begins. As major verification milestones, the
following should at a minimum be documented before the work is continued:
FE model
scantlings, geometry, etc
load cases and boundary conditions
test-run to ensure that FE-model is OK to be performed

Mass-model
total mass and centre of gravity
still water vertical bending moment and shear force (of structural and hydro model).
Hydro-analysis
hydro-model
transfer-functions
long-term responses
design waves (if relevant).
Load transfer
vertical bending moments and shear forces
equilibrium
load patterns.
FE analysis
responses
global displacement patterns/magnitudes
local displacement patterns
global sectional forces
stress level and distribution
sub-model boundary displacements/forces and stress
reaction forces and moments.
Verification steps should be included as Appendix or Enclosed together with main report/documentation
7.3.2 Verification of Structural Models
For proper documentation of the model, requirements given in the Rules for Classification of Ships, Pt.3 Ch.1
Sec.13 should be followed. Some practical guidance is given in the following.
Assumptions and simplifications are required for most structural models and should be listed such that their
influence on the results can be evaluated. Deviations in the model compared with the actual geometry according
to drawings shall be documented.
The set of drawings on which the model is based should be referenced (drawing numbers and revisions). The
modelled geometry shall be documented preferably as an extract directly from the generated model. The
following input shall be reflected:
plate thickness
beam section properties
material parameters (especially when several materials are used)
boundary conditions
out of plane elements (4-node elements, see Section 6)
mass distribution/balance.
7.3.3 Verification of Hydrodynamic Analysis
7.3.3.1 Model
The mass model should have the same properties as described in the loading manual, i.e. total mass, centre of
gravity and mass distribution.
The linking of the hydrodynamic and structural models shall be verified by calculating the still water bending
moments and shear forces. These shall be in accordance with the loading manual. Note that the loading manuals
do not include moments generated by pressures with components acting in the longitudinal direction. These
pressures are illustrated by the two triangular shapes in Figure 7-1.
Figure 7-1
End pressures contributing to vertical bending moment

Two ways of including the longitudinal forces are presented. One way is to add the moment given by:
where
= sea-water density
g = acceleration of gravity
d = draught
B = breadth
Z
N.A.
= distance from the keel to the neutral axis.
The correction is not correct towards the ends since the vessel is not shaped like a box. Figure 7-2 shows an
example of the procedure above. The loading manual corresponds with the potential theory as long as the
transverse section has a rectangular shape.
Figure 7-2
Example of verification of still water loads
Another option is to apply pressures acting only in longitudinal direction to the structural model and integrate
the resulting stresses to bending moments. In this way the potential theory shall match the corrected loading
manual all over the vessel.
When the internal tanks have large free surfaces the metacentric height might change significantly. This will
affect the roll natural frequency. If there is wave energy present for this frequency range these free surface
effects should be included in the model. The viscous and potential code should use the same physics and
thereby give the same natural frequency for roll. Correction of metacentric height in the potential code Wasim
can be included by modifying the stiffness matrix.
where
C = the stiffness matrix,
= the water density
g = the acceleration of gravity.
)
3
d
- (Z
2
B d
N.A. 5
gd M =
Still water bending moment
-2500000
-2000000
-1500000
-1000000
-500000
0
500000
1000000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Longitudinal position of the vessel
S
t
i
l
l

w
a
t
e
r

b
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
Loding Manual
Loading Man. Corr.
Potential theory
correction
GM nt Displaceme Volume g C =
44

7.3.3.2 Roll damping
If the method in Section 3.3 is used the roll angle given as input to the damping module should be the same as
the long term roll angle which is based on the final transfer functions. In general increased motion will result
in increased damping. It is therefore normally more viscous damping for ULS than for FLS.
7.3.3.3 Transfer functions
The transfer functions shall be reviewed and verified. For short waves, all motion responses (6 degrees of
freedom) shall be zero. For long waves, transfer function for heave shall be equal to one. When the roll and
pitch transfer functions are normalized with the wave amplitude it shall be zero for long waves, and normalized
with wave steepness they shall be constant for long waves. Transfer functions for surge in head and following
sea should be equal to one for long periods, while transfer functions for sway should be one in beam sea.
All global wave load components shall be equal to zero for long and short waves.
7.3.3.4 Design waves for ULS
For linear design waves, the dynamic response of the maximized response shall be the same as the long term
response described in Section 3.5.
For non-linear design waves, the comparisons of linear and non-linear results shall be presented. It is important
that if the non-linear simulation is repeated in linear mode the result would be the linear long term response.
7.3.4 Verification of loads
Inaccuracy in the load transfer from the hydrodynamic analysis to the structural model is among the main error
sources for this type of analysis. The load transfer can be checked on basis of the structural response and on
basis on the load transfer itself.
It is possible to ensure the correct transfer in loads by integrating the stress in the structural model and the
resulting moments and shear forces should be compared with the results from the hydrodynamic analysis.
Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4 compares the global loads from the hydrodynamic model with that resulting from
the loads applied to the structural model.
Figure 7-3
Example of QA for section loads Vertical Shear Force
-2.00E+05
-1.50E+05
-1.00E+05
-5.00E+04
0.00E+00
5.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.50E+05
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Length [m]
WASIM
CUTRES
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

s
h
e
a
r

f
o
r
c
e

[
k
N
]

Figure 7-4
Example of QA for sectional loads Vertical Bending Moment
10 sections are usually sufficient in order to establish a proper description of the bending moment and shear
force distribution along the hull. However, this may depend on the shape of the load curves. The first and last
sections should correspond with the ends of the finite element model.
In case of problems with the load transfer, it is recommended to transfer the still water pressures to the structural
FE model in order to verify the models and tools.
Pressures applied to the model can be verified against transfer-functions of shell pressure in the hydrodynamic
analysis. For use of sub-models, it shall be verified that the pressure on the sub-model is the same as that from
the parent model.
7.3.5 Verification of structural analysis
7.3.5.1 Verification of Response
The response should be verified at several levels to ensure that the analysis is correct. The following aspects
should be verified as applicable for each load considered:
global displacement patterns/magnitude
local displacement patterns/magnitude
global sectional forces
stress levels and distribution
sub model boundary displacements/forces
reaction forces and moments.
7.3.5.2 Global displacement patterns/magnitude
In order to identify any serious errors in the modelling or load transfer, the global action of the vessel should
be verified against expected behaviour/magnitude.
7.3.5.3 Local displacement patterns
Discontinuities in the model, such as missing connections of nodes, incorrect boundary conditions, errors in
Youngs modulus etc., should be investigated on basis of the local displacement patterns/magnitude.
7.3.5.4 Global sectional forces
Global bending moments and shear force distributions for still water loads and hydrodynamic loads should be
according to the loading manual and hydrodynamic load analysis respectively. Small differences will occur and
-2.00E+06
0.00E+00
2.00E+06
4.00E+06
6.00E+06
8.00E+06
1.00E+07
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Length [m]
WASIM
CUTRES
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

b
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t

[
k
N
m
]

can be tolerated. Larger differences (>5% in wave bending moment) can be tolerated provided that the source
is known and compensated for in the results. Different shapes of section force diagrams between hydrodynamic
load analysis and structural analysis indicate erroneous load transfer or mass distribution and hence should not
normally be allowed.
When transferring loads for FLS, at least two sections along the vessel should be chosen and transfer functions
for sectional loads from hydrodynamic and structural FE model shall be compared, e.g. one section amidships
and one section in the forward or aft part of the vessel as a minimum. When ULS is considered, the sectional
loads from the hydrodynamic model at time of load transfer shall be compared with the integrated stresses in
the structural FE model.
7.3.5.5 Stress levels and distribution
The stress pattern should be according to global sectional forces and sectional properties of the vessel, taking
into account shear lag effects. More local stress patterns should be checked against probable physical
distribution according to location of detail. Peak stress areas in particular should be checked for discontinuities,
bad element shapes or unintended fixations (4-node shell elements where one node is out of plane with the other
three nodes).
Where possible, the stress results should be checked against simple beam theory checks based on a dominant
load condition, e.g. deck stress due to wave bending moment (head sea) or longitudinal stiffener stresses due
to lateral pressure (beam sea).
7.3.5.6 Sub-model boundary displacements/forces
The displacement pattern and stress distribution of a sub-model should be carefully evaluated in order to verify
that the forced displacements/forces are correctly transferred to the boundaries of the sub-model. Peak stresses
at the boundaries of the model indicate problems with the transferred forces/displacements.
7.3.5.7 Reaction forces and moments
Reacting forces and moments should be close to zero for a direct structural analysis. Large forces and moments
are normally caused by errors in the load transfer. The magnitude of the forces and moments should be
compared to the global excitation forces on the vessel for each load case.

Sec.8 References Page 56
8 References
/1/ DNV Rules for Classification of Ships, Pt.3 Ch.1 Hull Structural Design, Ships with Length 100 metres
and above, July 2008
/2/ DNV Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C202, Buckling Strength of Shells, April 2005
/3/ DNV Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C205, Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads,
October 2008
/4/ DNV Classification Note 30.7, Fatigue assessment of ship structures, October 2008
/5/ DNV Classification Note 34.2, PLUS - Extended fatigue analysis of ship details, April 2009
/6/ Tanaka, A study of Bilge Keels, Part 4, on the Eddy-making Resistance to the Rolling of a Ship Hull,
Japan Soc. of Naval Arch., Vol. 109, 1960
/7/ DNV Rules for Classification of Ships, Pt.8 Ch.2 Common Structural Rules for Double Hull Oil
Tankers above 150 metres of length, October 2008
/8/ DNV Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C201 Part 2, Buckling strength of plated structures, PULS
buckling code, Oct. 2002
/9/ Kato, On the frictional Resistance to the Rolling of Ships, Journal of Zosen Kiokai, Vol. 102, 1958
/10/ Kato, On the Bilge Keels on the Rolling of Ships, Memories of the Defence Academy, Japan, Vol IV
No.3 pp. 339-384, 1966
/11/ Friis-Hansen, P., Nielsen, L.P., On the New Wave model for kinematics of large ocean waves, Proc.
OMAE, Vol. I-A, pp. 17-24, 1995
/12/ Pastoor, L.W., On the assessment of nonlinear ship motions and loads, Ph.D. thesis, Delft University
of Technology, 2002
/13/ Tromans, P.S., Anaturk, A.R., Hagemeijer, P., A new model for the kinematics of large ocean waves
- application as a design wave, Proc. ISOPE conf., Vol. III, pp. 64-71, 1991.

Appendix A Relative Deflection Analysis Page 57
Appendix A
Relative Deflection Analysis
A.1 General
The following gives the procedure for finding the relative deflection to be used in component stochastic
analysis for bulkhead connections. A FE analysis using a cargo-hold model is performed to calculate relative
deflections at the midship bulkhead.
A.2 Structural modelling
A cargo-hold model representing the midship region is used, with + 1 + cargo holds, or 3 cargo holds. See
vessel types individual class notation for modelling principles and boundary conditions.
Plating is represented by 6- and 8-node shell elements and stiffeners are represented by 3-node beam elements.
An image of the model is shown in Figure A-1.
The model is to be based on net scantlings, unless other is stated by class notation.
Figure A-1
3-D Cargo Hold Model

A.3 Load cases
The applied load cases are described in Table A-1.
A.4 Loads
The loads are to be based on the hydrodynamic analysis for FLS for each loading condition respectively. The
loads are to be taken at 10
-4
probability level and are to be based on the defined scatter-diagram with cos
2
spreading.
A.4.1 Sea pressure
The panel pressures from hydrodynamic analysis at midship section are subtracted and the long-term values
are found. The pressure is applied to the cargo-hold model with same value along the model. If panels do not
match the pressures, they are to be interpolated according to coordinates.
The pressure in the intermittent wet/dry region on the side-shell is to be corrected according to the procedure
specified in Section 3.6.2.2 (see also CN 30.7).
A.4.2 Cargo load/tank pressure
The cargo load/pressure due to vessel accelerations applied is to be based on accelerations at 10
-4
probability
level. Loads from accelerations in vertical, transverse and longitudinal direction are to be considered on project
basis. For most vessels it is sufficient to apply the loads due to vertical acceleration only, but some designs may
need to consider transverse and longitudinal acceleration also.
The acceleration is to be taken at the centre of gravity of the tank(s)/hold in the midship region. and the
reference point for the pressure distribution is to be taken at the centre of free surface. The density is to be taken
as 1.025 tonnes/m
3
for ballast water in ballast tanks and as cargo density/load as specified in the loading manual
for full load condition.
Table A-1 Midship model fatigue load cases
LC no Loading condition Load component Figure
LC1 Full load condition Dynamic sea pressure
LC2 Full load condition
Dynamic cargo pressure (vertical
acceleration)
LC4 Ballast condition Dynamic sea pressure
LC5 Ballast condition
Dynamic ballast pressure
(vertical acceleration)

The long term acceleration is to be used for the pressures calculation. The pressure distribution due to positive
acceleration shall apply.
It is sufficient to use the same acceleration for the tank(s) forward and aft of the tank(s)/hold in question without
taking into account the phasing or difference in long term value between adjacent tanks forward and aft.
A.5 Boundary conditions
The boundary conditions are to be taken according to vessels applicable CN for strength assessment.
A.6 Post-processing
A.6.1 Subtracting results
The relative deflection between the bulkhead and the closest frame is found from the FE-analysis.
Based on the relative deflection the stress due to the deflection can be calculated based on beam theory, see CN
30.7 /4/.
The deflection of each detail is further normalised based on the load it is caused by (e.g. the wave pressure or
acceleration at 10
-4
probability level), giving the nominal stress per unit load. By combining it with the transfer
function of the response, the nominal stress due to relative deflection is found. The stress concentration factor
is added, and the transfer-function can be added to the total stress transfer function.

Appendix B DNV Program Specific Items Page 60
Appendix B
DNV Program Specific Items
B.1 General
There are several steps and different programs that are necessary for an analysis that involve direct calculation
of loads and stress including a load transfer.
Typical programs are given in the following:
B.2 Modelling
B.2.1 General mass modelling
In order to tune the position of the centre of gravity and verify the weight distribution, it is recommended to
divide the vessel in longitudinal and transverse blocks. This allows easy specification of individual mass and
material properties for each block.
B.2.2 External loads
To be able to transfer the hydrodynamic loads a dummy hydro pressure must be applied to the hull. This must
be load case no. 1 (SESAM). The pressure shall be defined by applying hydro pressure (PROPERTY LOAD x
HYDRO-PRESSURE) acting on the shell (all parts of the hull may be wetted by the wave). The pressure shall
point from the water onto the shell. A constant pressure may be applied since the real pressure distribution will
be calculated in WASIM and directly transferred to the structural model. The model must also have a mesh line
at or close to the respective waterlines for each of the draft loading conditions (full load and ballast) to be
considered.
HydroD is an interactive application for computation of hydrostatics and stability, wave loads
and motion response for ships and offshore structures. The wave loads and motions are
computed by Wadam or Wasim in the SESAM suite of programs.
WASIM linear and non-linear 3D time domain program. WASIM in its linear mode calculates
transfer functions for motions, sea pressure and sectional forces of the vessel. In its non-
linear mode, time series of the specified responses are generated, and additional Froude-
Krylov and hydrostatic forces from wave action above still-water level are included.
Vessel speed effects are accounted for in WASIM, and the vessel is kept directional and
positional stable by springs or auto-pilot.
WAVESHIP is a linear 2D frequency domain program. WAVESHIP can be applied for calculation
of viscous roll damping.
PATRAN_PRE is a general pre-processor for graphical geometry modelling of structures and genera-
tion of Finite Element Models.
SESTRA is a program for linear static and dynamic structural analysis within the SESAM pro-
gram system.
SUBMOD Program for retrieval of displacements on a local part (sub-model) of a structure from a
global (complete) model for refined or detailed analysis.
PRESEL is a program for assembling super-elements (part models) to form the complete model
to be analysed. It also has functions for changing coordinate system to easily allow part
models to be moved.
STOFAT is an interactive postprocessor performing stochastic fatigue calculation of welded shell
and plate structures. The fatigue calculations are based on responses given as stress
transfer functions. STOFAT also has an application for calculation of statistical long
term post-processing of stresses.
XTRACT is the model and results visualization program of SESAM. It offers general-purpose fea-
tures for selecting, further processing, displaying, tabulating and animating results from
static and dynamic structural analysis as well as results from various types of hydrody-
namic analysis.
POSTRESP is a wave statistical post-processor for determination of short and long term responses
of motions and loads.
CUTRES is a post-processing tool for sectional results calculating the force distribution through-
out the cross section, and integrate the force to form total axial force, shear forces, bend-
ing moments and torsional moment for the cross section.
NAUTICUS HULL has an application for component stochastic fatigue analysis, the program (Component)
Stochastic Fatigue in Section Scantlings is a tool for performing stochastic fatigue anal-
ysis of longitudinal stiffeners with corresponding plates according to Classification
Note 30.7. The program uses all the structural input specified in Section Scantlings to-
gether with result and specified data from the wave analysis to calculate stochastic fa-
tigue life.

B.2.3 Ballast and liquid cargo
Using SESAM tools require that the tanks are predefined in the FE-model as separate load cases. Each load
case consists of dummy-pressures applied to the tank-boundaries of the tank. In the interface between the
hydro-analysis and structural analysis, each tank is given a density and a filling level, producing a surface,
centre of gravity and weight of the liquid in the tank. Based on these properties the mass points for the tank can
be generated for the hydrodynamic analysis and a tank-pressure distribution based on the inertia for the
structural analysis.
If above procedure cannot be applied, the following is an alternative procedure:
General
One separate super element covering all tanks (ballast and cargo) is made.
Each tank is defined with a set name identical to the one used for the structural model.
Each tank is specified with one specific density, i.e. one material to be defined for each tank.
Ballast tanks
The frames for each ballast tank (excluding ends of tank) are meshed, see Figure B-1. The same mesh as
used in the global/mid-ship model may be used.
Alternatively, a new mesh may be created. Shell or solid elements may be used. This mesh only needs to
be fine enough to capture global geometry changes. Typical mesh size:
- one mesh between each frame (for solid elements)
- one mesh between each stringer/girder.
Cargo tanks
The tank is modelled with solid elements. The mesh only needs to be fine enough to capture global
geometry changes. Typical mesh size;
One mesh between each frame
One mesh between each stringer/girder.
Figure B-1
Mass model ballast tanks
B.2.4 Container cargo
Containers may be modelled as boxes by using 8 QUAD shell elements. The changing the thickness will give
a total weight of the containers in the holds. By connecting the containers to the bulkheads with springs, the
force from roll and pitch are transferred.
B.2.5 Spherical tanks
The mass can be represented by longitudinal strings of mass through the centre of the tank, ensuring the correct
total mass and centre of gravity. In addition it is important that the mass represents the longitudinal distribution

End frames

of how the weight is transferred to the structure, which may be assumed to be uniformly distributed along the
tank skirt. This to ensure that the sectional loads calculated in the hydrodynamic analysis are correct.
B.3 Structural analysis
Inertia relief shall not be utilized during the structural analysis.

Appendix C Simplified Hull Girder Capacity Model - M
U
Page 63
Appendix C
Simplified Hull Girder Capacity Model - M
U
C.1 Multi step methods (incremental iterative procedures, HULS-N)
The general way to find the M
U
value will be to solve the non-linear physical problem (equilibrium equations)
by stepping along the M k curve using an incremental-iterative numerical approach. This means that the
ultimate capacity can be found by summing up the incremental moments along the curve until the peak value
is reached, i.e.
Here the M
i
is an incremental moment corresponding to an incremental curvature k
i
and N is the number
of steps used in order to reach the peak value M
U
, beyond which the incremental moments become negative
(post-collapse region).
The incremental moment M
i
is related to the incremental curvature k
i
through the tangent stiffness relation
Here (EI)
red-i
represent the incremental bending stiffness of the hull girder. The (EI)
red-i
stiffness is state (load)
dependent and will be gradually lower along the M-k curve and zero at global hull collapse level (M
U
). The
(EI)
red-i
parameter shall include all important effects such as
a) geometrical and material non-linear effects
b) buckling, post-buckling and yielding of individual hull section members
c) geometrical imperfections/tolerances - size and shape; trigger of critical modes
d) interaction between buckling modes
e) bi-axial compression/tension and/or shear stresses acting simultaneously with the longitudinal stresses
f) double bottom bending effects (hogging)
g) shift in neutral axis due to buckling/collapse and consequent load shedding between elements in the cross-
section
h) boundary conditions and interactions/restraints between elements
i) global shear loads (vertical bending)
j) lateral pressure effects
k) local patch loads (crane loads, equipment etc.)
l) for damaged hull cases (Sec.5.3.2), special consideration are to be given to flooding effects, non-symmetric
deformations, warping, horizontal bending, residual stresses from the collision/ grounding.
One version of the multi-step method is the Smith method which is based on integrating simplified semi-
empirical load-shortening (P - , load-strain) curves across the hull section to give the total moment M -
relation. The maximum value M
U
along the M - curve is found by incrementing the curvature of the hull
section between two frames in steps and then calculated the corresponding moment at each step. When the
moment starts to drop the maximum moment M
U
is identified.
The critical issue in the Smith method and similar approaches is the construction of the P - curves for the
compressed and collapsing elements and how the listed effects a) to l) above are embedded into these relations.
The Hull girder check can be based on the multi-step method (Smith method) according to the Societies
approval on a case by case basis. All the effects as listed in a) to l) above should be included and documented
to be consistent with results from more advanced non-linear FE analyses, see Appendix D.
C.2 Single step method (HULS-1)
A single step method for finding the M
U
value is acceptable as long as the listed effects are consistently
included. This gives the following formula for M
U

where:
= Effective section modulus in deck (centreline or average deck height) accounting for local
buckling and collapse of individual elements on the compressive side of the neutral axis. Each
compressed element has an effective area defined as A
eff
/A
nom
=
U
/
F
. The effective area
to be modelled as reduced thickness t
eff
/t
nom
= A
eff
/A
nom
or using effective plate widths for
calculating the effective section modulus W
eff
N i U
M M M M M + + + + + =
2 1
(C.1)
i i red i
EI M =

) (
(C.2)
) , ( min
bottom
F
bottom
eff
deck
F
deck
eff U
W W M = (C.3)
deck
eff
W

U
Page 64
The minimum test on the M
U
value in the formula eq. (C.3) is included in order to check whether the final hull
girder failure is initiated by compression or tension failure in the deck or bottom respectively.
Typically for a hogging case the final collapse may be triggered due to tension yield in the deck even though
compression yield the bottom (hard corners) is the most normal failure mechanism (depends on neutral axis
position).
The same type of argument apply for a sagging condition even though tension yielding in the bottom is not so
likely for normal ship design due to the location of the neutral axis well below D/2.
The Society accept the HULS-1 model approach for the intact and damaged sections with partial load and
safety factors as given in Table 5-5,
The hogging case require a stricter material factor
M
than in sagging for ship designs in which double bottom
bending and bi-axial stress/shear stress effects are important for the ultimate capacity assessment. The factors
are given in Table 5-5.
C.3 Background to single step method (HULS-1)
The basis for the single step method is to summarize the moments carried by each individual element across
the hull section at the point of hull girder collapse, i.e.
where:
P
i
= Axial load in element no. i at hull girder collapse (P
i
= (EA)
eff-i

i
g-collapse
)
z
i
= Distance from hull-section neutral axis to centre of area of element no. i at hull girder collapse.
The neutral axis position is to be shifted due to local buckling and collapse of individual elements
in the hull-section
(EA)
eff-i
= Axial stiffness of element no. i accounting for buckling of plating and stiffeners (pre-collapse
stiffness)
K = Total number of assumed elements in hull section (typical stiffened panels, girders etc.)
i
= Axial strain of centre of area of element no. i at hull girder collapse (
i
=
i
g-collapse
; the collapse
strain for each element follows the displacement hypothesis assumed for the hull section
= Axial stress in hull-section
z = Vertical co-ordinate in hull-section measured from neutral axis.
It is generally accepted for intact vessels that the hull sections rotate under the assumption of Naviers
hypothesis, i.e. plane sections remain plane and normal to neutral axis, i.e.
where:
i
= axial strain of centre of area of element no. i (relative end-shortening)
= curvature of the hull section between two transverse frames (across hull section length L)
L
S
= length of considered hull section
= relative rotation angle of hull section end planes (across hull section length L)
This gives the following formula for the Ultimate moment (eq.(C.5) into eq.(C.4))
= Effective section modulus in bottom accounting for local buckling and collapse of individual
elements on the compressive side of the neutral axis. Each compressed element has an effec-
tive area defined as A
eff
/A
nom
=
U
/
F
. The effective area to be modelled as reduced thick-
ness t
eff
/t
nom
= A
eff
/A
nom
or effective plate widths for calculating the effective section
modulus W
eff
= Weighted yield stress of deck elements if material class differences (Rule values)
= Weighted yield stress of the bottom elements if material class differences (Rule values) (cor-
rections to be considered if inner bottom has lower yield stress than bottom)
= Ultimate nominal capacity of individual stiffened panels using PULS
= Ultimate moment capacity of hull section. A separate M
U
value for sagging and hogging is to
be calculated and checked in the overall strength criteria, eq. (C.3)
bottom
eff
W
deck
F
bottom
F
U
M
=
= = =
i i i eff
tion hull
K
i
i i U
z EA z P dA z M ) (
sec
1
(C.4)

i i
z = ;
s
L = (C.5)
U eff U
EI M ) ( = (C.6)

U
Page 65
where:
The curvature expression eq.(C.7) subjected into eq.(C.6) gives
with the following definitions:
*
)
An assumption in this approach is that the ultimate capacity moment is reached when the longitudinal strain
over the considered section with length L
S
reaches the yield strain
F
. This is normally an accepted
assumption (von Karman effective width concept). However, it may be that some very slender stiffened
panel design has an unstable response (mode snapping etc.) for which the yield strain-collapse
hypothesis is violated on the non-conservative side. This has then to be corrected for and implemented into
the axial stiffness value (EA)
eff-I
using input from non-linear FE analyses or similar considerations.
**
)
Such a correction of the element strength is only needed if the major moment carrying elements, such as
deck or bottom structures, are suffering unstable response. If only some local elements in the hull section
shows unstable response, this has marginal impact on the overall strength and can be neglected. For
normal steel ship proportions and designs unstable buckling responses are not an issue.
Effective bending stiffness of the hull section accounting for reduced
axial stiffness (EA)
eff-i
of individual elements due to local buckling and
collapse of stiffeners, plates etc.
Effective axial stiffness of individual elements/stiffened panels ac-
counting for local buckling of plates and stiffeners and interactions be-
tween them. Effects from geometrical imperfections and out-of flatness
to be included
Hull curvature at global collapse (C.7)
Average axial strain in deck at global collapse.
U
deck
=
F
deck
=
F
/E is accepted, see comment
*)
below
Average axial strain in bottom at global collapse.
U
bottom
=
F
bottom
=
F
/E is accepted, see com-
ment
**)
below
Weighted yield strain of deck elements if material class differences (uni-axial linear material law:
F
=
F
/E)
Weighted yield strain of the bottom elements if material class differences (uni-axial linear material
law
F
=
F
/E) (corrections to be considered if inner bottom has lower yield stress than bottom)
Effective section modulus of the hull section in the deck
Effective section modulus of the hull section in the bottom
=
K
i
i i eff eff
z EA EI
1
2
) ( ) ( ) (
i eff
EA

) (
) , ( min
bottom
bottom
U
deck
deck
U
U
z z

=
deck
U
bottom
U
deck
F
bottom
F
) , ( min
bottom
F
bottom
eff
deck
F
deck
eff U
W W M = (C.8)
deck
eff deck
eff
z
I
W =
bottom
eff bottom
eff
z
I
W =

Appendix D Hull Girder Capacity Assessment Using Non-linear FE Analysis Page 66
Appendix D
Hull Girder Capacity Assessment Using Non-linear FE Analysis
D.1 General
Advanced non-linear finite element analyses models may be used for the assessment of the hull girder ultimate
capacity. Such models are to consider the relevant effects important to the non-linear responses with due
considerations of the items listed in Appendix C.1.
Particular attention is to be given to modelling the shape and size of geometrical imperfections such as out-of-
flatness from productions/welding etc. It is to be ensured that the shape and size of imperfections trigger the
most critical failure modes.
For damaged hull sections with large holes in ship side and/or bottom it is important to ensure the development
of asymmetric deformations such as torsion, horizontal bending, warping, local shear deformations etc.
Boundary conditions need special considerations in this respect in order not to constrain the model from
deforming into the natural and most critical deformation pattern.
The model extent is to be large enough to cover all effects as listed in Section 5.3.2.
D.2 Non-linear FE modelling features
The FE mesh density is to be fine enough to capture all relevant types of local buckling deformations and
localized plastic collapse behaviour in plating, stiffeners, girders, bulkheads, bottom, deck etc.
The following requirements apply when using 4 node plate element (thin-shell element is sufficient):
i) Minimum 5 elements across the plating between stiffeners/girders.
ii) Minimum 3 elements across stiffener web height.
iii) One element across stiffener flange is acceptable.
iv) Longitudinal girders: minimum 5 elements between local secondary stiffeners.
v) Element aspect ratio 2 or less in critical areas susceptible to buckling.
vi) For transverse girders a coarser meshing is acceptable. The girder modelling should represent a realistic
stiffness and restraint for the longitudinal stiffeners, ship hull plating, tank top plating etc.
vii) Man holes and large cut-outs in girder web frames and stringers shall be modelled.
viii)Secondary stiffener on web frames prone to buckling shall be modelled. One plate elements across the
stiffener web height is OK. (ABAQUS need minimum 2 to represent the correct bending stiffness).
ix) Plated and shell elements shall be used in all structural elements and areas susceptible to buckling and
localized collapse.
x) Stiffeners can be modelled as beam-elements in areas not critical from a local buckling and collapse point
of view.
When using non-linear FE analyses the accept criteria and partial safety factors in strength format need special
consideration. The Society will accept non-linear FE methods based on a case by case evaluation.

Appendix E PULS Buckling Code Design Principles Stiffened Panels Page 67
Appendix E
PULS Buckling Code Design Principles Stiffened Panels
DNVs PULS buckling code is an acceptable method for assessing the strength of stiffened panels and fulfils
all the design requirements implemented as part of Method 1 (UC) and Method 2 (BS). In addition the code is
based on the following principles:
The stiffeners are designed such that overall (global) buckling is not dominant, i.e. the plating is hanging
on solid stiffeners/girders with a reduced plate efficiency (effective plate widths accounting for buckling
effects), Figure 5-5
The stiffened panel shall be designed to resist the combination of simultaneously acting in-plane bi-axial
and shear loads (and lateral pressure) without suffering main permanent structural damage. All possible
combinations of compression, tension and shear giving the most critical buckling condition is to be
considered.
Orthogonally stiffened panels are preferably checked as a single unit with primary and secondary stiffeners
modelled in orthogonal directions (Figure 5-5, S3 element primary + secondary stiffeners)
Uni-axially stiffened panels are typical between transverse and longitudinal girders in deck, ship side etc.
(S3 element primary stiffeners)
For stiffened panels with more than 5 stiffeners, application of 5 stiffeners in the PULS model is accepted.
Flanges (free flange outstands) on stiffeners and girders are to be proportioned such that they can carry the
yield stress without buckling; f
f
/t
f
15 (f
f
is the free flange outstand, t
f
is the flange thickness)
Maximum slenderness limits for plate and stiffeners implemented in the PULS code are (code validity
limits)
Plate between stiffeners s/t
p
200
Flat bar stiffeners: h/t
w
35
Angle and T profiles: h/t
w
90, f
f
/t
f
< 15, b
f
/h
w
> 0.22
Global (overall) strength:
g
< 4 (limits stiffener span in relation to stiffener height,
g
= sqrt (
F
/
Eg
); global
slenderness,
Eg
global minimum Eigenvalue)

CN34 1

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

CN34 1

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

CLASSIFICATION NOTES

DET NORSKE VERITAS AS

Classification Notes - No. 34.1, January 2013

También podría gustarte