hull girder longitudinal strength - iacs csr kc · iacs harmonised csr tb-report pt 1, ch 5 3/26 26...

I A C S H A R M O N I S E D C S R T B - R E P O R T

Pt 1, Ch 5 1/26 26 March 2014

Report No:

Pt 1, Ch 5

Revision No. & Date:

Rev 2 – 26 March 2014

Status of Report:

Draft Final

Report Title:

Hull Girder Longitudinal Strength

Rules Reference:

01 January 2014 version

Distribution by IACS

External Internal

Project Teams:

HPT09.1-Prescriptive, Safety and arrangement

Approved for Issue by:

PMT

HP Technical review

Reporting Organisation Name & Address:

IACS 36 Broadway London SW1H 0BH

No. of Pages: 26

Summary:

This report presents the results for hull girder yielding strength, hull girder ultimate strength and hull girder residual strength compared to the results obtained using the current CSR. The requirements checked in this documents are: The checking criteria for normal stress in harbour condition. The double bottom effect factor for the ultimate strength check. And the checking criteria for residual strength. The comparisons are performed on the "Reference ships i.e. T1, T2, D1 and S1 and, when necessary, on other ships have for more in depth comparisons.

Revision History:


Pt 1, Ch 5 2/26 26 March 2014

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION 3

2 DETAILS OF CH 5 3

2.1 Ch 5, Sec 1: Hull Girder Yielding Strength 3

2.2 Ch 5, Sec 2: Hull Girder Ultimate Strength 3

2.3 Ch 5, Sec 3: Hull Girder Residual Strength 3

3 TESTING ON HULL GIRDER YIELDING STRENGTH 4

3.1 Checking criteria in harbour conditions 4

3.2 Proposal 5

4 TESTING ON HULL GIRDER ULTIMATE STRENGTH 6

4.1 Study on the hull girder ultimate strength methods 6

4.2 Scantling impact 8

5 TESTING ON HULL GIRDER RESIDUAL STRENGTH 12

5.1 Damage extent 12

5.2 Hypothesis 13

5.3 Comparison of residual strength results 15

5.4 Conclusion and summary 15

6 CONCLUSIONS 15

6.1 Yielding Strength 15

6.2 Ultimate Strength 15

6.3 Residual Strength 16

APP 1: RESULT OF THE ULTIMATE STRENGTH STUDY 17

APP 2: RESIDUAL STRENGTH CHECK FOR OTHER SHIPS 19


Pt 1, Ch 5 3/26 26 March 2014

1 Introduction This report presents the comparison of the hull girder longitudinal strength results obtained with CSR-H (edition July 2012) with those obtained with CSR BC/OT (edition July 2010) . As requested, the comparisons are performed at least on the so called "Reference ships i.e. T1, T2, D1 and S1. Other ships have also been considered for more in depth comparisons.

2 Details of Ch 5 Items concerned by this study.

2.1 Ch 5, Sec 1: Hull Girder Yielding Strength In this section can be found three main items: Strength characteristics of hull girder transverse sections

This item is based on CSR OT/BC requirements. No new requirements have been implemented so this sub-section is not concerned by the comparison of CSR-H (edition July 2012) with CSR BC/OT (July 2010).

Hull girder bending moment assessment This item is based on CSR OT/BC criteria. No new requirements have been implemented for seagoing and flooded conditions but some modifications (for both bulk carriers and oil tankers) concerning the wave bending moment have been introduced for harbour conditions.

Hull girder shear strength assessment This item is based on CSR OT/BC criteria. No new requirements have been implemented so this sub-section is not concerned by the comparison of CSR-H (edition July 2012) with CSR BC/OT (July 2010).

2.2 Ch 5, Sec 2: Hull Girder Ultimate Strength In this section can be found the different steps to calculate the hull girder ultimate strength: Checking criteria

The checking criteria M ≤ MU / γR is identical to those used for CSR BC/OT but the partial safety factor γR has been divided into two part: a partial safety factor for the vertical hull girder ultimate bending capacity, covering material, geometric and strength prediction uncertainties, equal to the safety factor used in CSR BC/OT, and a new partial safety factor covering the effect of double bottom bending γDB.

Hull girder ultimate bending loads This item is based on CSR OT/BC criteria. No new requirements have been implemented so this sub-section is not concerned by the comparison of CSR-H (edition July 2012) with CSR BC/OT (July 2010).

Hull girder ultimate bending capacity Both CSR OT and CSR BC methods have been incorporated in Pt 1 Ch 5 App 2. No new requirements have been implemented so this sub-section is not concerned by the comparison of CSR-H (edition July 2012) with CSR BC/OT (July 2010).

2.3 Ch 5, Sec 3: Hull Girder Residual Strength In this section can be found the different steps necessary to calculate the hull girder residual strength: Checking criteria and damage scenario

The checking criteria M ≤ MU / γR is identical to the one used for the ultimate strength check with a safety factor γR equal to 1. The locations and the extents of both collision and grounding are described.

Hull girder ultimate bending loads in the damaged condition This item is based on CSR OT/BC requirements for ultimate strength assessment with new partial safety factors γSD (partial safety factor for the still water bending moment in the damaged condition, to account for increased still water bending moment due to accidental flooding) and γWD (partial safety factor for the vertical wave bending moment in the damaged condition, accounting for 3 months exposure in the worldwide condition).

Hull girder ultimate bending capacity in the damaged condition This item is based on CSR OT/BC requirements for ultimate strength assessment incorporated in Pt 1, Ch 5, App 2. No new requirements have been implemented so this sub-section is not concerned by the comparison of CSR-H (edition July 2012) with CSR BC/OT (July 2010).


Pt 1, Ch 5 4/26 26 March 2014

3 Testing on Hull Girder Yielding Strength

3.1 Checking criteria in harbour conditions

CSR BC/OT:

In CSR BC, there is no checking criteria for normal stress in harbour conditions even though a wave bending moment is calculated in Ch 4, Sec 3, [3.1.1]:

In CSR OT, the following requirement can be found in Sec 8:

The definition of MSW-perm-harb is the following:

and


Pt 1, Ch 5 5/26 26 March 2014

3.2 Proposal The criteria for harbour conditions should not be more severe than the one for seagoing condition in any cases. Two solutions are proposed: 1. To equal the wave bending moment to 0, instead of 0.4Mwv and to keep the acceptance criteria

equal to 143/k as it is done in CSR OT. 2. To use an acceptance criteria equal to 100% of acceptance criteria for seagoing conditions which

means that σperm = 190/k for x/L between 0.3 and 0.7 and to equal the wave bending moment to 0.4MWV.

The first proposal is chosen is order to be consistent with Ch 4, Sec 7, Table 1 in which harbour condition is supposed to be static.

Hogging:

Ship S1 S2 T1 T2

Rules CSR BC CSR-H CSR BC CSR-H CSR OT CSR-H CSR OT CSR-H

Seagoing

σL-seagoingD / σperm-seagoingD

0.95 0.99 0.85 0.85 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.96

σL-seagoingB / σperm-seagoingB

0.74 0.77 0.68 0.68 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76

harbour with 0.4 Mwv and

190/k

σL-harbourD / σperm-harbourD

N.A.

0.72

N.A.

0.64

N.A.

0.77

N.A.

0.77

σL-harbourB / σperm-harbourB

0.52 0.52 0.58 0.61

harbour with 0 Mwv and 143/k


0.64 0.59 0.72 0.72 0.75 0.75


0.46 0.48 0.55 0.55 0.60 0.60

Sagging:

Ship S1 S2 T1 T2

Rules CSR BC CSR-H CSR BC CSR-H CSR OT CSR-H CSR OT CSR-H

Seagoing

σL-seagoingD / σperm-seagoingD

0.98 0.98 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.86 0.86

σL-seagoingB / σperm-seagoingB

0.77 0.77 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.68 0.68

harbour with 0.4 Mwv and

190/k


N.A.

0.68

N.A.

0.89

N.A.

0.68

N.A.

0.61


0.49 0.71 0.52 0.48

harbour with 0 Mwv and 143/k


0.57 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.53 0.53


0.41 0.49 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.42


Pt 1, Ch 5 6/26 26 March 2014

With both hogging and sagging, the criteria for harbour conditions is less severe than the one for seagoing conditions.

4 Testing on Hull Girder Ultimate Strength

4.1 Study on the hull girder ultimate strength methods

Background:

The introduction of hull girder collapse limit state design principles (ULS) into the CSR implies checking the ship under extreme loads with associated high longitudinal stresses. The stresses may exceed the material yield level in deck or bottom structure at or before the ultimate capacity limit (Mu) is reached. This means that significant plastic straining in “hard corners may take place and permanent sets/damages in the shape of localised buckles may be introduced in plating, stiffeners and girders on the compression side of the hull. From a design point of view it is thus important also to check the possibility of major permanent sets in addition to allow for plastic stress redistributions and utilised the maximum ultimate moment capacity. Since both Rule hull girder methods, i.e.:

- Single-step method (effective hull girder section – see TB Report on single step method for HGULS).

- Multi-step method (Smith approach – see TB Report on iterative method for HGULS). are based on simple beam theory this, this is easily facilitated. The single-step method, do by definition use the onset of material yielding in hard corners in either deck or bottom, as failure criterion. This means using the capacity moment predicted by this approach (Mu

singl-step is in principle Mp_set) major plastic straining of longitudinal elements will not take place and permanent sets will be avoided. It follows also that this capacity moment will be an estimate always on the safe side, as the possible incremental moment capacity in the plastic region is neglected. The multi-step method also control the axial strain in the hull girder section as part of the methodology and thus the hull girder moment at which major plastic “hard corner” straining starts is readily available. However, in the present CSR this moment level is not used as the capacity limit, but rather the ultimate moment also including major plastic straining. In a general terminology the ultimate moment capacity Mu can be split in two parts:

uset_pu MMM

where,

set_pM Hull girder moment beyond major plastic straining will be induced. This can be either in

tension or compression, in deck or bottom.

uM Incremental hull girder moment in plastic range.

Observations:

It is observed, using non-linear analyses (ABAQUS) on a Bulk Carrier in extreme hogging, that significant plastic straining and permanent sets/buckling damages may be induced in the bottom structure before the ultimate moment capacity limit is reached. Thus attention on the permanent sets/damages in addition to the ultimate moment is called for when formulating Rule HGULS design criteria. A non-linear hull girder analyses (ABAQUS) have been carried out on a Bulk Carrier in an extreme Hogging condition identifying permanent sets in the bottom plate as illustrated below. The analyses show that when the deck goes into the plastic range in tension, the hull girder stiffness (EI/L) starts dropping, and when the bottom plates subsequently reaches the yield stress in compression the hull girder stiffness changes more dramatically. This point is marked Mp_set in figure below. Even though some extra incremental moment capacity is available beyond this level it involves significant plastic straining and permanent sets are induced in the load region from Mp_set up to ultimate moment MU. The Moment-curvature relation is given in the figure below, illustrating deformations, permanent sets and stresses at different stages.


Pt 1, Ch 5 7/26 26 March 2014

Loading

Unload

ing

Plastic stress redistributions

Elastic stress redistributions

Onset of major plastic straining in bottom plate, Mp-det

Ultimatemoment Mu

Permanet sets ca 30 mm buckles in

plating Hogging

Loading

Unload

ing

Plastic stress redistributions

Elastic stress redistributions

Onset of major plastic straining in bottom plate, Mp-det

Ultimatemoment Mu

Permanet sets ca 30 mm buckles in

plating Hogging

Comparison:

Calculations have been carried out using the two methods. Some calculations have also been carried out using the non-linear finite element code ABAQUS. The results show that:

- For all the cases, the single step method predicts the lowest capacity. - The difference between the two methods is largest in hogging (20-30%). - For sagging, the difference is smaller. - For all cases, the utilisation (MRule/MU) is below 1.0, i.e. there is reserve capacity. - The two ABAQUS model results (Hogging cases) are in between the two rule methods; i.e.

below the multi-step value and above the single step value. The results show that there are a number of effects that are not included in the methods, such as effect of local lateral pressure, bi-axial stress, shear stresses and double bottom bending. The factor, γdb, was introduced to consider the decrease of hull girder ultimate capacity by the stresses corresponding to double bottom deformations. When a ship is in the condition where there is a big difference between external pressure from bottom plating and internal cargo pressure subjected to inner bottom plating, e.g. alternate loading condition, its double bottom significantly deforms and the biaxial compressive stresses of the bottom plating around the mid of double bottom and the shear stresses around the end of longitudinal girders takes place in addition to hull girder stresses. These superimposed stresses can reduce hull girder ultimate capacities.


Pt 1, Ch 5 8/26 26 March 2014

4.2 Scantling impact

Comparison of CSR-H (edition July 2012) with CSR BC/OT (July 2010) on reference ship:

The checking criteria for the hull girder ultimate strength is calculate with both CSR BC/OT and CSR-H.


Pt 1, Ch 5 9/26 26 March 2014

Ships S1 S2 T1 T2

CSR-H

Hogging

MU / M * γR 0.94 1.13 1.08 1.10

M (kNm) 4280196.8 7760548 19223150 11908935

MU (kNm) 5535427 12031810 25037630 15892700

γR 1.375 1.375 1.21 1.21

γBD 1.25 1.25 1.10 1.10

Sagging

MU / M * γR 0.83 1.09 0.95 1.09

M (kNm) 4274134.8 8100706.8 18685704 10846929

MU (kNm) 3914918 9711144 19478990 12950320

γR 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10

γBD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

CSR

Hogging

MU / M * γR 1.22 1.41 1.18 1.21

M (kNm) 4119269 7760548 19223150 11908940

MU (kNm) 5535428 12031810 25033100 15883320

γR 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10

Sagging

MU / M * γR 0.83 1.09 0.95 1.09

M (kNm) 4268781 8091449 18662970 10833720

MU (kNm) 3914918 9711144 19469250 12933970

γR 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10

The double bottom effect factor has an impact for S1 in seagoing alternate condition: the checking criteria which is equal to 1.22 with CSR BC is now equal to 0.94 with the proposed CSR-H. In order to evaluate the impact of γDB, other bulk carriers are tested.

Sample ships:

ID Ship's Type L B D

B1 Capesize 284 45 25





B6 Over Panamax 238 43 22

B7 Kamsarmax 228 38 21

B8 Panamax 222 32 20

B9 Panamax 222 32 20

B10 Handymax 185 32 18

Results:

The results of the calculation of the hull girder ultimate strength are shown in the tables here after. The checking criteria for only one ship in seagoing alternate in smaller than 1: the hull girder ultimate bending capacity of this bulk carrier (B2) does not satisfy the checking criteria.


Pt 1, Ch 5 10/26 26 March 2014

Hogging

Load Conditions Msw

(kNm) Mwv

(kNm) Mu

(kNm) γDB γR

(Mu/γR) / [(γsMsw) + (γwMwv)

B1

Seagoing Alternate 5000000 6263049 17475250 1.25 1.43 1.02

Harbour Alternate 8757829 2505220 17475250 1.25 1.43 1.08

Flooded (at sea) 6750000 5010439 17475250 1.00 1.10 1.24

B2



Flooded (at sea) 5581890 5086590 16517131 1.00 1.10 1.28

B3



Flooded (at sea) 5774166 4946041 17942414 1.00 1.10 1.39

B4



Flooded (at sea) 6200000 5024929 17047519 1.00 1.10 1.27

B5



Flooded (at sea) 6018435 4946041 18012733 1.00 1.10 1.37

B6



Flooded (at sea) 4345830 3154447 10809439 1.00 1.10 1.21

B7



Flooded (at sea) 3500000 2538960 8635668 1.00 1.10 1.20

B8



Flooded (at sea) 2609500 2119859 7554881 1.00 1.10 1.33

B9



Flooded (at sea) 2750000 2096458 7966447 1.00 1.10 1.38

B10



Flooded (at sea) 2101020 1328960 6305592 1.00 1.10 1.55


Pt 1, Ch 5 11/26 26 March 2014

Sagging

Load Conditions Msw

(kNm) Mwv

(kNm) Mu

(kNm) γDB γR

(Mu/γR) / [(γsMsw) + (γwMwv)

B1

Seagoing -3900000 -6529410 -14718430

1.0 1.10

1.14

Harbour -7817646 -2611764 -14718430 1.22

Flooded (at sea) -6650000 -5223528 -14718430 1.04

B2

Seagoing -3355020 -6637101 -13161777

1.0 1.10

1.06

Harbour -7337281 -2654840 -13161777 1.14

Flooded (at sea) -5572080 -5309681 -13161777 1.00

B3

Seagoing -4315419 -6460982 -13910072

1.0 1.10

1.05

Harbour -8192008 -2584393 -13910072 1.12

Flooded (at sea) -6408016 -5168786 -13910072 1.00

B4

Seagoing -4100000 -6556310 -13787822

1.0 1.10

1.05

Harbour -8033786 -2622524 -13787822 1.12

Flooded (at sea) -6200000 -5245048 -13787822 1.00

B5

Seagoing -4315419 -6460982 -13910111

1.0 1.10

1.05

Harbour -8192008 -2584393 -13910111 1.12

Flooded (at sea) -6391215 -5168786 -13910111 1.00

B6

Seagoing -3247110 -4142665 -9420843

1.0 1.10

1.04

Harbour -5732709 -1657066 -9420843 1.11

Flooded (at sea) -4110390 -3314132 -9420843 1.06

B7

Seagoing -2250000 -3334186 -7154393

1.0 1.10

1.04

Harbour -4250551 -1333674 -7154393 1.11

Flooded (at sea) -3150000 -2667349 -7154393 1.02

B8

Seagoing -1569600 -2724658 -5620973

1.0 1.10

1.06

Harbour -3204395 -1089863 -5620973 1.13

Flooded (at sea) -2491800 -2179726 -5620973 1.00

B9

Seagoing -1597000 -2701672 -6152292

1.0 1.10

1.16

Harbour -3218003 -1080669 -6152292 1.24

Flooded (at sea) -2950000 -2161338 -6152292 1.01

B10

Seagoing -1392400 -1748223 -4467048

1.0 1.10

1.16

Harbour -2441334 -699289 -4467048 1.24

Flooded (at sea) -2228520 -1398578 -4467048 1.04

Conclusions and proposal:

The scantling impact especially concerns the capesize bulk carriers in seagoing alternate conditions in hogging for which the double bottom effect factor is equal to 1.25.


Pt 1, Ch 5 12/26 26 March 2014

5 Testing on Hull Girder Residual Strength The new criteria of hull girder residual strength is tested on the four (4) reference ships.

5.1 Damage extent The damage extent in both collision (black box) and grounding (red box) are determined for the reference ships and shown on the drawing here after.

Figure 1: Bulk Carrier S1 (L=211.95m, B=32.2m, D=18.6m)

Figure 2: Bulk Carrier S2 (L=237.07m, B=43m, D=21m)


Pt 1, Ch 5 13/26 26 March 2014

Figure 3: Oil Tanker T1 (L=315.82m, B=58m, D=31m)

Figure 4: Oil Tanker T2 (L=261.55m, B=50m, D=23.2m)

5.2 Hypothesis

Modelling of the damage area:

While modelling the damage area, it is supposed that The stiffeners are null (stiffeners are considered as null even if they are just partially included

in the damage area). The thickness of the strake is 0mm. The primary supporting members are deleted from the model.


Pt 1, Ch 5 14/26 26 March 2014

Rotation of the neutral axis:

The residual strength calculation has been simplified by not taking into account the rotation of the neutral axis even though the neutral axis is not parallel to the horizontal since some plates, stiffeners and PSM of the damaged have been “withdrawn” from the calculation.

The rotation of the neutral axis is not taken into account because the methodology used in the calculation of the residual strength supposes that the neutral axis is parallel to the horizontal (same method as the one used for the ultimate strength check and described in App 2 of Pt 1 Ch 5). For the moment, there is no method of ultimate strength calculation which takes into account the rotation of the neutral axis. Moreover the damage size specified is rather large. It is larger than the “most probable damage size at failure” as obtained in the structural reliability analysis. A conservative damage size somewhat compensates for the simplified assumption in the calculation procedure which may be slightly to the non-conservative side. It should also be noted that the strength reduction model that was applied in the structural reliability analysis is rather conservative, and is based on nonlinear finite element


Pt 1, Ch 5 15/26 26 March 2014

analysis results (found in the literature) where the unsymmetrical effects are taken into account. This gives a conservative estimate of the failure probability for the damaged case. The main purpose of the SRA is to compare the failure probability for the intact ship in open sea with the failure probability following damage, and this comparison is therefore considered conservative regarding the residual strength.

5.3 Comparison of residual strength results For all the ships in both hogging and sagging conditions, the residual strength checking criteria is satisfied since the ratios MD / MUD are between 1.00 and 1.69. This requirement has no impact on the scantling.

Ships S1 S2 T1 T2

Col

lisio

n

Hog

ging

MU / (M * γRD) 1.45 1.69 1.41 1.43

MD (kNm) 3194302.13 5914639.3 14824513.1 9409921.93

MUD (kNm) 5027915 10944180 23111980 14686840

Sag

ging

MU / (M * γRD) 1.00 1.23 1.10 1.28

MD (kNm) 3103748.18 6147894.63 13769886.4 7988706.08

MUD (kNm) 3391448 8343021 16656300 11291330

Gro

undi

ng in

the

mid

dle Hog

ging

MU / (M * γRD) 1.00 1.35 1.41 1.35

MD (kNm) 3194302.13 5914639.3 14824513.1 9409921.93

MUD (kNm) 3167934 7966674 20741880 12754220

Sag

ging

MU / (M * γRD) 1.18 1.43 1.30 1.47

MD (kNm) 3103748.18 6147894.63 13769886.4 7988706.08

MUD (kNm) 3648562 8810770 17883680 11818880

Gro

undi

ng a

t sid

e

Hog

ging

MU / (M * γRD) 1.00 1.37 1.33 1.39

MD (kNm) 3194302.13 5914639.3 14824513.1 9409921.93

MUD (kNm) 3192538 8118445 19828280 12999670

Sag

ging

MU / (M * γRD) 1.18 1.45 1.28 1.49

MD (kNm) 3103748.18 6147894.63 13769886.4 7988706.08

MUD (kNm) 3661052 8880206 17610300 11940230

5.4 Conclusion and summary The checking criteria for residual strength of the above tested ships are between 1.00 and 1.69. The requirement is not dimensioning for any of the cases. For all the ships in both hogging and sagging conditions, the residual strength checking criteria is satisfied since the ratios MU / (M * γRD) are bigger than 1. This requirement has no impact on the scantling.

6 Conclusions

6.1 Yielding Strength The current criteria for harbour conditions is more severe than the one in seagoing condition. The following solution is proposed to solve this problem: The acceptance criteria stays equal to 143/k and the wave bending moment in harbour condition

Mwv-p becomes equal to 0.

6.2 Ultimate Strength The scantling impact especially concerns the cape size bulk carriers in seagoing alternate conditions in hogging for which the double bottom effect factor is equal to 1.25. The impact is then limited but still exists.


Pt 1, Ch 5 16/26 26 March 2014

6.3 Residual Strength For all the ships in both hogging and sagging conditions, the residual strength checking criteria is satisfied since the ratios MU / (M * γRD) are bigger than 1. This requirement has no impact on the scantling.


Pt 1, Ch 5 17/26 26 March 2014

App 1: Results of the Ultimate Strength Study

HOGGING Midship sections

CSR Multi step (Bulk Rule model) Single step Non-linear FE

Analyses

Cases Mu

[MNm] % *Utilisation

(Mrule/Mu) Mu


(Mrule/Mu) Mu

[MNm]

Bulk Carriers

1 Lbp: 279 m B: 45 m

18905 65 16068 76 18173

2 Lbp: 181 m B: 30 m

4291 71 3599 84 4002

3 Lbp: 217 m B: 32 m

8841 57 6786 74 -

4 Lbp: 282 m B: 45 m

18462 67 15903 78 -

5 Lbp: 183 m B: 32 m

7108 47 4944 68 -

Tankers

1 Lbp: 264 m B: 50 m

17535 67 14646 81 -

2 Lbp: 240 m B: 42 m

12377 65 10001 81 -

* Includes safety factors (Rule usage requirement in %)


Pt 1, Ch 5 18/26 26 March 2014

SAGGING Midship sections

CSR Multi step (Bulk Rule model) Single step Non-linear FE

Analyses

Cases Mu


(Mrule/Mu) Mu

[MNm] Mu


(Mrule/Mu)

Bulk Carriers

1 Lbp: 279 m B: 45 m

15593 79 13524 91 -

2 Lbp: 181 m B: 30 m

3501 88 3044 101 -

3 Lbp: 217 m B: 32 m

6647 76 5800 87 -

4 Lbp: 282 m B: 45 m

15362 81 13639 91 -

5 Lbp: 183 m B: 32 m

5519 61 4255 79 -

Tankers

1 Lbp: 264 m B: 50 m

14230 84 12771 85 -

2 Lbp: 240 m B: 42 m

9562 85 8556 95 -

* Includes safety factors (Rule usage requirement in %)


Pt 1, Ch 5 19/26 26 March 2014

App 2: Residual Strength Check for Other Ships The criteria of hull girder residual strength is tested on two bulk carriers and two oil tankers.

Bulk Carrier 1: Collision

MD ≤ MUD/γRD MUD MD % of MUD/γRD

Msw+Mwave, sag (MDsag) 8179492 Yes, OK 11989758 75%

Msw+Mwave, hog (MDhog) 8317464 Yes, OK 14202380 64%


Pt 1, Ch 5 20/26 26 March 2014

Bulk Carrier 1: Grounding





Pt 1, Ch 5 21/26 26 March 2014

Bulk Carrier 2: Collision





Pt 1, Ch 5 22/26 26 March 2014

Bulk Carrier 2: Grounding





Pt 1, Ch 5 23/26 26 March 2014

Oil Tanker 1: Collision





Pt 1, Ch 5 24/26 26 March 2014

Oil Tanker 1: Grounding





Pt 1, Ch 5 25/26 26 March 2014

Oil Tanker 2: Collision





Pt 1, Ch 5 26/26 26 March 2014

Oil Tanker 2: Grounding




hull girder longitudinal strength - iacs csr kc · iacs harmonised csr tb-report pt 1, ch 5 3/26 26...

Documents