Rules for FEA

© All Rights Reserved

10 tayangan

Rules for FEA

© All Rights Reserved

- Eccentric
- Design of Plate Girder Bridge
- Beam-Column Base Plate Design
- Kanvinde - Shear Transfer in Exposed Column Base Plates
- Structural Glass Design-UBC
- BC1-01SingleBox
- Aisc Asd-89 Example 001
- Single Box
- Egyptian Code of Practice
- Guidelines for Design of Advanced Double Hull Vessels
- BC1-01SingleBox
- Design Project for Advanced Mechanics of Materials
- DNVGL-CG-0041.pdf
- MOM-II---Module-1
- 1-s2.0-S0141029615000802-main.pdf
- Discussion and Conclusion
- Ketron® Peek HPV - Ficha Técnica
- 5.Designfor CISC94
- Spile Bar Deflection
- Strength of material; an elementary study prepared for the use of midshipmen at the U. S. Naval Academy (1909)

Anda di halaman 1dari 60

Analysis Techniques

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd SE

Head Office

Brooktorkai 18, 20457 Hamburg, Germany

Phone: +49 40 36149-0

Fax: +49 40 36149-200

headoffice@gl-group.com

www.gl-group.com

"General Terms and Conditions" of the respective latest edition will be applicable

(see Rules for Classification and Construction, I - Ship Technology, Part 0 - Classification and Surveys).

Reproduction by printing or photostatic means is only permissible with the consent of

Germanischer Lloyd SE.

Published by: Germanischer Lloyd SE, Hamburg

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Analysis Techniques

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Section 1

A

B

C

D

E

Basic Principles

Application, Scope ...................................................................................................... 1-1

Strength Analysis ........................................................................................................ 1-2

Structural Modelling .................................................................................................... 1-3

Loads and Loading Conditions ................................................................................... 1-4

Calculation and Evaluation of Results ........................................................................ 1-6

Section 2

A

General ....................................................................................................................... 2-1

B

Structural Idealization ................................................................................................. 2-2

C

Boundary Conditions................................................................................................... 2-9

D

Loading Conditions ................................................................................................... 2-10

E

Load Cases ............................................................................................................... 2-18

F

Model Check ............................................................................................................. 2-25

G

Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 2-26

H

Documentation.......................................................................................................... 2-33

Appendix A............................................................................................................................. 2-40

Section 3

A

B

C

D

General ....................................................................................................................... 3-1

Tween Deck Load Cases............................................................................................ 3-1

Crane Load Cases with Jib in Corner Position ........................................................... 3-1

Grain Bulkhead Load Cases....................................................................................... 3-2

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 3

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 1

Analysis Techniques

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessel

Basic Principles

Section 1

A

B

C

D

E

Basic Principles

Strength Analysis ........................................................................................................ 1-2

Structural Modelling .................................................................................................... 1-3

Loads and Loading Conditions ................................................................................... 1-4

Calculation and Evaluation of Results ........................................................................ 1-6

Application, Scope

A.1

These Guidelines specify the procedure for global strength assessment of multipurpose vessels (MPV) by means of Finite Element (FE) analysis. Application of this advanced analysis method,

amending the standard Rule scope, allows evaluating complex structures using a more refined approach,

thus enabling further optimisation of structural designs and material utilisation.

A.2

Multipurpose vessels are ships equipped with appropriate facilities to carry general cargo,

heavy cargo, project cargo and containers. Frequently observed characteristics are:

large deck openings and small deck strakes

long cargo holds

heavy lift cranes, generally situated at the ship sides

arrangement of a stability pontoon for heavy lift operations

large uniform distributed loads on tank tops (block loads)

large uniform distributed loads and container stack loads on weather deck covers

close fitted weather deck covers with stoppers at one ship side and if needed, stoppers at the opposite side to limit transverse deformations

transmission of high hatch cover stopper forces into the hatch coaming at port and starboard sides

arrangement of tween deck covers at different vertical positions

A.3

The structural analysis is to be carried out on the basis of permissible stresses in accordance

with GL Rules for Hull Structures (I-1-1).

A.4

A.5

Section 2 provides detailed guidance for a global strength analysis of multipurpose vessels,

using a finite element model of the entire vessel. A global FE analysis focuses on global stresses and

deformations.

A.6

Computer programs used for finite element analyses have to be generally acknowledged and

accepted. All finite element programs that yield results to the satisfaction of Germanischer Lloyd are considered recognised.

A.7

Required fatigue strength assessment is to be based on GL Guidelines for Fatigue Strength

Analyses of Ship Structures (V-1-2).

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 11

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 1

Analysis Techniques

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessel

Basic Principles

Strength Analysis

B.1

modelling the ships structure and specifying appropriate boundary conditions

specifying load cases and the associated applied loads

solving the system of equations

evaluating and assessing the results

B.2

Regarding structural modelling, boundary conditions and loading, certain simplifications are

possible or necessary, depending on the objective of the analysis and the type of structure to be analysed.

B.3

In ship structural analyses, deformations and stresses can usually be subdivided into the following categories, depending on the structural conditions:

global deformations and stresses of the hull girder and the primary structural members

local deformations and stresses of primary and secondary structural members

locally increased stresses in structural details and discontinuities

B.4

B.4.1

The structural response of the hull girder and the primary structural members under normal,

shear, bending and torsional loads is characterised by global (i. e., large area) deformations and stresses.

Furthermore, crane load cases are important and need to be analysed.

B.4.2

Primary structural members of multipurpose vessels comprise floors, bottom girders, side and

deck transverses, stringers, longitudinal and transverse deck strips, deck girders, and crane supporting

members and associated components, each including the effective part of the plating and stiffeners.

B.4.3

The resulting stresses are nominal stresses, i. e., stresses that also result from integral quantities of sectional forces and moments and from cross-sectional properties. Global nominal stresses generally include the effective breadths, but not locally increased stresses.

B.5

B.5.1

In secondary structural members local loads can give rise to additional local deformations and

stresses.

B.5.2

Secondary structural members comprise all frames, stiffeners, longitudinals, beams and the

effective breadth of plating as well as the associated tripping and supporting brackets. Their bending,

shear and torsional stiffness must be accounted for.

B.5.3

B.5.4

The resulting stresses are nominal stresses which are to be superimposed on global stresses.

B.6

B.6.1

Locally increased stresses in structural details and discontinuities have to be separately assessed for fatigue strength. Here, a distinction is made between three types of stresses:

maximum stress in the notch root

structural or hot spot stress, defined alternatively for welded joints

stress at crack tips. Special parameters are used to assess this stress

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 12

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 1

Analysis Techniques

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessel

Basic Principles

B.6.2

Under realistic load assumptions for typical structural shipbuilding details, the maximum stress

in the notch root, e. g., the stress in the rounded edges of cut-outs, may exceed the elastic limit of the

material. Instead of the nonlinear notch stress and the associated strain , the notch stress k can be

determined and assessed for normal cases under the assumption of linear elastic material behaviour. For

very sharp notches, the local supporting effect of the material can be considered with a correspondingly

enlarged notch radius.

B.6.3

In complex welded structures, only the stress increase as a result of the structural geometry is

generally considered in the analysis, whilst that caused by the weld toe is considered during the assessment. This leads to the structural or hot spot stress s at welds, and this is determined under the assumption of elastic material behaviour.

B.6.4

Apart from a direct calculation of locally increased stresses, it is possible to use catalogued

stress concentration factors or FAT classes. When using concentration factors and FAT classes, the associated nominal stresses have to be determined with sufficient accuracy in accordance with their definition. Moreover, the ranges of application and validity for the catalogued data are to be observed.

B.6.5

Fatigue strength requirements are given in GL Rules for Hull Structures (I-1-1), Section 20.

Assessment procedures are specified in GL Guidelines for Fatigue Strength Analyses of Ship Structures

(V-1-2).

Structural Modelling

C.1

C.1.1

A global model of the hull girder is normally used for the global strength analysis of the entire hull girder

and its primary structural components. For 3D modelling of all primary structural components, loads can

be applied realistically, and the structural behaviour of complex ship structures, including interactions

between individual components, can be taken into account, see Section 2.

To obtain a realistic load transfer into the ship structure for crane load cases it is necessary to incorporate

simplified models of the crane columns for load application.

C.1.2

Local models

Local models are used for the strength analysis of secondary or special components and structural details. Usually, the investigation focuses mainly on the analysis of local structural behaviour and/or locally

increased stresses in structural details and discontinuities.

C.2

C.2.1

Selecting the type of element used primarily depends on the objective of the analysis. The

characteristics of the selected element type have to be suitable to reflect with sufficient accuracy the stiffness of the structure and the stresses to be analysed.

C.2.2

Usually, the following types of elements are used for strength calculations of ship structures:

beam elements (1D elements with axial, shear, bending and torsional stiffness)

plane stress elements (PSE), (2D elements with membrane stiffness in the plane, but without out-ofplane bending stiffness)

plate and shell elements (2D elements with membrane, bending and torsional stiffness)

boundary and spring elements.

When using different element types, attention shall be paid to the compatibility of the displacement functions as well as the transferability of boundary loads and stresses, particularly when coupling elements

with and without bending stiffness.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 13

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 1

C.3

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessel

Basic Principles

Checks of the model

The geometry of the modelled structure, the chosen elements, the associated material characteristics as

well as the applied boundary conditions have to be checked systematically to eliminate errors.

D.1

General notes

D.1.1

In the following, a general procedure for the selection of loading conditions and related load

cases is given. Due to the nature of MPVs, this has to be adapted to the individual ship design and the

ships operational procedures in compliance with the ships loading manual. The selection of relevant

loading conditions and load cases should be agreed upon with GL.

D.1.2

Relevant loads for global strength analyses of ship structures can generally be classified into

the following types:

static (stillwater) loads from the light ship weight, from the ships cargo and from the hydrostatic

pressures caused by buoyancy and tank contents

wave-induced loads, i.e., hydrodynamic pressures, loads from accelerated masses and tank contents, as well as internal and external hydrodynamic impact forces and other variable loads from the

ship's operation, e.g., from the action of cranes, stability pontoons, etc.

loads on bow and stern structures caused by slamming

D.1.3

Selection and generation of load cases to be analysed shall be done in such a way that, with

respect to the sum of the forces and moments, either fully balanced load cases are created or clearly

defined, realistic sectional forces and/or deformations are obtained at model boundaries and/or supports.

D.1.4

Since several load components mentioned are stochastic and selecting and obtaining relevant

load cases may be complex, there are simplified procedures that can be used for practical cases. Moreover, there are special procedures to determine wave-induced loads, and these procedures can also be

applied to obtain other stochastic loads.

D.2

Simplified procedures

D.2.1

Under this approach, selected (deterministic) load cases are considered that are decisive for

the strength of the structural areas under analysis. In general, these load cases consist of unfavourable,

but physically meaningful, combinations of diverse load effects. To assess fatigue strength, load cases

are to be selected to generate both maximum and minimum stresses at critical locations.

D.2.2

In general seagoing load cases represent unfavourable loading conditions combined with the

following unfavourable wave situations:

waves from astern and ahead causing vertical hull girder bending and local loads on the ships forebody

oblique waves from astern and waves from ahead for the ship in its upright position (relevant for

container loading conditions)

D.2.3

In accordance with the scope of work, several load cases resulting from defined loading conditions for MPVs have to be generated, such as:

Harbour loading conditions: calculate maximum inward and outward deflections of hatch coaming

tops to determine clearances of deflection limiters. Their clearances shall be sufficient to allow hatch

cover operations under all harbour loading conditions.

Crane load cases causing maximum crane moments for crane outreaches to port and starboard side

for open, closed and partly closed hatch covers.

Loading conditions causing high loads on weather deck hatch covers to obtain seagoing load cases

in combination with large roll angles leading to large deformations of hatch coaming tops and severe

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 14

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 1

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessel

Basic Principles

transverse strength conditions (racking). If coaming deformations are within limits of the deflection

limiters, no contact forces occur. Otherwise, contact forces are to be calculated. These evaluations

have to consider the limited inward and outward movements.

Conventional container loading condition, to calculate seagoing load cases causing maximum and

minimum vertical and horizontal bending moments and maximum and minimum torsional moments.

The load cases are to be selected according to GL Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Container Ships (V-1-1).

Block loading condition, to evaluate the strength of the ships bottom structure

Loads on the ships bow and stern, causing high global stresses in the longitudinal structure of the

transition region between hold ends and the fore and aft ship.

These loading conditions and related load cases are summarized in Section 2, Table 2.6 2.8. A distinction is made between mandatory and optional cases.

D.2.4

Applied load components and associated load combination factors are specified in GL Rules

for Hull Structures (I-1-1).

D.2.5

With regard to the situation of waves from astern and/or ahead, load cases "ship on wave

crest" and "ship in wave trough" have to be analysed, whereby the position of the crest or trough is to be

varied. External pressures shall correspond to the phase relations between ship and wave. Moreover,

vertical and longitudinal acceleration components shall be applied to obtain an unfavourable effect on the

ships mass distribution and on the cargo or tank contents.

D.2.6

Situations with oblique waves from astern or ahead for the ship in its upright position have to

be chosen such that the maximum torsional or horizontal bending moments are applied at varying positions along the hull girder, whilst the vertical bending moment exhibits values that are generally reduced

in accordance with their peak values. Furthermore, the associated vertical and longitudinal acceleration

components which unfavourably affect the ships mass distribution and the ships cargo and/or tank contents shall be applied.

D.2.7

Situations of the rolling ship are to be selected to cause maximum transverse accelerations.

Vertical and horizontal acceleration components which unfavourably affect the ships mass distribution

and the ships cargo and/or tank contents shall be applied.

D.3

Special procedures

D.3.1

Alternatives to the simplified procedure based on selected (deterministic) load cases are special procedures suitable for the consideration of the wave-induced ship motions and loads. For specified

irregular waves, there are two possibilities to calculate motions and loads:

computations in the frequency domain and assessments using spectral method

computations in the time domain and assessments using numerical simulations

Natural seaways are usually characterized by energy spectra. Here, the use of the Pierson-Moskowitz

spectrum is recommended. Results shall be assessed statistically, whilst considering the frequency of

occurrence of seaways, cargo distributions, ship courses and ship speeds.

D.3.2

For computations in the frequency domain, the first step is to determine the structural response to harmonic elementary waves, in the form of transfer functions which apply for each case of a

particular cargo distribution, ship speed and heading relative to the wave direction. Here, a sufficiently

large number of wave frequencies shall be considered to capture resonance peaks of structural response.

For a specified natural seaway, the spectrum of the structural response depends on the transfer function

and the wave spectrum.

D.3.3

For computations in the time domain, the loading process shall be generated in a suitable

manner, based on characteristics of the considered wave spectrum. The analysed time domain for the

structural response shall be selected long enough to accurately perform the subsequent statistical evaluation with respect to the expected values.

D.3.4

The structural response for a natural seaway is to be determined for a representative selection

of waves, cargo distributions, ship headings and ship speeds, and these shall be selected with reference

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 15

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 1

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessel

Basic Principles

to their frequency of occurrence and the structural response to be assessed. For waves, long-term statistics of the North Atlantic should generally be used. If the analysis does not specifically account for ship

headings and ship speeds, a uniform distribution of the ships courses and a 2/3 maximum speed can be

assumed. For loading conditions, see D.2.2. The statistical assessment of structural response is to be

based on the probability level specified in GL Rules for Hull Structures (I-1-1).

D.4

D.4.1

All loads have to be modelled realistically. Distributed loads shall be converted to equivalent

nodal forces. If necessary, modelling of the structure has to be adapted to modelling of the loads.

D.4.2

If boundary deformations derived from coarse models of large structural areas are applied to

local models, the correspondingly interpolated values shall be specified for intermediate nodes. In addition, loads acting within the local structural area are to be applied if they are relevant.

D.5

D.5.1

Input data of the loads shall be checked thoroughly for errors. As is the case for structural

geometry, the effectiveness of this check can be increased considerably using suitable checking programs and visualizations of data.

D.5.2

It is particularly important to check the sums of forces and moments. For balanced load cases,

it is to be ensured that residual forces and moments are negligibly small.

D.5.3

E.1

Plausibility of results

E.1.1

Before and during the evaluation, all results shall be examined for plausibility. This involves, in

particular, visual presentation and checking of deformations and stresses to see whether their magnitudes lie within the expected range and whether their distributions are meaningful with respect to the

loads and boundary conditions or supports.

E.1.2

Furthermore, it should be checked whether forces and moments at supports lie within the expected order of magnitude or whether they can be neglected, as appropriate for the modelling used.

E.1.3

For local models with specified boundary deformations transferred from the global model, it is

necessary to check whether stresses near boundaries correspond to the two associated models.

E.2

Deformations

E.2.1

Structural deformations should generally be plotted for a plausibility check of the results. For a

three-dimensional representation, it has to be observed that the direction of the deformation is clearly

defined.

E.2.2

Generally, an additional evaluation of deformations is to be performed for the top of coaming.

Movements of hatch covers relative to the ship structure as well as movements relative to each other

have to be documented as well.

E.3

Stresses

E.3.1

Stresses have to be checked with respect to permissible values, as defined in GL Rules for

Hull Structures (I-1-1), Section 5. The corresponding stress category is to be observed, see B.3 to B.6. If

necessary, missing stress components caused by the selected models and element types have to be

superimposed.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 16

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 1

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessel

Basic Principles

E.3.2

For the stress evaluation, simplifications in the model in relation to the real structure have to

be included in the assessment.

E.3.3

In models with relatively coarse meshes, the reduced effective breadth has to be considered if

applicable. Furthermore, local stress increases at existing structural details and discontinuities shall be

included in the assessment if their effect has not been considered separately.

E.3.4

The assessment should be carried out using utilisation factors, which are defined as the ratio

of existing stress and permissible stress. Result tables should be set up and sorted according to their

utilisation factors.

E.3.5

For analyses that are based on nonlinear material properties, local strains shall generally also

be determined and assessed in addition to local elastic-plastic stresses.

E.4

Buckling strength

Safety against buckling failure is to be determined by considering all calculated stress components in the

assessed member area, based on criteria given in GL Rules for Hull Structures (I-1-1), Section 3. The

buckling analysis of stiffeners has to account for the effective breadth of the associated plating.

E.5

Fatigue strength

E.5.1

Fatigue strength aspects shall generally be taken into account in the assessment of ship structures, owing to the cyclic stresses that are usually present. In strength analyses for specified load cases,

a simplified assessment can be performed if load cases according to D.2 are chosen, such that maximum

stress ranges in the components under consideration are approximately attained. Calculation of fatigue

strength is then to be carried out on the basis of GL Rules for Hull Structures (I-1-1), Section 20.

E.5.2

MPV structural members to be assessed for fatigue strength have to be selected according to

the structural arrangement characteristics of the individual ship. In general, fatigue strength calculations

have to be carried out for hatch corners, side shell longitudinals (if applicable), large openings and cutouts in members subject to cyclic loads and for the welded joints of these members. Furthermore, effects

of the integrated crane columns into the ship structure has to be investigated

E.5.3

In assessing stresses with regard to fatigue strength, the stress type has to be considered,

i.e., whether stress calculations with the chosen model yield nominal stresses or locally increased structural or notch stresses.

E.5.4

For this kind of assessment, it is recommended to apply utilisation factors; these factors are

based on the ratio of maximum actual stress range to permissible stress, see also the GL Guidelines for

Fatigue Strength Analyses of Ship Structures (V-1-2).

E.6

E.6.1

Results obtained and conclusions made on the basis of these investigations shall be clearly

and completely documented.

E.6.2

Documentation can take the form of plots and lists. Lists are necessary if a graphical presentation of results is insufficiently accurate. Extensive lists shall be sorted, for example, according to utilisation

factors.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 17

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Analysis Techniques

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Section 2

A

General ....................................................................................................................... 2-1

B

Structural Idealization ................................................................................................. 2-2

C

Boundary Conditions................................................................................................... 2-9

D

Loading Conditions ................................................................................................... 2-10

E

Load Cases ............................................................................................................... 2-18

F

Model Check ............................................................................................................. 2-25

G

Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 2-26

H

Documentation.......................................................................................................... 2-33

Appendix A............................................................................................................................. 2-40

General

A.1

The objective of the global strength analysis is to obtain a reliable description of the overall

hull girder stiffness and to calculate and assess global stresses and deformations of all primary hull

members for specified load cases resulting from realistic loading conditions and wave-induced forces and

moments. Figure 2.1 shows a sample global finite element model of an MPV.

Fig. 2.1

A.2

Generally, the purpose of the global analysis is not to evaluate local stresses caused by stiffener or plate bending, but to obtain realistic stiffness and deformation characteristics of the hull girder,

particularly regarding hull girder torsional and transverse strength. Deformations of the coaming top and

movements of hatch covers have to be provided for the design of hatch covers.

A.3

The finite element analysis of the entire ship shall verify the structural adequacy of the longitudinal and transverse primary structure with respect to deformations and stresses for relevant load cases.

A.4

Stresses in all primary members will be assessed with respect to permissible stresses and

buckling. Fatigue analyses have to be performed for dynamically highly loaded free plate edges, e.g.,

hatch corners, welded joints and connecting structures between crane columns and foundations.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 21

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Analysis Techniques

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

A.5

Tools used for finite element calculations and subsequent evaluations shall be based on recognised software. All programs that can show results to the satisfaction of GL are considered recognised.

Structural Idealization

B.1

Model characteristics

B.1.1

To solve the essential strength characteristics of MPVs and the pertinent strength related

problems, it is necessary to globally model the entire ship structure. Due to the asymmetric structure and

the asymmetric loading in seaways, half models are not feasible. The model shall be suitable to capture

not only longitudinal and transverse strength aspects, but also structural deformations.

B.1.2

The global model shall include all primary structural components important for longitudinal and

transverse strength and stiffness. As MPVs with their long holds and small deck strakes generally have a

low global stiffness with respect to torsion and transverse loads, it is important to implement all structural

reinforcements that increase the stiffness of the hull. Such reinforcements are, e.g., foundations of heavy

lift cranes or heavy coaming stays and foundations for hatch cover stopper forces.

B.1.3

The generation of loading conditions requires that loads are applied realistically, i.e., large

loads shall be transferred at correct positions into the ship structure. To achieve this, in some cases auxiliary structures only used for load application are necessary.

B.1.4

For crane load cases, simplified models of crane columns for load application have to be implemented into the global model. These crane column models shall be able to transfer crane moments

and forces from their rotating assembly to the column foundation, requiring correct modelling of the stiffness of all major structural components of the crane column. Suitable mesh fineness shall be chosen for

the foundation below the upper deck and for the ship structure.

B.1.5

The importance of the hatch cover stopper forces on local deformations of the hull, especially

for the inward/outward deflections of the coaming, necessitates modelling the hatch covers or implementing an auxiliary system of hatch covers to correctly transfer hatch cover stopper forces at the top of the

coaming into the ship structure. Each cover shall be fitted with longitudinal and transverse stoppers according to the hatch cover force plan. Test calculation runs shall ensure that hatch covers can move

freely on top of the coaming without restraint from the hull stiffness. Only large deformations and large

contact forces affect the deformation of the hull by keeping the defined clearances at their deflection limiters. Under such conditions, hatch covers transfer forces from one ship side to the other. This leads to a

nonlinear problem, which can be solved using contact elements.

The auxiliary system should be able to show deformation plots of hatch covers and to calculate relative

deformations between hatch covers and coaming and between hatch covers themselves.

Furthermore, on each hatch cover it shall be possible to define loads acting at a prescribed position of the

cargos centre of gravity.

Friction forces between hatch cover and coaming are to be neglected for global strength checks. This

enables the determination of maximum coaming deflections as well as maximum stopper forces at deflection limiters.

B.1.6

At bay ends, loads from containers in holds shall be transferred into the ship structure according to the appropriate stowage and lashing system. Vertical load components are to act at the ships bottom, whereas horizontal load components are to be transferred to the ships side structure. To achieve

this, auxiliary systems for hold containers can be implemented. Test calculation runs are to be performed

to check whether the auxiliary systems can move freely without restraints from the hull stiffness.

B.2

B.2.1

Mesh size shall be determined according to the scope and kind of structural design and structural results which have to be assessed.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 22

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

B.2.2

Three-dimensional models of the entire hull girder are often meshed coarsely, according to

spacing of primary structural components. This is sufficient for a global strength analysis, provided the

element types used accurately reflect the bending behaviour of the primary structural components.

B.2.3

To calculate locally increased stresses, mesh fineness shall be increased gradually in accordance with stress gradients.

B.2.4

The mesh of the global model shall be suitable to develop refined detailed finite element models of, e.g., hatch corners for a fatigue analysis (sub model technique).

B.2.5

Superstructures and aft and fore parts of the ship are generally modelled coarsely. They represent a realistic stiffness for load application only. Only in special cases, e.g., when vibration or slamming load cases are to be investigated, are more refined models necessary for the fore and aft ship or for

the superstructure.

B.3

B.3.1

Definition of principal sections of the model generally conforms to planes of primary structural

components.

Models of MPVs typically show:

horizontal sections of the coaming top, main deck, second deck, stringers and inner bottom

longitudinal sections of longitudinal bulkheads, longitudinal walls and longitudinal girders

transverse sections of transverse bulkheads and walls, floor plates, transverse web plates and

frames

crane foundation structures

B.3.2

The number of transverse sections shown depends primarily on the floor plates arranged in

the area of the long cargo holds. Typical for MPVs is an arrangement of floor plates at every second

frame. Generally, each floor plate is to be idealized.

B.3.3

Frequently MPVs are fitted with tween decks, which can be arranged at different vertical levels. For these positions, horizontal sections are recommended.

B.4

B.4.1

Additional sections have to be introduced for locally important structural components that contribute to global stiffness and strength in the longitudinal and transverse direction. Additional sections

become necessary for, e.g., crane foundations, crane columns and web plates of heavy coaming stays.

B.4.2

Transverse web plates in crane columns and foundations usually are arranged at every frame.

Therefore, additional sections extending over the entire crane column length have to be included accordingly. Additional longitudinal sections have to be generated for longitudinal walls and structural components of crane columns and foundations as well.

B.4.3

Depending on the magnitude of stopper forces, heavy coaming stays and their foundations

below the main deck are generally needed. These are built up of transverse web plates arranged at every

frame. Usually the model also requires that additional local longitudinal sections be implemented for the

flange plates of the coaming stays and the supporting structural components below the main deck.

B.5

B.5.1

x measured in the longitudinal direction, positive forward from the aft perpendicular

y measured in the transverse direction, positive from the centreline to port

z measured in the vertical direction, positive upwards from the baseline

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 23

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

B.5.2

Complying with the unified evaluation software developed at GL, the following units and material properties shall be used:

Table 2.1

Units of GL software

Length

Mass

Force

kN

Table 2.2

Material properties

Youngs Poisson

Shear

modulus value

modulus

[kN/m2]

Density

[kN/m2]

[t/m3]

Steel

2,06 108

0,30

0,792 108

7,80

Alu

0,69 108

0,33

0,259 108

2,75

B.5.3

The minimum yield stress, ReH, has to be related to the material defined as indicated in Table

2.3. Consequently, a separate data set has to be defined for the material, even if Youngs modulus is the

same. Elements have to refer to this material data set, corresponding to the materials defined in the structural drawings. Later, the evaluation routines used refer to these material data sets when permissible

stresses and buckling strengths are checked.

Table 2.3

ReH

[N/mm2]

B.6

235

315

355

390

Element types

B.6.1

The global strength calculation yields the global stress state caused by hull girder bending and

torsion. The global model does not analyse local effects like bending of stiffened plates subject to water

pressures. The dominant result is the membrane stress state.

B.6.2

All primary structural members, i.e., shell, inner skin, girders, web frames, horizontal stringers

and vertical girders of transverse bulkheads are to be idealized, preferably by four-node plane stress or

shell elements.

B.6.3

Secondary stiffening members may be idealized by two-node truss or beam elements. High

transverse and longitudinal girders can be idealized either by beam elements or by plane stress elements

(PSE) for webs and truss elements for flanges. If the FE model shall be used for a subsequent vibration

analysis, beam elements are to be preferred. For beam elements, the effective breadth has to be carefully

evaluated when defining their bending stiffness. For their axial stiffness, however, only the sectional area

of the profile shall be considered.

B.6.4

Characteristics of the selected element type shall accurately reflect the stiffness of the structure. When carrying out a strength analysis, adequate knowledge of element characteristics is a prerequisite.

B.6.5

When using different element types, attention shall be paid to the compatibility of the displacement functions as well as the transferability of the boundary loads and stresses, particularly for the

coupling of elements with and without bending stiffness at the nodes.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 24

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Section 2

B.6.6

If coarse meshes are used for the global analysis, it is beneficial if shape functions of plane

stress or shell elements include "incompatible modes," which offer improved in-plane bending behaviour

of the modelled member, as illustrated in Fig. 2.2. This type of element is required to model web plates

with a single element over the full web height in order to calculate the bending stress distribution correctly. The disadvantage of the incompatible mode is that the element edges may diverge, causing a

lower stiffness. However, if used in combination with the coarse mesh, these elements realistically reproduce the stiffness of the hull girder.

Fig. 2.2

Improved bending of web modelled with one element over its height

B.6.7

Triangular elements with a linear shape function shall be avoided where possible. These

three-node elements can only represent constant strain or stress. They have no in-plane bending characteristic and are, therefore, too stiff in areas of significant stress gradients. Four-node elements with inner

angles below 80 deg or above 100 deg between edges shall be avoided as well.

B.6.8

The element edge aspect ratio shall generally not exceed the value 3.0. This aspect ratio may

be exceeded in areas of low stress gradients or where a constant stress distribution over the element

width can be expected.

k

z

i

j

Transverse

Walls

Decks

l

l

k

Longitudinal

Walls

Fig. 2.3

j (i)

i j

Shell

B.6.9

Elements should preferably be oriented as shown in Fig. 2.3. If the specification regarding the

ij-direction and the ij-edge cannot be followed, at least the normal vector has to be orientated as listed in

Table 2.4 and Fig. 2.3. This convention facilitates direct load application and easier evaluation of element

stresses.

Table 2.4

Element orientation

ij-Direction

ij-Edge

Decks

Transverse

Aft

Top

Longitudinal

walls

Longitudinal

Bottom

Inside

CL walls

Longitudinal

Bottom

PS

Transverse walls

Transverse

Bottom

Fore

Shell

Longitudinal

Inwards/

Bottom

Inwards

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 25

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Section 2

B.7

Modelling the structure

B.7.1

The FE model is to be based on gross scantlings of the hull structure. For buckling evaluations, the corrosion addition will be deducted.

B.7.2

Due to the complexity of the ships structure, simplifications are generally necessary in modelling. These simplifications are permissible, provided the results are only negligibly impaired.

B.7.3

Small secondary components or details that only marginally affect the stiffness can be neglected in the modelling. Examples are brackets at frames, sniped short buckling stiffeners and small cutouts.

B.7.4

Man holes or cut-outs of significant size shall always be considered when calculating realistic

shear stresses. A corresponding reduction in element thickness may be considered to reduce the stiffness. Even larger openings corresponding to the element size, such as pilot doors, may be considered

by deleting the appropriate elements.

In the absence of a more precise approach, plate thickness reduction in way of cut-outs may be derived

according to the following formulae:

a)

Web plates with several adjacent cut-outs, e.g., floor plates and longitudinal bottom girders:

(t0)

h

y

x

l

L

Fig. 2.4 Cut-out

t red (y) =

Hh

t0

H

t red (x) =

LA

t0

L

tred

b)

Larger areas with cut-outs and walls with doors and windows, e.g., wash bulkheads:

t red

p

1

1 + 0, 0025 p 2

t0

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 26

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Fig. 2.5

Fig. 2.6

B.7.5

Steps in plate thickness or scantlings of profiles, insofar as they are not situated on element

boundaries, shall be taken into account by adapting element data or characteristics to obtain an equivalent stiffness.

B.7.6

Plane elements shall generally be positioned in the mid-plane of the corresponding components. As an approximation for thin-walled structures, elements can also be arranged at moulded lines.

B.7.7

Plane two-dimensional elements in inclined or curved surfaces shall be positioned at the geometric centre of the modelled area, if possible, to reflect global stiffness behaviour as correctly as possible.

B.7.8

Translatory singularities in PSE structures can be avoided by arranging so-called singularity

trusses as indicated in Fig. 2.7. The FE program GL-Frame suppresses these singularity trusses internally.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 27

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

singularity node

(z-direction)

singularity truss

y

x

Fig. 2.7

Singularity trusses

B.7.9

For coarse meshes, stiffeners have to be assembled as trusses or beams by summarising

relevant cross-section data. They have to be arranged at the edges of plane stress or shell elements.

Figure 2.8 shows a sample partial deck structure with an adjacent longitudinal wall and longitudinal stiffeners. In this case, stiffeners at the longitudinal wall and stiffeners at the deck have to be idealized by two

truss elements at the intersection of the longitudinal wall and the deck. Each of the truss elements has to

be assigned to different element groups: one truss to the group of the elements representing the deck

structure, the other truss to the element group representing the longitudinal wall. In the example shown in

Fig. 2.8, at the intersection of deck and wall, deck stiffeners are assembled to one truss representing

2 x 1.5 FB 100 8; wall stiffeners, to an additional truss representing 1.5 FB 200 10.

B.8

Figure 2.5 presents an overview of a typical global model of an MPV with one long hold, showing the complex inner structure and the extensive idealization of transverse web plates. The positions of heavy coaming stays can be detected. Figure 2.6 shows a cut-out of the model, including the crane column and

coaming structure. For further model documentation, see Appendix A.

The global model of the shell in Fig. A1 indicates a mesh with a small number of triangular elements.

Such a mesh uses the shape function of quadrilateral elements and is applicable if the FE software allows

warped plane stress elements.

Different types of cross sections are compiled in Fig. A2. The sections represent meshes for

bulkheads in tanks,

web plates built up of stiffened plates in the lower area and an open structure of girders higher up,

web plates completely built up of an open structure of girders and

bulkheads in the hold

Vertical girders of the open structure are modelled by plane stress elements for web plates and by trusses

for flanges. The idealization shown here reflects the stiffness with sufficient accuracy when the shape function of the four-node plane stress elements includes an improved bending behaviour; otherwise, a finer

mesh has to be selected.

For the coaming stays, it is recommended to use at least three elements between the top of the coaming

and the upper deck.

Floor plates near side longitudinal bulkheads are modelled by three elements over the height of the double bottom, in accordance with the expected increased stresses and stress gradients.

Meshes of longitudinal structural components are shown in Figs. A3 and A4. The horizontal section of the

tank top shows that the mesh predominantly results from the distance between floor plates in compliance

with the definition of principal sections. Larger openings should be modelled by their real opening size

and not by a reduced plate thickness.

Figure A5 presents a cross section and the auxiliary system at a transverse stopper location for hatch

cover loads.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 28

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Auxiliary systems for containers in holds are arranged at bay ends to obtain a realistic load transfer into

the ship structure. Generally, vertical load components are applied directly at tank tops, whereas horizontal load components are transferred according to the lashing system (Fig. A6).

There are two commonly used systems for transferring loads to longitudinal bulkheads:

1.

depending on the ships roll motion, compression forces transferred only either to port or starboard

side and

2.

containers in holds connected by the lashing system to one shipside only. Consequently, all forces,

compressions as well as tensions, are transferred to the same longitudinal bulkhead.

Boundary Conditions

To eliminate rigid body motions of the entire global finite element model, six supports or boundary elements (springs of high stiffness) have to be arranged. As ship and cargo weight are in equilibrium with

buoyancy and wave loads, these boundary elements transfer no loads. This has to be checked. A typical

arrangement is indicated in Table 2.5 and Fig. 2.9. Care shall be taken to locate boundary elements in a

way to avoid unrealistic hull deformations.

3 FB 100 8

1.5 FB 200 10

1.5 FB 100 8

FB 100 8

FB 100 8

FB 100 8

FB 200 10

1.5 FB 100 8

FB 100 8

FB 100 8

FB 100 8

FB 200 10

FB 200 10

1.5 FB 200 10

Fig. 2.8

z

y

x

Fig. 2.9

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 29

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Table 2.5

Global support

Location

Engine room

front bulkhead

Collision bulkhead

Direction

SB

CL

PS

CL

CL

CL

Loading Conditions

D.1

General notes

D.1.1

In accordance with the scope of the global strength investigation, several loading conditions

have to be generated to represent harbour load cases, crane load cases and seagoing load cases.

D.1.2

It should be insured that for all loading conditions the permissible stillwater values of bending

moment, (SWBM), shear force and torsion are not exceeded. The design static torsional moment shall

correspond to the characteristics of MPVs. Generally, the static torsional moment of MPVs is higher than

the static torsional moment of containerships. The static torsional bending moment proven to be permissible within the global strength analysis can be used as a basis for the corresponding values of the loading computer. If the loading manual does not specify values of the static torsional moment, it has to be

taken according to GL Structural Rules for Container Ships (I-1-5), Section 5, D.1.2.1.2.

D.1.3

It should be insured that for all loading conditions the design loads on decks and hatch coversare not exceeded.

D.1.4

Mass distributions of loading conditions shall be selected in a way that possible maximum and

minimum bending moments, draughts and lateral double bottom loads are considered.

D.1.5

Hydrostatic and hydrodynamic calculations need realistic mass distributions with correct positions of centres of gravity to obtain correct stillwater floating conditions and ship motions in waves. It

should be insured that for all loading conditions the minimum required metacentric height (GM) are maintained.

D.1.6

The definition of loading conditions should preferably be done with the aid of suitable load

generation programs. For such purposes, GL developed the load generation program GL ShipLoad. With

this program, GL provide an efficient load generation tool for global FE analyses of ship structures. In

addition to features required for load generation, the program provides a detailed documentation of the

input data for loading conditions, which is required for the load input check.

D.1.7

Loading conditions and related load cases are summarized in Tables 2.6 to 2.8.

D.2

Mass model

Lightship weight components, such as hull structure, machinery and equipment, outfitting, etc. are the

same for every considered loading condition. Likewise consumables, effects and stores will vary little if at

all.

Other weight groups, such as containers and ballast water shall be defined according to each loading

condition.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 210

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

D.2.1

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Light ship weight

The weight of the hull structure is obtained by applying a material density to the FE elements. It is common practice to use an increased value to account for structural components not included in the model,

such as brackets. To match a specified centre of gravity position for the hull structural weight, different

material densities can be used for individual element groups.

The remainder of the lightship weight (such as machinery, hatch covers and outfitting) and consumables

will be represented by a distribution of nodal masses in relevant regions according to their locations and

centres of gravity.

The mass of each weight group will be adjusted to achieve the correct mass distribution and the correct

position of the centre of gravity. The use of negative nodal masses is to be avoided. The entire mass

model shall be in compliance with the considered lightship weight distribution.

D.2.2

Liquid mass in tanks will be represented by nodal masses distributed to the surrounding structure. It is

not necessary to include the local pressure distribution in tanks in the global FE analysis.

D.2.3

Inertia forces of cargo have to be transferred to the appropriate nodes in the hull structure. Load transfer

can be carried out in two different ways:

D.2.3.1

If forces are transferred to the ship interface nodes prior to a finite element calculation, no

explicit auxiliary model is required for the finite element calculation itself to account for the containers.

D.2.3.2

If auxiliary systems are used for load application and load transfer, they shall not influence the

stiffness of the FE model. This has to be checked by test calculations without loads acting on the auxiliary

systems. Hull deformations must not cause stresses and strains in the auxiliary systems. On-deck containers and cargo can be modelled using plane stress, shell or solid elements, which may be connected

via the hatch covers to the hull structure by truss elements. The cargo or the hatch covers have to be

supported on the coaming using vertically oriented truss elements. At the location of transverse and longitudinal stoppers, the structure of hatch covers will be supported either in the transverse direction only or

in the transverse and the longitudinal direction, respectively. The centre of gravity of on-deck cargo has to

be correctly represented to obtain realistic heeling moments. If cargo in holds is modelled by an auxiliary

system, again special attention shall be paid to the transfer of vertical and horizontal forces to the appropriate nodes in the hull structure in order not to influence the stiffness of the ship.

D.3

D.3.1

Mass distributions for harbour load cases are generated to calculate large inward and outward

deflections at the top of the coaming. These deflections are important input data for hatch cover designs.

Hatch covers must have the ability to be opened and closed under extreme but realistic harbour conditions. The vertical bending moments and shear forces for the definition of these loading conditions is of

secondary order.

D.3.2

Harbour load cases cause inward and outward deflections at the top of the coaming, mainly

affected by bending deformation of the double bottom under lateral loads. Lateral loads result from cargos

on tank tops, ballast water in the double bottom and buoyancy pressures at the shell. Predominant buoyancy pressures lead to outward hull deflections, whereas predominant cargo pressures lead to inward hull

deflections.

D.3.3

Loading conditions causing large outward deflections of the hold generally do not consider

cargos on tank tops in the midship area, and they do not contain ballast water in double bottom tanks.

Such loading conditions correspond to ballast conditions at maximum possible draught, where the buoyancy pressure predominates. Loads acting in neighbouring holds, if these holds exist, and loads acting at

the fore and aft end of the main cargo hold should be accounted for to increase the draught, and in this

way the outward deflection in the hold must be considered. Generally, for these cases the maximum design draught is not exceeded.

D.3.4

Loading conditions causing large inward deflections in the hold generally have cargo located

on tank tops and may, additionally, have ballast water in double bottom tanks. Other tanks outside the

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 211

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

hold area should be empty if this is reasonable. To obtain maximum cargo pressure on a tank top, the

load is concentrated in the middle of the main cargo hold. Neighbouring holds should be free of cargo.

Generally, the maximum scantling draught is reached in these cases. Block load cases are typical loading

conditions causing extreme inward deflections.

D.3.5

D.4

D.4.1

Mass distributions for crane load cases are generated to calculate stresses in and deformations of the global ship structure, the foundations of the crane columns and the connection between columns and ship. It is outside the scope of this investigation to check the strength of cranes and crane columns.

D.4.2

Highest global stresses and deformations are expected when maximum permissible crane

moments are reached and the cranes are working in transverse directions to port and starboard side simultaneously using a cross beam. For heavy lift cranes large transverse deformations of the cross sections and the coaming top are to be expected.

D.4.3

In special cases, it may be necessary and required by GL to analyse diagonal jib directions to

check the strength of the foundations at the fore and aft transverse sections of the columns.

D.4.4

In general, a crane load is selected for the global strength analysis which gives the highest

crane forces and moments at the rotating assembly between crane house and crane column. Documented design crane forces and moments have to be supplied by the vendor.

D.4.5

method 1, by directly specifying forces and moments at the rotating assembly and

method 2, by indirectly arranging crane masses according to crane position and outreach.

Method 1:

The direct input of forces and moments does not require a mass distribution for the cranes. Forces and

moments are introduced during load case definitions.

Method 2:

Pertinent data, such as outreach, maximum permissible heeling angle and masses of working load, jib,

ropes and crane house should be considered when generating masses.

Design crane forces and moments include dynamic factors. These factors are generally not considered in

the definition of mass distributions for crane load cases (method 2). Dynamic components of forces and

moments are initially introduced when generating crane load cases, as explained in E4.3 - E4.5.

D.4.6

pects:

Mass distributions for crane load cases have to be defined with regard to the following as-

Realistic cargo and ballast distributions corresponding to permissible heeling angles for crane operations under static stillwater conditions have to be defined.

Maximum and minimum possible vertical bending moments have to be defined.

Maximum and minimum possible inward and outward deflections, mainly affected by lateral pressure

and bending deformations of the double bottom, have to be defined.

Loading conditions for the ballast condition, for a small draught and for the scantling draught have to

be defined.

D.4.7

A realistic cargo and ballast distribution, in case that a stability pontoon is arranged, requires

modelling based on the following aspects:

Models of ship and pontoon have to be mounted relative to each other according to their particular

draughts before crane operations, e.g., the relative position depends on the draughts of ship and

pontoon.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 212

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Pontoon particulars, including ballast water mass and cantilever beam effects, have to be represented by an appropriate distribution of nodal masses.

D.4.8

Ballast or small draught loading conditions have to be generated for jib directions pointing

outward and inward. An outboard directed jib causes a large outward coaming deflection; an inboard directed jib, a high transverse load in the bilge area.

D.4.9

Loading conditions at scantling draught have to be generated to induce maximum possible

hogging and sagging moments. Mass distributions for hogging moments should be selected to cause

maximum possible outward deflections. This can be obtained by placing marginal cargos on tank tops.

Mass distributions for sagging moments should cause maximum possible inward deflections. This can be

obtained by placing heavy cargos on tank tops. Generally, maximum inward deflections are expected for

transverse jib directions. Under such conditions, when deflection limiters are arranged, maximum compression stopper forces are calculated. Outboard directed jib directions cause maximum transverse bending stresses in the bilge area.

D.4.10

D.5

D.5.1

D.5.1.1

Mass distributions for seagoing load cases with heavy loads on hatch covers are generated to

check the transverse strength and deformation behaviour of the hull and the top of the coaming under sea

conditions causing large roll angles. Normally, these loading conditions have a small metacentric height.

D.5.1.2

These loading conditions have to induce up to 80 percent maximum design loads on hatch

covers. The centre of gravity of loads on hatch covers should be located at a low but realistic vertical position.

D.5.1.3

To obtain large transverse deformations, loads on hatch covers should be concentrated in the

mid area of the hold. Loads on hatch covers at the ends of a hold only marginally influence global transverse deformations.

D.5.1.4

Loads at specified hatch covers have to be defined with regard to following aspects:

Maximum and minimum possible inward and outward deflections affected by lateral pressure and

bending deformations of the double bottom have to be defined.

Loading conditions have to be defined for the scantling draught only.

D.5.1.5

If the ship is designed for two design draughts, corresponding to closed and open weather

deck hatch covers, additional loading conditions have to be generated for open top cases. Under these

loading conditions, where not all hatch covers are equipped with deflection limiters, maximum stopper

forces at deflection limiters of the remaining hatch covers have to be verified.

D.5.2

D.5.2.1

It is common practice to stow crane jibs vertically topped when awkwardly shaped cargo

makes it impossible to stow the jib in its normal horizontal position.

D.5.2.2

If the topped jib position is permissible for sea transport under conditions causing large roll

angles, the correspondent mass distributions have to be generated to calculate stresses and stress

ranges in foundations of crane columns and in connections between crane columns and ship structure.

D.5.2.3

Over one-half of the ships lifetime, it is assumed that crane jibs are stowed either in the vertical or horizontal position. Therefore, in principle two loading conditions have to be set up to cover the

entire lifetime and to be able to perform a fatigue analysis. The ships mass distribution may be the same

although the jib positions may differ.

D.5.2.4

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 213

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Maximum displacement at scantling draught with maximum permissible vertical hogging stillwater

bending moment causing a homogeneous weight distribution in holds and on hatch covers has to be

maintained.

As horizontal accelerations of jibs under seagoing conditions are of major importance, a high but realistic metacentric height (GM) should be considered.

D.5.3

D.5.3.1

On special demand by GL, an investigation under conventional container loading conditions is

required only for large MPVs.

D.5.3.2

In general, at least one hogging loading condition has to be generated. It has to be defined

with regard to the following aspects:

Maximum displacement at scantling draught with maximum permissible vertical hogging still water

bending moment has to be generated.

A homogeneous weight distribution in all bays with large stack loads on deck and hatch covers has

to be generated.

A relatively small metacentric height (GM) has to be considered.

D.5.4

D.5.4.1

Special mass distributions with block loads defined in the loading manual have to be investigated if applicable. For these cases, high cargo pressures at tank tops are transferred into the bottom

structure.

Wave amplitude

Wave direction

area length]

Wave through

position [ % of

hold area length]

Remark

Tscant

Hogging

(see

D.3.1)

Mandatory

Coaming

deflection

inward

Tscant

Sagging

(see

D.3.1)

Block load

at L/2

Mandatory

Coaming

deflection

outward

Tballast

(see

D.3.3)

Hogging

(see

D.3.1)

Hold's ends

loaded (see

D.3.3)

Mandatory

Edition 2013

Draught

Coaming

deflection

inward

pressure on

double

bottom

Description

Loading

Loading conditions and load cases harbour (To apply this table, refer to D.3 and E.3)

SWBM

Table 2.6

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 214

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Loading

Wave amplitude

Wave direction

area length]

area length]

Remark

Tsmall

(see

D.4)

Hogging

(see

D.4.6)

Max.

crane

moment

-3 to -5

perm.

Values

Mandatory

Coaming

outreach

inward

Tsmall

(see

D.4)

Hogging

(see

D.4.6)

Max.

crane

moment

+3 to +5

perm.

Values

Mandatory

Coaming

outreach

outward

Tscant

Hogging

(see

D.4.6)

Max.

crane

moment

-3 to -5

perm.

values

Mandatory

Coaming

outreach

inward

Tscant

Hogging

(see

D.4.6)

Max.

crane

moment

+3 to +5

perm.

Values

Mandatory

Coaming

outreach

outward

Tscant

Sagging

(see

D.4.6)

Max.

crane

moment

-3 to -5

perm.

values

Mandatory

Coaming

outreach

inward

Tscant

Sagging

(see

D.4.6)

Max.

crane

moment

+3 to +5

perm.

values

Mandatory

Edition 2013

[deg]

SWBM

Coaming

outreach

outward

Heel angle

Draught

Loading conditions and load cases crane (To apply this table, refer to D.4 and E.4)

Description

Table 2.7

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 215

Container

loads

Edition 2013

Tscant

Permissible hogging

Mandatory

100 %

hogg.

0 or

1)

180

+max

50 %

hogg.

180

25,

50, 75

Mandatory

-max

50 %

hogg.

180

25,

50, 75

Mandatory

100 %

sagg.

0 or

1)

180

+max

50 %

sagg.

180

25, 50,

75

Mandatory

-max

50 %

sagg.

180

25, 50,

75

Mandatory

Mandatory

100 %

hogg.

0 or

1)

180

+max

50 %

hogg.

180

25,

50, 75

Mandatory

-max

50 %

hogg.

180

25,

50, 75

Mandatory

100 %

sagg.

0 or

1)

180

+max

50 %

sagg.

180

25, 50,

75

Mandatory

-max

50 %

sagg.

180

25, 50,

75

Mandatory

[deg]

Remark

(see

D.5.1.4)

Heavy

loads

on

hatch

covers

length]

Tscant

Max.

possible

sagging

[% of hold area

length]

(see

D.5.1.4)

Heavy

loads

on

hatch

covers

Wave direction

[deg]

Heavyloads on

hatch

covers

Tscant

Max.

possible

hogging

Wave amplitude

[% of hogg. or

sagg. design wave]

Heavy

loads on

hatch

covers

Loading conditions and load cases sea going (To apply this table, refer to D.5 and E.5.

With the exception of container load cases, the wave length of the corresponding design

wave is to be applied.)

Heel/roll angle

Description

Table 2.8

Loading

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

SWBM

V

1

4

Draught

Rules

Part

Chapter

Uniformly

distributed

loads

1)

Mandatory

1)

1)

Mandatory

Mandatory

1)

Mandatory

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 216

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Wave direction

[deg]

[% of hold area

length]

length]

Remark

If applicable

100 %

hogg.

0 or

1)

180

100 %

sagg

0 or

1)

180

Block

loads

100 %

hogg.

0 or

1)

180

100 %

sagg

0 or

1)

180

100 %

hogg.

0 or

1)

180

Uniformly

distributed

loads

+max

50 %

hogg.

0 or

1)

180

-max

50 %

hogg.

0 or

1)

180

(see

D.5.2)

100 %

sagg.

0 or

1)

180

+max

50 %

sagg.

0 or

1)

180

-max

50 %

sagg.

0 or

1)

180

+max

50 %

hogg.

0 or

1)

180

-max

50 %

hogg.

0 or

1)

180

+max

50 %

sagg.

0 or

1)

180

-max

50 %

sagg.

0 or

1)

180

Tscant

Sagging

acc.

loading

manual

PermisJibs in

sible

vertically

Tscant hogging

topped

position

PermisJibs in

sible

horiTscant hogging

zontal

position

1)

Block

loads

mid

Uniformly

distributed

loads

(see

D.5.2)

[deg]

Hogging Block

acc.

loads

loading fore and

manual

aft

Heel/roll angle

Loading

Draught

wave amplitude

[% of hogg. or sagg.

design wave]

Description

Table 2.8

SWBM

Rules

Part

Chapter

1)

If applicable

1)

If applicable

If applicable

1)

If applicable

1)

If applicable

If applicable

1)

If applicable

1)

If applicable

1)

If applicable

1)

If applicable

1)

If applicable

1)

If applicable

1)

If applicable

1)

If applicable

1)

If applicable

1)

If applicable

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 217

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Load Cases

E.1

General notes

E.1.1

For the relevant loading conditions two different load cases have to be defined:

wave-induced load cases

In general, for all loading conditions static load cases are generated, while wave-induced load cases are

derived only for mass distributions of seagoing load cases according to C.4.

E.1.2

The load case generation should preferably be done with the aid of suitable load generation

programs. Such programs shall consider:

mass distributions of loading conditions

hydrostatic pressures at the shell

wave-induced ship motions and accelerations

hydrodynamic pressures at the shell

Tools applied to calculate wave loads shall be based on recognized software. All wave load programs

that can yield results to the satisfaction of GL are considered recognized software.

E.2

E.2.1

To directly compute loads, GL developed the load generation program GL ShipLoad. This

program efficiently generates loads for static and hydrodynamic load cases. It is based on strip theory

and enables fast simulations of ships in regular waves of different wave lengths, wave heights, wave directions, wave phase angles and ship speeds.

E.2.2

Applying the "design wave approach," 1, 2 the load generation has to be performed with reference to GL Rules for Hull Structures (I-1-1), Section 5.

E.2.3

Seagoing load cases defined within this Guideline are assessed as combined load cases in

accordance with GL Rules. In such cases, only 75 percent of the maximum vertical wave bending moment

has to be considered.

E.2.4

speed.

The load generation has to be performed for a ship speed of two-third maximum service

E.2.5

First, the most sensitive wave length for vertical wave bending moment combined with the

smallest wave amplitude has to be found, which condition yields the vertical bending moment according

to the Rules. This wave configuration in length and amplitude is known as the so-called design wave.

E.2.6

Based on this design wave, it is assumed that wave amplitudes for different wave lengths

depend on the cubic root of the wave lengths as follows:

Ai

3

L W,i / L pp

Aj

3

L W, j / L pp

: wave amplitude

Payer H.G., Fricke W. Rational Dimentioning and Analysis of the complex Ship Structures, SNAME Transactions, Vol. 102,

1994

Hachmann D. Calculation of Pressures on a Ships Hull in Waves, Ship Technology Research, Vol. 38, 1991

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 218

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

LW

: wave length

Lpp

E.2.7

To obtain loads at large roll angles that comply with design roll angles and design transverse

accelerations, respectively, GL ShipLoad makes it possible to consider additional roll angles. In this way it

is possible to analyse specific rolling conditions in waves.

E.2.8

To avoid unrealistic load combinations, statistical independence between wave amplitude and

additional roll angle shall be assumed, i.e., it is assumed that maximum wave amplitude and maximum

roll angle do not occur simultaneously.

E.2.9

In general, for simulations in regular waves a large number of wave situations is systematically

analysed by considering different wave lengths, wave heights, wave angles of encounter, wave phases

(position of wave crest relative to the ship) and additional roll angles.

E.2.10

Relevant load cases for FE analyses generally are to be selected by evaluating sectional

forces and moments along the ships length for all analysed wave situations. For these load cases, vertical and horizontal wave bending and the torsional moments have to match design values defined in the

Rules. For MPVs the transverse acceleration of hatch cover loads is an additional essential item for the

load case selection.

E.2.11

Selected seagoing load cases shall cover realistic combinations, consisting of vertical and

horizontal moments, torsional moments, shear forces and large transverse forces leading to racking conditions.

E.2.12

Load case selection has to be done in a way to obtain the largest stress values and stress

ranges relevant for fatigue.

E.3

E.3.1

E.3.2

Harbour load cases are assigned as static load cases. Target values are harbour stillwater

forces and moments. Buoyancy pressures under stillwater conditions and inertia forces caused by gravitational acceleration result in a state of equilibrium.

E.4

E.4.1

E.4.2

Crane load cases are generally derived by superposition of a static and a dynamic part. The

static part considers the mass distribution of the ship and crane without dynamic factors under stillwater

floating conditions. Under this floating condition, the permissible heeling angle for crane operations shall

be maintained. The dynamic part balances the dynamic crane forces and moments and the inertia forces

of the ships masses.

E.4.3

If crane forces and moments acting at the rotating assembly are used directly (method 1),

design forces and moments of cranes (including dynamic factors) and buoyancy forces for the stillwater

floating condition are balanced by inertia forces of the ships masses. The buoyancy distribution shall fit

the floating condition under static crane loads without considering dynamic effects.

E.4.4

If the considered crane masses are located at their correct centres of gravity (method 2), a

stillwater floating condition is initially determined, which accounts for the static part of the crane forces

and moments. The remaining dynamic forces and moments are then applied at the rotating crane assembly and balanced by inertia forces of the ships masses.

E.4.5

If a stability pontoon is used, it has to be considered for load case generation. The advantage

of a stability pontoon is that it increases the moment of inertia of the water plane area and that it increases the metacentric height (GM), thus resulting in smaller heel and trim angles under crane load conditions.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 219

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

E.4.6

Figure 2.10 shows distributions of sectional forces and moments along the ships length for a

crane load case with an outboard jib outreach. Here, high torsional moments and steep gradients at the

positions of the cranes can be observed. The corresponding crane load case at the same draught with a

CL jib outreach shows similar graphs for bending moments and shear forces, but with considerably

smaller torsional moments (Fig. 2.11). This obviously will lead to smaller stresses in the hull due to reduced torsional loads.

= horizontal

= vertical

= torsional

Bending Moments

1.0

X/L

Torsional Moments

1.0

X/L

Shear Force

Shear Force

1.0

0

X/L

Fig. 2.10

Edition 2013

Sectional forces and moments for a crane load case with an outboard jib outreach

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 220

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Torsional Moments

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

1.0

X/L

Fig. 2.11

E.5

E.5.1

E.5.2

E.5.2.1

Mass distributions with high loads on hatch covers are generated to check the transverse

strength and deformation behaviour of the hull, essentially induced by acceleration of hatch cover loads

leading to racking conditions. Extreme racking conditions generally occur in combination with large roll

angles. Generally, these load cases are important for the structural design and scantlings of MPVs. Besides, large torsional moments and horizontal bending moments are additionally induced into the ship

structure.

E.5.2.2

The roll angle for racking load cases has to be adjusted to approximate the transverse acceleration of 0.5 g for the inertia forces of hatch cover loads, as defined in GL Rules for Hull Structures (I-11), Section 17. In this way it is assured that calculated stopper forces are in line with design hatch cover

forces according to the Rules.

E.5.2.3

It is common practice that, for each loading condition, the stillwater load case, the maximum

wave hogging load case and the maximum wave sagging load case are generated.

E.5.2.4

The selection of load combinations postulates statistical independence between wave amplitudes and roll angles. Therefore, the design roll angle shall be considered simultaneously combined with

a reduced design wave amplitude of 50 percent. The wave length shall comply with the design wave.

E.5.2.5

Generally, racking load cases are to be set up for hogging and sagging waves from ahead

(angle of encounter 180 degrees) with respect to variation of the side shell pressure. Therefore, load

cases with different wave crest and wave trough positions in the area of largest transverse deformations

have to be generated. This ensures that the full effect of hydrodynamic pressures on transverse hull

strength, hull deformations and stopper forces is accounted for.

E.5.2.6

Due to the asymmetry of many MPVs, load cases with roll angles to port and starboard side

have to be defined separately.

E.5.2.7

For long cargo holds ( 40 m), three wave crest and three wave trough positions have to be

considered. For prismatic hold geometry, wave crest and wave trough positions can be assumed located

at one-quarter, one-half and three-quarter lengths of the cargo hold.

E.5.2.8

The load case selection described above leads, for a long cargo hold and for one loading condition, to 12 racking load cases. These cases arise from six wave phases (positions), one wave length of

design wave length, one wave amplitude of 50 percent design wave amplitude, one angle of encounter of

180 degrees and design roll angles to port and starboard side. Figure 2.12 shows sectional forces and

moments of sample racking load cases. It can be seen that high horizontal bending moments and torsional moments occur as well.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 221

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

E.5.2.9

For short cargo holds (< 40 m), only one position for wave crest and trough is recommended.

The position has to be estimated at one-half length of the cargo hold. The reduced number of wave

phases and roll angles to port and starboard side lead to four racking load cases.

= horizontal

= vertical

= torsional

Bending Moments

1.0

X/L

Torsional Moments

1.0

X/L

Shear Force

Shear Force

1.0

X/L

Fig. 2.12

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 222

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

E.5.3

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Load cases for crane jibs in topped position

E.5.3.1

Loading conditions with vertically topped and horizontally stowed crane jib positions were generated to obtain highest stresses and stress ranges in sea conditions with large roll angles and large

transverse accelerations.

E.5.3.2

Transverse design accelerations at the selected points of the jib are to be determined by an

individual lateral acceleration calculation. A hydrodynamic analysis and a subsequent statistical evaluation calculated the design values. Wave statistics of the North Atlantic have to be used.

The largest part of lateral accelerations is due to the ship's inclination, i.e., it is caused by the roll motion.

However, horizontal and vertical accelerations contribute to the lateral acceleration as well.

E.5.3.3

A probability level of Q = 10-6 has to be considered for the lateral design acceleration. Selected

roll angles for load cases have to be adjusted to obtain a reasonable approximation of the design acceleration at different jib positions.

E.5.3.4

The selection of load combinations postulates statistical independence between wave amplitude and lateral design acceleration. Therefore, the design acceleration related to max has to be considered simultaneously with a reduced design wave amplitude of 50 percent. The wave length has to comply

with the design wave. This is slightly different from container load cases according to Table 2.9.

E.5.3.5

As both loading conditions differ only in the position of crane jibs, the vertical bending for both loading conditions may be considered equal. Therefore, it is sufficient to generate load cases for the

stillwater condition, the maximum vertical wave hogging condition and the (absolute) maximum vertical wave sagging condition for one loading condition only.

Wave hogging and sagging conditions with lateral accelerations to port and starboard side are to be

derived for both loading conditions.

This leads to seven load cases needed to calculate the cumulative damage ratio caused by stowage of

crane jibs in vertically topped positions.

E.5.4

E.5.4.1

As MPVs generally are equipped for the carriage of containers, they have to also be designed

for such loading conditions. Racking load cases generally turn out to be the dominant ones; therefore, the

analysis of container load cases is only required for large MPVs on special demand of GL.

E.5.4.2

The load case selection for container ships is described in GL Guidelines for Global Strength

Analysis of Container Ships (V-1-1).

E.5.4.3

The load case selection is based on a large number of longitudinal strength calculations for

different sea conditions. These are varied in wave length and height, position of wave crest, roll angle and

angle of encounter. For each combination a full wave period has to be considered. It is recommended to

consider about 50 equidistant wave crest positions along the wave length

E.5.4.4

The statistical independence of wave amplitude and additional roll angle is assumed, according to following interaction formula:

A ( =0 )

2

+

= 1, 0

max

A(=0)

max

: wave amplitude

This requirement leads to the wave amplitude / roll angle combinations given in Table 2.9.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 223

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

E.5.4.5

The maximum roll angle max in deg. for a probability level of Q = 106 can be derived by the

following approximation:

max =

2160

f (GM 0 )

B + 60

f(GM0)

GMdyn

: GM0 + 0,01 B

[m]

GMmin

: B2/(8 Lpp)

[m]

E.5.4.6

Relevant combinations of wave parameters for symmetric container ships are documented in

GL Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Container Ships (V-1-1), Section 2, Table 2.6. These combinations consider wave directions from one ship side only, leading to 9500 wave situations for one loading condition to be analysed.

E.5.4.7

For MPVs the assumption of symmetry is generally not applicable. Therefore, wave directions

from both sides have to be considered. This increases the number of combinations to 16500 wave situations according to Table 2.9 .

E.5.4.8

For the FE analysis, load cases are to be selected by evaluating sectional forces and moments and transverse accelerations of hatch cover loads. They are to be chosen in a way to obtain

maximum stress values as well as stress ranges for a fatigue analysis.

E.5.4.9

In general, for one loading condition about 20 load cases are to be selected.

E.5.5

E.5.5.1

High stresses, especially in the bottom structure, can be expected for block load cases. Therefore, load cases for the stillwater condition and the conditions causing maximum wave hogging and sagging moments are to be generated.

E.5.5.2

For two to three loading conditions, this results in six to nine load cases.

E.5.6

Consideration of slamming loads is crucial for MPVs with excessive bow flare and stern overhang. Since

direct calculation of slamming loads is extensive and time consuming, GL require the generation of load

cases from rule-based slamming pressures, pe. The concept used to obtain balanced load cases comprises the following steps:

Consider static loads that represent the loading condition Max SWBM. No hydrostatic loads are applied to elements where slamming pressures are at least as large as the static pressure.

Pressures pe on shell elements are computed from GL Hull Structures (I-1-1), Section 4, B.3 or B.4,

for bow areas and stern areas, respectively.

Pressures pe on bow and stern areas are applied in a way that, in combination with hydrostatic and

weight loads, the resulting vertical bending moment (incl. stillwater loads) does not exceed the rule

wave sagging bending moment (without stillwater loads). This restriction is imposed between 10 and

90 percent of the ships length.

For this purpose, bow and stern areas are divided into several vertical areas. Load cases are generated by adding slamming loads, area by area, until the required vertical bending moment is reached.

If necessary, the slamming pressure on the last added area is scaled by a factor less than one, so

that the resulting vertical bending moment does not exceed the rule bending moment.

In this way, several load cases are generated until at each vertical position above the ballast waterline the pressure pe is applied.

Each slamming load case results from the combination of pressures pe, hydrostatic loads, and weight

loads. These loads are balanced by adjusting the acceleration factors of weight loads.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 224

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Section 2

This procedure represents the slamming condition for global strength analyses in a simple but realistic

way and enables dimensioning of fore and aft ship areas. The evaluation is limited to permissible stresses

and buckling strength only. Fatigue criteria are ignored for slamming load cases.

Table 2.9

Additional roll

angle

Wave amplitude

A

Angle of

encounter

0, 180

0 deg.

50 % max

87 % max or max

100 %

87 %

50 % or 25 %

210, 330 240, 300

0, 180

210, 330 240, 300

Wave length /

ship length

0.35

4 50

8 50

8 50

0.40

4 50

8 50

8 50

0.45

4 50

8 50

8 50

0.50

4 50

4 50

8 50

8 50

8 50

8 50

0.55

4 50

4 50

8 50

8 50

8 50

8 50

0.60

4 50

4 50

8 50

8 50

8 50

8 50

0.65

4 50

4 50

8 50

8 50

8 50

8 50

0.70

4 50

8 50

8 50

0.80

2 50

4 50

4 50

8 50

4 50

8 50

0.90

2 50

4 50

4 50

8 50

4 50

8 50

1.00

2 50

4 50

4 50

1.10

2 50

4 50

4 50

1.20

2 50

4 50

4 50

Analysed wave

situations

500

1400

1400

1000

2800

2800

1000

2800

2800

Model Check

The FE model shall be checked systematically for the following possible errors:

fixed nodes

nodes without stiffness

intermediate nodes on element edges not connected to the element

trusses or beams crossing shells

double elements

extreme element shapes (element edge aspect ratio and warped elements)

Additionally, verification of the correct material and geometric description of all elements is required. Also,

moments of inertia, section moduli and neutral axes of the complete cross sections shall be checked.

For each load case, the sum of forces and reaction forces of boundary elements shall be negligibly small.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 225

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

To check boundary conditions and detect weak areas as well as singular subsystems, a test calculation

run is to be performed. The model should be loaded with a unit force at all nodes for each coordinate

direction. This will result in three load cases one for each direction. The calculated results have to be

checked against maximum deformations in all directions. This test helps to find areas of improper connections between adjacent elements or gaps between elements. Substructures can be detected as well.

All checks performed shall be documented. For instance, thickness plots of all web frames, longitudinal

girder sections, decks and the bottom and side shell have to be printed out, as shown in Fig. 2.24.

Evaluation

G.1

Deformations

G.1.1

Essential characteristics of MPVs, such as large deck openings, long cargo holds, etc., generally give rise

to large deformations under harbour conditions as well as under sea conditions, primarily caused by torsional and transverse loads. These deformations have to be limited to assure a safe working ship structure.

In particular, severe racking load cases may cause large inward and outward deflections, which make it

impossible to design safe working hatch covers without resorting to modifications. An established modification measure is the arrangement of deflection limiters to ensure that predetermined maximum inward

and outward deflections are not exceeded.

The clearance of these deflection limiters shall be large enough to allow hatch cover operations under all

harbour conditions. During heavy lift operations, however, this requirement may be disregarded. In those

cases, deformations may exceed stopper clearances and hatch covers then transfer the loads. Certainly,

under such conditions the hatch covers cannot be moved.

G.1.2

calculate maximum inward and outward coaming deflections under harbour conditions and determine clearances for deflection limiters

calculate inward and outward deflections for crane load cases

calculate inward and outward deflections for seagoing load cases

evaluate coaming deflections and specify number and arrangement of deflection limiters

calculate stopper forces at deflection limiters by solving nonlinear contact problems and determine

maximum design stopper forces

evaluate final deformations affected by deflection limiters, determine hatch cover movements on top

of coaming and relative displacements between hatch covers and obtain maximum design movements and displacements

G.1.3

G.1.3.1

The magnitude of harbour deformations is an important indicator for the appropriateness of the

main characteristics of the design. Relevant particulars, besides the length of cargo hold, are the following:

breadth of ship, width of cargo hold and size of double hull

double bottom height

draught

height of coaming stays

G.1.3.2

Inward and outward deflections under harbour load conditions predominantly result from

transverse strength, i.e., double bottom deformations in combination with the height of the coaming top.

The influence of the vertical hull bending deformation is minor.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 226

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

G.1.3.3

Generally, it is recommended to limit the sum of inward and outward deflections to about 100

mm in total. If the hatch cover manufacturer assures properly working hatch covers also for larger deflections, larger values can be approved.

Figures 2.13 to 2.15 show typical deformations of the coaming, main deck and cross sections for harbour

load cases. These figures show a torsional deformation which is mainly caused by the weights of heavy

lift cranes at the port side.

G.1.4

G.1.4.1

Crane load cases have to be evaluated for different operating conditions. Most unfavourable

conditions with maximum relative displacements between hatch covers and the top of the coaming appear if no hatch cover with a deflection limiter is in position. Displacements in general exceed values calculated for extreme harbour load cases and, therefore, have to be regarded for hatch cover designs. Furthermore, clearances of the deflection limiters are exceeded.

G.1.4.2

During heavy lift operations and completely closed hatch covers, high contact forces at the

deflection limiters have to be expected. Forces are greatest when only one hatch cover limits the inward

and outward deflections. This especially applies to hatch covers with stoppers at positions directly opposite the cranes. Crane load cases are often decisive to determine maximum design contact forces acting

at deflection limiters.

Fig. 2.13

Fig. 2.14

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 227

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Fig. 2.15

Figures 2.16 and 2.17 show global deformations of the hull for crane load cases with jib outreaches to

port side and with jib outreaches in transverse direction to CL, respectively. It is obvious that the deformation not only affects the crane column area, but also the whole length of the cargo hold.

Deformation plots of the main deck are given in Figs. A7 and A8. It is assumed here that the deflection

limiters are not active, i.e., the inward and outward movements are not limited. A comparison of deformations for extreme harbour load cases (Figs. 2.13, 2.14) and crane load cases (Figs. A7, A8) shows that

deformations for crane load cases are considerably larger.

Figures A9 and A10 show deformations for completely closed hatch covers. In these figures the inward

and outward deflections at the coaming top are limited by the arrangement of four deflection limiters.

Stopper forces at the deflection limiters are to be calculated by solving a nonlinear contact problem. This

ensures that the clearances of deflection limiters are maintained. Compared to Figs. 2.18 and 2.19, considerably smaller deformations are shown. It can be detected that, depending on the load situation, the

starboard coaming is pulled inwards or pressed outwards by the individual stopper forces, see Figs. 2.20

and 2.21.

Figures A11 and A12 show deformations for the case where only one hatch cover is in position at the top

of the coamig. Here, the inward and outward deflections are limited only by one deflection limiter. Generally, under such conditions the contact forces are maximal.

Fig. 2.16

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 228

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Fig. 2.17

G.1.5

All seagoing load cases have to be evaluated for deformations and stopper forces. Furthermore, maximum design forces and displacements have to be determined.

Figures 2.18 and 2.19 show global deformations under loading conditions with high hatch cover loads. The

outward deformations for a roll angle to port side increase under wave trough conditions, while the inward

deformations for a roll angle to starboard increase under wave crest conditions. Figure 2.184 shows the

former and Fig. 2.19 the latter situation.

Deformations of the main deck, without considering deflection limiters, are given in Figs. A13 and A14.

Compared to deformations for crane load cases, see Figs. A7 and A8, deformations for a roll angle to port

side are of same magnitude. For a roll angle to starboard, however, global deformations are larger because of the additional deformation at the starboard side.

Figures A15 and A16 show deformations for four active deflection limiters. Especially for a roll angle to

starboard, large stopper forces were determined, resulting in considerably smaller inward deflections.

Note

Typically, on the ship crane side hatch covers are fixed in the transverse direction.

Fig. 2.18

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 229

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Section 2

Fig. 2.19

G.2

Stresses

ReH [N/mm2]

235

1.00

315

0.78

355

0.72

390

0.66

G.2.1

Stresses of all load cases are to be assessed on the basis of the permissible nominal stress

limits for normal, shear and equivalent stresses as follows:

normal stress / principal stress

175/k [N/mm2]

shear stress

110/k [N/mm2]

equivalent stress

190/k [N/mm2]

These values are valid for the evaluation of membrane stresses.

G.2.2

The large number of load cases to be evaluated, see D, requires a procedure to assess not

only maximum stresses, but also the kind of load bearing behaviour of the structure.

To visualize the force flow, principal stresses and the corresponding deformations should be plotted.

G.2.3

For each element of all primary structural components, stress plots shall document maximum

stresses.

The stress documentation has to contain information regarding the described structure, the load case, the

stress representation and the stress scale.

Some examples of stress plots are given below.

A two-dimensional stress plot, using a colour representation of equivalent stresses, is shown in Fig. 2.20.

This kind of plot is well suited to document many elements in large area components.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 230

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Figure 2.21 shows the corresponding stress representation of the equivalent stresses using plot symbols.

The magnitude of the stresses defines the size of the symbols.

Figures 2.22 and 2.23 show sample plots of principal stresses in plane stress elements and normal

stresses in trusses. Here, maximum stresses are given for crane loads with jib outreach to CL. The bearing behaviour of the longitudinal bulkhead beneath the crane column and the cross section in the fore part

of the cargo hold can clearly be recognized by the principal stress representation.

Beside the stress documentation by plots, stresses of highly utilized areas should be presented in tables.

Fig. 2.20

Fig. 2.21

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 231

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Fig. 2.22

Fig. 2.23

Stress plot, transverse web plate, principal stresses using symbol representation

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 232

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

G.3

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Buckling strength

Buckling strength is checked for compliance with GL Rules for Hull Structures (I-1-1), Section 3, D with a

safety factor of S = 1.1.

Biaxial element stresses of the FE model contain the Poisson effect, and stress values are modified according to the specifications in GL Rules for Hull Structures (I-1-1), Section 3, D.2.

G.4

Fatigue

The global analysis already allows considering fatigue aspects. In such a simplified fatigue analysis, the

shape of the stress spectrum, the number of load cycles and other fatigue parameters are based on assumptions according to GL Rules for Hull Structures (I-1-1), Section 20.

G.4.1

If only seaway-induced stresses are considered, normally the straight line spectrum (standard

stress range spectrum A) is to be assumed. For a design lifetime of about 20 years, a number of cycles

nmax = 5 107 can be taken.

To assess crane load cases, a parabolic spectrum (standard stress range spectrum B, according to GL

Rules for Hull Structures (I-1-1), Section 20, has to be applied. For heavy lift operations, generally 105

load cycles can be assumed. If more detailed data are specified, they have to be used.

G.4.2

Local models

It is required to carry out fine mesh analyses using local FE models for, e.g., hatch corners and transition

areas between crane columns and the ship structure. These models shall extend at least two web spaces

aft and forward of the considered detail in the longitudinal direction and corresponding lengths in transverse and vertical directions.

The requirements for calculation models for welded joints and plate edges are given in GL Guidelines for

Fatigue Strength Analyses of Ship Structures (V-1-2).

Documentation

H.1

Structure of report

The global strength analysis has to be documented in a report. In general the report shall be structured as

follows:

Scope of investigation

General

Ship specifications

Cargo arrangement

Considered drawings

Loading conditions

Load cases

Crane loads

Results

Global deformations

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 233

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Permissible stresses

Stress plots

Summary

H.2

Content of report

In addition to the text, the report shall also provide the following information as figures and tables:

H.2.1

A general arrangement plan together with a list of relevant drawings, including dates and versions, shall

be provided as well as a frame table and a list of element groups.

H.2.2

It is recommended that three-dimensional overview plots of the FE model be included. Colour plots of

plate thickness and/or material yield strength provide added clarity.

H.2.3

H.2.3.1

plate thickness [mm] for plane stress and shell elements

cross sectional area [cm2] for trusses

cross section number for beams

Cross sectional properties of beams have to be summarised in a separate table.

H.2.3.2

Using an element "shrink" option, truss and plane stress elements can be separated. Depending on mesh fineness, it might be necessary to present two figures, showing plate thicknesses and truss

sectional areas, respectively.

H.2.3.3

H.2.3.4

The dimensions proposed for documentation may differ from those recommended for the preferred units. This may be caused by an internal data conversion. Units have to be indicated on plots that

have common geometric dimensions.

H.2.4

Mass distribution

Mass distributions of the lightship weight and the analysed loading conditions have to be documented.

Weight and centre of gravity of each weight group shall be listed in tables. Additionally, in-hold and ondeck cargo shall be separately documented.

H.2.5

All selected load cases for the FE analysis have to be documented. Wave parameters considered and

maximum sectional forces and moments are to be listed in a table (Fig. 2.25).

H.2.6

Bending and torsional moments shall meet design values and are to be documented with envelope

curves. Figure 2.26 shows the envelope curve for the torsional moment of all selected load cases.

H.2.7

For each selected load case, the distribution of the sectional forces and moments over the ship length

shall be documented as in Fig. 2.27.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 234

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

H.2.8

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Global deformation

To obtain an impression of the global deformation behaviour, overall deformations for every selected load

case are to be documented in two-dimensional and three-dimensional views (Appendix A).

H.2.9

H.2.10

One important result of the global strength analysis is the determination of the deformed hatch diagonal

dimension and the determination of the hatch cover movements relative to the hatch coaming and relative

to the adjacent hatch covers.

H.2.11

H.2.12

Stress plots

Figure 2.28 shows a sample stress plot. The maximum stress of all load cases for each element shall be

documented.

H.2.13

Buckling results

H.2.14

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 235

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Fig. 2.24

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Two-dimensional views of the FE model: two plots of the same bulkhead section showing plate thickness of plane stress elements [mm] and, separately, cross sectional area

of truss elements [cm2] attached to this bulkhead

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 236

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Torsion

Hor.Bend.

Vert.Bend.

8.52

8.49 20.0

No. Wampl Wadyn

[m]

[m]

1 0.000

0.000

2 4.584

4.584

3 4.584

3.666

4 4.255

4.230

5 3.638

3.472

6 3.230

2.963

7 4.255

3.760

8 3.688

3.649

9 3.512

3.348

10 3.527

3.511

11 3.378

3.064

12 3.527

3.376

13 1.819

1.817

14 1.688

1.625

15 2.128

2.106

16 1.757

1.600

17 1.688

1.681

18 2.213

2.207

Wl/L

[-]

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.80

0.50

0.35

0.80

0.80

0.45

0.70

0.40

0.70

0.50

0.40

0.80

0.45

0.40

0.90

AoE

[]

0

180

180

150

120

120

30

150

120

30

120

120

150

120

150

120

60

0

X-wave

[m]

0.00

91.55

8.98

101.50

120.27

51.34

141.30

104.82

120.63

82.84

48.47

119.19

87.40

117.40

104.82

49.54

82.93

85.09

heel

[]

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10.4

10.4

10.4

-10.4

-10.4

18.1

18.1

18.1

-18.1

-18.1

-18.1

Fig. 2.25

H-Shear V-Shear

[kN]

[kN]

5

16479

6

26482

6

-9132

-1863

24507

4145

19721

-4621

12295

-1885

7971

5668

22132

7376

19025

-5919

17565

-5992

12529

-1144

20165

5552

15777

6895

15858

6663

17656

-5708

13365

-4572

13958

-5502

16659

Torsion %Ru

[kN/m]

-191

0

-136

0

-275

0

36846 20

84925 46

-88913 48

-45472 25

-89564 48

117298 63

-136926 74

-98712 53

52096 28

-100950 55

-130200 70

-124342 67

115211 62

92597 50

121488 66

Rule

Rule

Rule

184982

448990

654001 hogg

768630 sagg

Hor.Bend. %Ru

[kN/m]

101

0

120

0

105

0

70811

16

192761

43

-208923

47

-78358

17

240880

54

344648

77

274503

61

-286489

64

-43235

10

215425

48

306974

68

276217

62

-241177

54

-166359

37

-235292

52

Vert.Bend. %Ru

[kN/m]

564628

0

1059009 76

-13884 -75

990552 65

735538 26

369854 -25

212441 -46

884004 49

712609 23

693411 20

376767 -24

756979 29

538338

-3

561922

0

660211 15

420699 -19

495283

-9

622941

9

1500000

Design Values MSW + MWT

1000000

500000

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

-500000

-1000000

-1500000

x/L

Fig. 2.26

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 237

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Section 2

Fig. 2.27

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 238

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Principal stress

Fig. 2.28

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 239

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Appendix A

Fig. A1

Fig. A2

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 240

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Fig. A3

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 241

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Fig. A4

Fig. A5

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 242

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Fig. A6

Fig.A7

Fig. A8

Fig. A9

Crane jib to port side, completely closed weather deck hatch covers

Fig. A10

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 243

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Fig. A11

Crane jib to port side, only one hatch cover in position at top of coaming

Fig. A12

Crane jib to CL, only one hatch cover in position at top of coaming

Fig. A13

Racking load case, roll angle to port side, inactive deflection limiters

Fig. A14

Fig. A15

Edition 2013

Racking load case, roll angle to port side, active deflection limiters

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 244

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 2

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Fig. A16

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 245

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 3

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

Section 3

A

B

C

D

Tween Deck Load Cases............................................................................................ 3-1

Crane Load Cases with Jib in Corner Position ........................................................... 3-1

Grain Bulkhead Load Cases ....................................................................................... 3-2

General

The scope of a standard global strength analysis of an MPV as described above can be extended by

considering additional load cases and evaluation procedures. Requirements and details of an extended

analysis shall be agreed upon between the involved parties.

The scope and extent of meaningful additional investigations and evaluation procedures depend on individual project objectives and design characteristics.

Appropriate load cases may be generated to assess the strength of highly loaded tween deck covers

(covers loaded in excess of 5 t/m2) located either in middle or low positions inside the hold. The primary

objective is to investigate, first, the overall strength of tween deck covers and, second, the buckling

strength of the lower part of the longitudinal bulkhead and the supporting web frames in way of the tween

deck cover bearings.

Generally, it may be sufficient to analyse only maximum wave hogging and wave sagging loading conditions (seagoing stillwater bending moments), whichever is more severe for the tween deck position. Usually, two to four tween deck covers in middle as well as in low position shall be modelled as the basis for

the corresponding load cases. These tween deck covers loaded with their maximum loads shall be located at a position where high global hull girder shear forces occur. Suitable auxiliary systems representing the loaded tween deck covers and the corresponding bearing system at their correct locations have to

be modelled to ensure a realistic loading idealisation.

Based on these loading conditions, load cases for the upright floating position shall be generated, covering maximum (absolute) values of wave hogging and wave sagging bending moments. In addition, roll

load cases with maximum heel to starboard and port side shall be set up for the wave hogging and wave

sagging conditions.

If the analysis is restricted to modelling and investigating a length extending only over two to four selected

tween deck covers, the results shall be extrapolated for an assessment over the entire cargo hold length.

To comprehensively assess the fore and aft end walls of crane columns, additional crane load cases can

be generated with the jib in a position directed towards the corners of the crane column. In this context,

assessing the crane column itself is excluded from the standard scope of a global strength analysis of an

MPV.

Generally, these additional crane load cases (and loading conditions) are derived from standard crane

load cases described in GL Rules for Loading Gear on Seagoing Ships and Offshore Installations (VI-2-2)

by modifying the jib directions from inward / outward to the corresponding positions directed towards the

inward / outward corners of the crane column. Therefore, maximum hogging (at T and 0.7T) as well as

maximum sagging (at T) loading conditions will be covered.

These additional crane load cases are primarily assessed for strength and fatigue. A fatigue assessment

is focused on the corner of the crane column as well as on the transition structure between crane column

and hull. Normally, buckling is of secondary interest. This kind of analysis does not replace the strength

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 31

Rules

Part

Chapter

V

1

4

Section 3

Hull Structural Design Analyses

Guidelines for Global Strength Analysis of Multipurpose Vessels

proof of the crane column according GL rules for lifting devices GL Rules for Loading Gear on Seagoing

Ships and Offshore Installations (VI-2-2), which is part of the approval process.

To investigate and assess the hull structure surrounding the grain bulkhead bearings, special grain bulkhead loading conditions have to be generated, representing alternate loadings at grain bulkheads. Maximum wave hogging and maximum wave sagging loading conditions shall be set up.

For these loading conditions, appropriate load cases shall be generated, covering wave hogging and

wave sagging conditions for head and stern seas as well as for oblique seas.

Suitable auxiliary systems representing the grain bulkheads and the corresponding bearing system at

their locations have to be modelled to ensure a realistic loading idealisation.

The evaluation is focussed on the strength and buckling assessment of the hull structure surrounding the

grain bulkhead bearings, i.e., on the longitudinal bulkhead and web frames. Grain bulkheads themselves

are normally excluded from this kind of assessment.

Edition 2013

Germanischer Lloyd

Page 32

- EccentricDiunggah olehChypra
- Design of Plate Girder BridgeDiunggah olehvijayunity
- Beam-Column Base Plate DesignDiunggah olehthegerman34
- Kanvinde - Shear Transfer in Exposed Column Base PlatesDiunggah olehksuscribdacct
- Structural Glass Design-UBCDiunggah olehmsiddiq1
- BC1-01SingleBoxDiunggah olehanto_todang
- Aisc Asd-89 Example 001Diunggah olehAnitha Hassan Kabeer
- Single BoxDiunggah olehbaptiskeren
- Egyptian Code of PracticeDiunggah olehyhsza
- Guidelines for Design of Advanced Double Hull VesselsDiunggah olehwildfire142
- BC1-01SingleBoxDiunggah olehkinarum88
- Design Project for Advanced Mechanics of MaterialsDiunggah olehdeathjester1
- DNVGL-CG-0041.pdfDiunggah olehsfsd
- MOM-II---Module-1Diunggah olehWolf Lord
- 1-s2.0-S0141029615000802-main.pdfDiunggah olehAboalmaali
- Discussion and ConclusionDiunggah olehMuse Sick
- Ketron® Peek HPV - Ficha TécnicaDiunggah olehDerson Oliveira
- 5.Designfor CISC94Diunggah olehAku Palsu
- Spile Bar DeflectionDiunggah olehIsaac Kendall
- Strength of material; an elementary study prepared for the use of midshipmen at the U. S. Naval Academy (1909)Diunggah olehTaliaNara
- V3I5-IJERTV3IS052188Diunggah olehChee Fong Make
- gl_v-1-2_eDiunggah olehElakpa Adah Augustine
- IRJET-V3I7146.pdfDiunggah olehatulnarkhede2002
- QUESTION PAPER ON DESIGNDiunggah olehJawed Shaikh
- ForceDiunggah olehCarl Ambrosio
- 1-s2.0-S095006181000365X-mainDiunggah olehftonelli86
- 1gdgfgfgsrgeeeeetynDiunggah olehbob8c5
- Section 1911A Anchorage to Concrete-Alloable Stress DesignDiunggah oleh최문혁
- Collapse Mechanisms of Sandwich Beams With Composite FacesDiunggah olehHeungSoap Choi
- Welding Line Analsys SampleDiunggah olehmetroroad

- XLCT_Manual.pdfDiunggah olehVianey Zavala
- Vent Guide Dec2016Diunggah olehDomin Yuan
- 3g Kpi Formula Alu EricssonDiunggah olehanupwadhwani
- Troubleshooting GuideDiunggah olehKannan
- ASTM A 146 – 04Diunggah olehEr Widodo
- dryflex-antimicrobial-tpeDiunggah olehgb-sarin
- A3WE Revision 19 BOEINGDiunggah olehluis alfredo cortina
- Antorchas BINZEL AlphaDiunggah olehBrian Hernandez
- IMDS Instructions - CTT v3Diunggah olehPurushothama Nanje Gowda
- QUBYX Announces Partnership With DIVADiunggah olehDavid Johnson
- FBSY0712enenUS.pdfDiunggah olehPaul
- ParralarDiunggah olehangel
- COTS X7R.pdfDiunggah olehdovesnest_in
- F7214 GPS+CDMA IP MODEMDiunggah olehmandyfourfaith
- 129687443-162xLM-20-OH-ENG-ED03.pdfDiunggah olehMehdi Zebdi
- WDM Sytem Troubleshooting ISSUE1.3Diunggah olehSeifEldinADel
- EN 10327_noPWDiunggah olehDragana Vojnovic
- usb rel16xc data lowres 2Diunggah olehapi-170472102
- External Loads on Nozzles and Piping Intersections Paulin Webinar Part 2 W044Rev1[1]Diunggah olehNabil Al-Khirdaji
- Competitive FactorsDiunggah olehyusnifarina
- Detroit Diesel 12V92SEK.pdfDiunggah olehMargaret Daugherty
- VOL IIDiunggah olehAlbert
- Free PDF to Word Converter From Smartsoft PortableDiunggah olehBrandon
- IPv6: compare Cisco NAT-PT vs NAT64. With configuration examples and DNS64.Diunggah olehGianrico Fichera
- Thesis Final ReportDiunggah olehkishor pratap singh
- SL40 CommDiunggah olehxwe7
- Section 09-97-00 Water Storage Tank PaintingDiunggah olehAnonymous 1GK9Hxp5YK
- Optimal control short courseDiunggah olehIvan Broggi
- Chossing a FlowmeterDiunggah olehRispiandi Bin Pia
- LogDiunggah olehDeepak R Gorad