Aucun titre de diapositive*
2 CLASSIFICATION SOCIETY
Owner/ Class Approval
Accommodation Plan
Production Design
Lines, Propeller
General Arrangement
Trim & Stability
Loading, etc.
Construction Profile & Deck Plan
Stern Frame/ Accommodation
Structural Analysis : Static Analysis –Coarse Mesh/ Fine Mesh
Fatigue Analysis
Sloshing Analysis
DESIGN STAGE
Hull Design
Basic Design
Mooring, Anchoring, Steering
Small Equipment
Machinery Arrangement, M/E,
Generator, Boiler, Compressor
Small Equipment
Hull Outfitting Design
GENERAL PROCEDURE OF SHIPBUILDING
DTM : Dept. of Technical Marine
Field surveyor
Design review can start before RFC signed
( TAKE CARE - CONTRACT DEFINITION )
Completed when Ad 523 + annexes are examined and signed
( technical green light given to Condition Monitoring – CM for Class certificate )
GENERAL PROCEDURE OF SHIPBUILDING
Referential : BV Rules / IMO Reg.
LPO Interpretations :
- not allowed for IMO Reg.
Rules : technical interpretations / protect interest of Owner ( final CLIENT )
High technical knowledge frequently requested as Clients may be less educated / powerfull than BV
Great risk of uncontrolled move from design review activity to Consultancy activity
GENERAL PROCEDURE OF SHIPBUILDING
Rules : technical interpretations / protect interest of Owner
Technical support of CMs / Station surveys
Several LPOs may be concerned
Technical documentation processing
( drawings + calculation sheets )
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Different from Class design review : BV acts as designer in scope of Consultancy
Technical expertise and knowledge is ( must be ) sold to Client
Highly profitable
- pressure from management
ALWAYS BE CLEAR ABOUT THE CAP YOU WEAR / THE FORMAT OF COMMENTS YOU ARE ALLOWED TO GIVE
GENERAL PROCEDURE OF SHIPBUILDING
BV : Bureau Veritas
LR : Lloyd Register
GENERAL PROCEDURE OF SHIPBUILDING
REQUIREMENTS
2 Bureau Veritas References in Large Container Vessels
BV Hull Expertise
GENERAL PROCEDURE OF SHIPBUILDING
The size range for the largest containerships is expected to increase significantly in the near future as economies of scale remains the dominant operational factor driving efficient transport.
The Largest containerships currently in service are in the 7000-8000 TEU range. Many leading shipyard have developed designs for vessels with additional containers rows, tiers and holds. Increase main dimension and capacity up to 9000/10000 TEU.
In the future the carrying capacity of containerships is expected to increase to 12000 TEU and above
1
GENERAL
1
GENERAL
1613
1756
1916
2101
2371
2684
3048
3553
4032
4335
4799
5311
5968
6529
7176
Sheet1
1980
38794
1990
87901
1998
190456
1998
190456
1999
209944
1999
209944
9.3%
2000
235571
2000
235571
10.9%
2001
247364
2001
247364
4.8%
2002
275850
2002
275850
10.3%
2003
316967
2003
316967
13.0%
2004
359361
2004
359361
11.8%
2005
399558
2005
399558
10.1%
2006
433389
2006
433389
7.8%
2007
464481
2007
464481
6.7%
2008
495170
2008
495170
6.2%
2009
527893
2009
527893
6.2%
1980
38794
1980
38794
1981
43705
12.7%
8.52%
1981
42101
1982
48615
11.2%
8.52%
1982
45689
1983
53526
10.1%
8.52%
1983
49583
1984
58437
9.2%
8.52%
1984
53809
1985
63348
8.4%
8.52%
1985
58396
1986
68258
7.8%
8.52%
1986
63373
1987
73169
7.2%
8.52%
1987
68774
1988
78080
6.7%
8.52%
1988
74636
1989
82990
6.3%
8.52%
1989
80997
1990
87901
5.9%
8.52%
1990
87901
1991
100720
14.6%
10.15%
1991
96821
1992
113540
12.7%
10.15%
1992
106646
1993
126359
11.3%
10.15%
1993
117468
1994
139179
10.1%
10.15%
1994
129388
1995
151998
9.2%
10.15%
1995
142518
1996
164817
8.4%
10.15%
1996
156980
1997
177637
7.8%
10.15%
1997
172910
1998
190456
7.2%
10.15%
1998
190456
1999
209944
10.2%
1999
209944
2000
235571
12.2%
2000
235571
2001
247364
5.0%
2001
247364
2002
275850
11.5%
2002
275850
2003
316967
14.9%
2003
316967
2004
359361
13.4%
2004
359361
2005
399558
11.2%
2005
399558
2006
433389
8.5%
2006
433389
2007
464481
7.2%
2007
464481
2008
495170
6.6%
2008
495170
2009
527893
6.6%
2009
527893
1980
955
1985
1016
1990
1335
1991
1362
1992
1393
1993
1425
1994
1461
1995
1494
1996
1539
1997
1593
1998
1646
TEU
L
B
T
1999
1745
Sheet2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sheet3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
1
GENERAL
141
200
168
64
136
88
56
21
148
Sheet1
1980
38794
1990
87901
1998
190456
1998
190456
1999
209944
1999
209944
9.3%
2000
235571
2000
235571
10.9%
2001
247364
2001
247364
4.8%
2002
275850
2002
275850
10.3%
2003
316967
2003
316967
13.0%
2004
359361
2004
359361
11.8%
2005
399558
2005
399558
10.1%
2006
433389
2006
433389
7.8%
2007
464481
2007
464481
6.7%
2008
495170
2008
495170
6.2%
2009
527893
2009
527893
6.2%
1980
38794
1980
38794
1981
43705
12.7%
8.52%
1981
42101
1982
48615
11.2%
8.52%
1982
45689
1983
53526
10.1%
8.52%
1983
49583
1984
58437
9.2%
8.52%
1984
53809
1985
63348
8.4%
8.52%
1985
58396
1986
68258
7.8%
8.52%
1986
63373
1987
73169
7.2%
8.52%
1987
68774
1988
78080
6.7%
8.52%
1988
74636
1989
82990
6.3%
8.52%
1989
80997
1990
87901
5.9%
8.52%
1990
87901
1991
100720
14.6%
10.15%
1991
96821
1992
113540
12.7%
10.15%
1992
106646
1993
126359
11.3%
10.15%
1993
117468
1994
139179
10.1%
10.15%
1994
129388
1995
151998
9.2%
10.15%
1995
142518
1996
164817
8.4%
10.15%
1996
156980
1997
177637
7.8%
10.15%
1997
172910
1998
190456
7.2%
10.15%
1998
190456
1999
209944
10.2%
1999
209944
2000
235571
12.2%
2000
235571
2001
247364
5.0%
2001
247364
2002
275850
11.5%
2002
275850
2003
316967
14.9%
2003
316967
2004
359361
13.4%
2004
359361
2005
399558
11.2%
2005
399558
2006
433389
8.5%
2006
433389
2007
464481
7.2%
2007
464481
2008
495170
6.6%
2008
495170
2009
527893
6.6%
2009
527893
1980
955
1985
1016
1990
1335
1991
1362
1992
1393
1993
1425
1994
1461
1995
1494
1996
1539
1997
1593
1998
1646
TEU
L
B
T
1999
1745
Sheet2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sheet3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Torsion/Warping stress
1x7,800 TEU containership for CMA CGM
10x5,100 TEU containerships for CMA CGM (under building)
2x5,100 TEU containerships for CMA CGM (under building at HSHI)
2x9,200 TEU containerships for CMA CGM (under building)
2x9,200 TEU containerships for CMA CGM (under building at HSHI)
2x8,200 TEU containerships for CMA CGM (under building)
2x8,200 TEU containerships for CMA CGM (under building at HSHI)
1x8,200 TEU containership for YANG MING LINE (under building)
DSME
2
2x4,300 TEU containerships for CMA CGM
3x6,500 TEU containerships for CMA CGM
SHI
CSBC
18x2,200 TEU containerships for WAN HAI LINES, DELMAS, CMA CGM, YANG MING LINE
IMABARI
2
Breadth 42,8 m
Draught, summer 14,5 m
Speed 24,25 kn
Power 68656 kW
Key elements: Between half December and the end of March the complete structure has been reviewed. This was only possible in close cooperation with the Shipyard. Several meetings at the shipyard site, exchanging information and calculation results and discussing the findings, have taken place. Two offices of Bureau Veritas, Korea and Paris, have been working around the clock in order to make the deadlines of the shipyard.
2
Hatch coamings /
Superstructures connection
GENERAL PROCEDURE OF SHIPBUILDING
*
Mid-ship section : Longitudinal strength and local rule scantlings
All sections : Longitudinal strength and local rules scantlings
Torsion model : Warping stress estimation all along the vessel (to be included in the global stress)
Key drawings: primary members calculation (local + global stress)
Detail drawings / reinforcement : bracket reinforcement under stack...
Bow impact and flat forward bottom area
Other calculations: Loading manual strength analysis, Lashing...
IN PARALLEL TO DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
FEM (VeriSTAR) calculations: double check for design review
Fatigue Analysis with Mars/VeriSTAR
Modelisation of
3
VeriSTAR is use for
- Buckling analysis (coarse mesh)
- Yielding analysis (fine mesh)
BV HULL EXPERTISE
σX1 = γs1σs1 + γw1(Cfvσwv1+Cfhσwh1 + CfσΩ )
3
50% Vertical Bending moment
Quartering sea: Maximize static , vertical bending (50%), horizontal bending (100%) and torsion (100%)
BV HULL EXPERTISE
Coarse mesh modelling : full ship
Definition of ballast areas and container loading points
Static calculation with lightship weight: loading conditions
lightship (checking case)
Wave Load calculations: load cases
based on selection of design waves (table 5)
Head Sea (longitudinal strength)
Beam Sea (transverse strength)
Quartering sea (torsion strength)
Hatch corners, cross deck, connection superstructure,connection girders...
6
Maximum Wave Torque at vicinity of 0.25L (aft part)
Maximum Wave Torque at mid-ship
Maximum Wave Torque at vicinity of 0.75L (fore part)
Maximum vertical acceleration in inclined conditions
Maximum vertical acceleration in upright conditions
Maximum transverse acceleration
Ballast, full load
Buckling in bottom area
3
HATCH CORNERS
1st step : 2D Fatigue Analysis
2nd Step: 3D Fatigue Analysis
Fatigue calculations for Hatch corners
One Step: 3D Fatigue Analysis
3
BV HULL EXPERTISE
BV HULL EXPERTISE
compromise between:
- sufficient reinforcement
- smooth grinding
Hot spot edge of the corner
Especially fore part area due to high
torsional loads
compromise between:
- sufficient reinforcement
- smooth grinding
Hot spot edge of the corner
Smooth Grinding improves
BV HULL EXPERTISE
- Buckling in transverse frames
- Detail connections in forward area
VeriSTAR calculations with maximum vertical
acceleration and in sagging condition.
BV HULL EXPERTISE
SLAMMING/ BOW IMPACT
3
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004
0
50
100
150
200
250
<10001000-
2000
2000-
3000
3000-
4000
4000-
5000
5000-
6000
6000-
7000
7000-
8000
8000+
Blow
Blow
flare
flare
analysis
analysis