ME 4101 Bachelor of Engineering Dissertation

AM 3 0

Stress Analysis And Computer Simulation of Vessel Dry Docking

Jurong Shiipyard Ptte Lttd Jurong Sh pyard P e L d

Name

: Yeo Liangyi Gabriel

Supervisor : A/Prof Lim Kian Meng JSPL Supervisor : Mr Seow Tan Hong Snr Vice President (Engineering) SembCorp Marine

Summary This project was proposed by Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (JSPL) to do a study of the stresses involved and load distributions on a tanker when it is in the dry dock. The model of the tanker was being modeled using plate elements and analyzed using the finite element method with the MSC.FEA software. To simulate the static condition of the tanker in the dry dock, the restrain forces were applied at the keel block locations and the model loaded with pressure forces in lightship condition. Results of the analysis reviewed acceptable global structural

displacement as well as stresses. Modification of keel block positions concluded the importance of the keel block alignment at the keel of the tanker, supporting a large amount of weight of the tanker.

Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge and express earnest appreciation to A/Professor Lim Kian Meng, Mr Seow Tan Hong (Snr Vice President, Sembcorp Marine) and Mr Yap Chea Kim (Engineer, JSPL) for their advice, guidance and helpful discussions throughout the project.

ii

Table of Contents Page Summary Acknowledgements Table of contents Lists of Figures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Introduction Ship Terminology Objective Literature Review Finite Element Method Theory Methodology 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7. Structure Modeling Material Properties Coordinate System Plate Element vs Solid Model i ii iii v 1 2 2 3 5 7 7 12 13 13 16 16 17 19 19 24 29

Loading the Model 7.1 7.2 Lightship Loading Restrain Forces

8.

Results and Discussion 8.1 8.2 8.3 Lightship Condition Keel Blocks Concentrated at the Centre Keel Blocks Concentrated at the Side

iii

9. 10. 11.

Conclusion Recommendations References

31 32 33

iv

List of Figures

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21

Photo taken of a vessel in dry

Picture of keel blocks

Schematic illustration of a vessel

Ship directional terminologies

Illustration of finite element shapes

Schematic illustration of degrees of freedom

Longitudinal curves of tanker

Transverse curves of tanker Line model of tanker

Top view of line model modeled with plate elements

Bottom view of line model modeled with plate elements

Top view of model with double hull Sectional view of model with stiffeners (yellow curves) Cross sectional view of model with stiffeners Sectional view of longitudinal plates between hulls

Box model using plate elements

Displacement fringe of plate element model

Solid model of box

Displacement fringe of solid model

Lightship loading
Diagram illustrating restrain forces

List of Figures (continued)

Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29

Displacement fringe with idealized restrain case Displacement fringe of inner hull without plates Stress fringe of inner hull without plates Stress distribution of lightship condition Stress distribution of stiffeners in lightship condition Constrain forces in lightship condition Arrangement of keel blocks concentrated at the keel Displacement fringe when keel blocks were concentrated at the keel

Figure 30 Figure 31

Stress fringe when keel blocks were concentrated at the keel Stress distribution of stiffeners when keel blocks were concentrated at the keel

Figure 32

Constrain forces when keel blocks were concentrated at the keel

Figure 33 Figure 34

Arrangement of keel blocks concentrated at the side Displacement fringe when keel blocks were concentrated at the keel

vi

1.

Introduction This project was proposed by Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (JSPL) in June06 to do a study of the stresses involved and load distributions on a tanker when it is in the dry dock (Figure 1). At present, only simple calculations are made prior to a vessels dry docking in order to determine the positions of the keel blocks (Figure 2) to

Figure 1: Photo taken of a vessel in dry

support the weight of the vessel.

The actual

stresses acting on the vessels hull as well as on the dry dock are often unknown. Due to time and sheer size of modeling a tanker, JSPL has never attempted to analyze the global structure. Only sections of vessels are often modeled for analysis. This study on the stresses involved when the tanker is in the dry dock will thus be able to affirm the engineers estimation and prevent overloading on the vessel as well as the dry dock.
Figure 2 Picture of keel blocks

2.

Ship Terminology

Navigation bridge

Rudder

Propeller

Keel

Anchor

Bulbous bulb

Figure 3: Schematic illustration of a vessel

Stern / Aft Port Side

Starboard Side Forward

Figure 4: Ship directional terminologies

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the various parts of the vessel and its directional terminologies which will be used in this report.

3.

Objective

This project aims to analyze the stresses and displacements experienced by a tanker when it is in the dry dock.

4.

Literature Review

Guidelines for Tanker Structures by Nippon Kaiji Kyokai[1] (ship classification society) was reviewed as a reference for analysis of tanker structures. Nippon Kaiji Kyokai recommends that structural analysis be performed by the Finite Element Method (FEM) with the structural members replaced by structural models using plate elements. The extent of analysis is decided such that the actual stress conditions of the tanker can be reproduced by considering the arrangement of cargo oil and ballast tanks, the loading pattern and the arrangement of members near the bulkhead. Members in the model should consist of members to be evaluated and primary members within the extent of the analysis. Longitudinal stiffeners and watertight bulkhead stiffeners should also be included in the model as load transmitting members.

The size of the mesh should be appropriately selected, considering the stress condition in the model and the meshing of elements is to be performed rationally. Care should also be taken to avoid meshes with large aspect ratios. The standard size of the element in the stress evaluation part is decided by taking one side of the element as approximately equal to the spacing of the nearby stiffeners.

The next literature that was reviewed was Rules for Classification and Construction by Germanischer Lloyd[2], section 5: Analysis Techniques Guidelines for Strength Analyses of Ship Structures with the Finite Element Method. Lloyd categorized strength analysis in the following steps: Determination of the objective, type and extend of the analysis. Modeling of the structure and the boundary conditions. Determination and modeling of the loads. Execution of the analysis. Evaluation and assessment of the results.

In ship structures, the deformation and stresses can usually be subdivided into the following categories, depending on the structural conditions: Global deformations and stresses of the hull and the primary structural components. Local deformation and stresses of the primary and secondary components. Locally increased stresses at structural details and discontinuities.

Lloyd also mentioned that owing to the complexity of the ship structure, simplifications are generally necessary in the modeling, especially for global strength analysis. These simplifications are permissible, provided that the results are only impaired to a negligible extend. A common simplification is to neglect small secondary components or details such as the brackets at the frames and small cut-outs.

5.

Finite Element Method Theory

The finite element method is a way of analyzing a complex engineering problem by breaking it up into many smaller, simpler problems. In the case of structural analysis, the complex structure is broken up into many small pieces call finite elements. The elements are connected to each other at grid points or nodes. The assemblage of elements is called a finite element model.

The finite elements have shapes which are relatively easy to formulate and analyze: beams, plates and blocks (Figure 5). The stress and strain within each element is a function of the displacement of the grid points it is connected to.

Figure 5: Illustration of finite element shapes

The displacement of each grid point may be described by six independent degrees of freedom (Figure 6). A degree of freedom is defined as an independent

component of translation or rotation.

Figure 6: Schematic illustration of degrees of freedom

A continuous structure has theoretically an infinite number of degrees of freedom. The finite element method approximates the behavior of a continuous structure with a finite number of grid points. Finer mesh will result in better the

approximation of the characteristics and behavior of the structure. The Finite Element Method is thus capable of solving large, complex problems with general geometry, loading and boundary conditions.

Advantages of the finite element method: Model irregularly shaped bodies easily. Handles general loading conditions. Model bodies composed of several different materials. Handles unlimited number of boundary conditions. Elements can vary in size allowing use of small elements when necessary. Alter finite element model relatively easily and cheaply. Model many different types of physics. Handle non-linear behavior.

6.

Methodology

6.1

Structure Modeling

The tanker to be modeled for analysis is the 11-1056, 30 000 dead weight ton product tanker.

Figure 7: Longitudinal curves of tanker

Figure 8: Transverse curves of tanker

The curves of the tanker were first obtained from the ships drawing. Figures 7 and 8 show the longitudinal as well as the transverse curves. These lines were used to construct the many frames and bulkheads that are essential in the tanker. The frames were then connected to obtain a gross line model of the tanker as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Line model of tanker

As recommended by Kaiji Kyokai, the structural analysis of the tanker will be analyzed using FEM. The line model was thus imported into the MSC.FEA software. With MSC.FEA, plate elements were constructed from the line model to simulate the tankers structure. Comparison between modeling in plate

elements and solid modeling will be discussed in section 5.4.

Figures 10 and 11 show the line model of the tanker being modeled using plate elements.

Figure 10: Top view of line model modeled with plate elements

Figure 11: Bottom view of line model modeled with plate elements

In March 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez owned by the former Exxon Corporation hit Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled an estimated 11 to 30 million U.S. gallons (50,000 m to 150,000 m) of crude oil. This accident resulted in the U.S congress passing the Oil Polution Act in 1990 resulting in a mandate for tankers to have double hull design, providing an additional layer between the oil tanks and the ocean. For the model of the tanker to be realistic, all main structures have to be modeled and the double hull is essential in the global structural strength of the model. Therefore, as shown in Figure 12, the model was modelled with a double hull as well as the top deck.

Figure 12: Top view of model with double hull

The hull, double hull and the frames were meshed using the isomesh mesher with quad shaped elements for 90% of the model. However, due to the curvature of the model, several parts particularly at the forward and stern required meshing using tria shaped elements. The prevalent mesh size of the model measures 2 m by 2 m. Method of mesh on mesh was employed to vital areas, such as the areas of loadings and restrains with a mesh size of 1m by 1m. Mesh on mesh proved advantageous as it enables the global structure to maintain its mesh size while having a specified mesh size based on requirements at selected areas. These meshings are considered to be relatively fine as the models length is approximately 300 m. This will result in at least 150 elements through the models length.

Another important feature that is essential in the model is the stiffeners on the tanker. As the tanker is produced from 2 cm thick metal plates, it can easily deform along its longitudinal direction without the presence of stiffeners.

Figure 13: Sectional view of model with stiffeners (yellow curves)

10

Figure 13 shows a cross section of the model with yellow curves modeled on the hulls. These curves were modeled to be defined as stiffeners for the model. The curves were meshed using bar 2 topology and were defined as 1D beams.

Figure 14: Cross sectional view of model with stiffeners

Figure 14 shows a cross sectional view of the model with a 3D view of the curves being modeled as stiffeners.

The double hull posed as a difficulty when it comes to the analysis of the model as the outer hull will be seated on the keel blocks but the loads will be applied on the inner hull. Therefore, the plates connecting the inner hull and the outer hull are essential structures to be modeled to prevent excessive deformation of the inner hull as well as to effectively transmit the loads to the outer hull.

11

Figure 15: Sectional view of longitudinal plates between hulls

Figure 15 shows a cross sectional view of the model with the plates connecting the inner hull to the outer hull. The plates were also modeled using plate elements and meshed using isomesh with quad shaped element in order to match the meshing of the hulls to ensure that the forces will be effectively transmitted throughout the model.

6.2

Material Properties

A single material of steel was assumed for all components in the model. The linear elastic material model was employed. The material parameters are,

Youngs modulus = 200GPa, Poisson Ration = 0.3 and Density = 7.83103 kg/m3.

12

6.3

Co-ordinate System

Cartesian coordinate system was adopted in the Finite Element Modeling with configurations as follows. X-axis: Longitudinal, positive FWD Y-axis: Vertical, positive upwards Z-axis: Transverse, positive towards PORT side

6.4

Plate element vs Solid model

As mentioned, the model of the tanker was modeled using plate element instead of a solid model. This was basically due to the scale of the model and the thickness of the steel plates used in the construction of the tanker. As the steel plates are 2 cm in thickness, modeling the tanker in solid model will result in a very fine mesh as at least two elements must be meshed through the thickness of the plate to obtain an acceptable level of accuracy.

In order to illustrate the mesh size and result of the two different methods of modeling, a box model was modeled as a test platform due to its geometric simplicity instead of modeling the tanker in both plate elements as well as solid model.

13

Figure 16 shows the model of the box using plate element. A relatively coarse mesh was used to mesh this model using isomesh and quad elements. Each element measures 20 mm by 20 mm.

Figure 16: Box model using plate element

Figure 17: Displacement fringe of plate element model

The maximum displacement when the plate element model was loaded (Figure 17) yielded 14.3 mm.

14

For comparison, a solid model of the box having the same dimensions was modeled as shown in Figure 18.

The same loading and restrain conditions were employed to the solid model (Figure 18). In order to yield acceptable results, the mesh size
Figure 18: Solid model of box

on the solid model has to be very fine as the thickness of the box is very small.

The solid model was meshed using paver mesh. The dimension of the mesh was 2 mm by 2 mm. With this mesh size, three elements were meshed through the thickness of the box. The result of the analysis is as shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19: Displacement fringe of solid model

15

The maximum displacement for the solid model is 14.5 mm as compared to 14.3 mm of the plate element model. Only a slight variance in the displacements was experienced by the solid model as compared to the plate element model. This comparison thus prove that the plate element model is a more effective model as it can yield approximately the same results as the solid model with a coarser mesh, thus saving a significant amount of time needed for analysis. However, this may only apply to thin plate structures.

7.

Loading the Model

Loadings on the model are critical elements in the determination of result accuracy in the analysis. Vessels in lightship condition are a majority when dry docking is due. As such, effective static lightship loading of the model is In addition, assignment of restrain forces is

imperative in this condition.

paramount in a realistic stress state simulation of the tanker when in dry dock.

7.1

Lightship Loadings

Lightship weight distribution of the tanker was obtained through the referencing of the tankers specifications. This distribution primarily illustrates the weight in metric tons through a specified longitudinal distance of the tanker. Application of weight distribution is achieved through pressure (kg/m2) loads converted from weight (kg).

16

Figure 20: Lightship loading

Figure 20 illustrates the lightship pressure loads in accordance to the lightship weight distribution. Observation of the model in Figure 20 reveals the This is

concentration of pressure loads at the stern towards the mid ship.

inevitable with onboard machineries such as the main engine located at the stern.

Absence of pressure loads in the mid ship section to the forward are justified by the tankers empty ballast and cargo tanks.

7.2

Restrain forces

As mentioned, restrain forces play a vital role in the result of the static load analysis. Placement of the restrain forces are warranted on the basis of the keel blocks positions when the tanker is in the dry dock. This justification is deemed reasonable as the keel blocks are the only structures supporting the tankers static weight. The translation of the restrain forces in the Y-axis was resolved to be zero as the keel blocks are directly supporting the tanker and no movement in the Yaxis is assumed to be present in the keel blocks. The translations in the X-axis and Z-axis were also resolved to be zero based on the assumption that the tankers weight is sufficiently large to only exert only a downward force. Rotations about the X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis were also assumed to be zero.

17

Assumptions made with regards to the restrain forces were in attempt for a more simplified global analysis with time constrains in view. Nevertheless, results were not unacceptably compromised. On the contrary, results obtained on the

deformation and stresses on the tanker as well as the forces needed to be exerted by the keel blocks were well within acceptable limits. More precise analysis can be obtained with the modeling of the keel blocks as well as the dock floor with foundations modeled as springs. Such meticulous details will ensure that the forces exerted by the tanker will be transmitted via the keel blocks to the dock floor, resulting in a global deformation of the dock floor.

Figure 21: Diagram illustrating restrain forces

Figure 21 shows the restrain forces applied at the positions of the keel blocks at the hull of the model.

18

8.

Results and Discussion

8.1

Lightship Condition

The tanker was simulated in the dry dock with lightship condition in accordance to the loading conditions as mentioned earlier. Idealized keel block positions were initially simulated as a benchmark for other variance in loading conditions.

Figure 22: Displacement fringe with idealized restrain case

Figure 22 shows the displacement fringe of the model with idealized restrain case in lightship condition. The maximum displacement is approximately 6 cm acting on the port side of the stern. This displacement is deemed to be reasonable considering the 60 m width of the tanker. The occurrence of the maximum displacement at the stern of the tanker can be accorded to the fewer number of

19

keel blocks at the stern despite the maximum load due to the engine room at the stern during lightship condition. Additional keel blocks are unable to be

positioned at the stern due to the curvature of the stern and the placement (or position) of the propeller as well as the rudder.

However, the maximum displacement is only over a relatively small area of the hull. Generally, the sterns displacement is approximately 1.5 cm.

As for the mid ship section, the maximum displacement is approximately 4cm acting at the centre of the tankers width. It flexes as a beam restrained at both ends with load at the centre. This displacement is mainly due to the loadings on the inner hull and restrains on the outer hull. The loads were being transferred from the inner hull to the outer hull via longitudinal plates as shown in Figure 15. As the longitudinal plates are uniformly spaced, the inner hull tends to deform in between the longitudinal plates with the largest deformation at the centre. In general, the inner hull experienced approximately 1.5 cm of displacement.

Figure 23: Displacement fringe of inner hull without plates

20

As mentioned, the longitudinal plates between the inner and outer hulls are vital in the amount of deformation experienced by the inner hull.

Figure 23 illustrates the displacement of the inner hull without the longitudinal plates. The maximum displacement is two orders of magnitude more than in Figure 22.

Figure 24: Stress fringe of inner hull without plates

As shown in Figure 24, the stress experienced by the inner hull at the position of maximum displacement has far exceeded the yield stress of its material of approximately 250 MPa. longitudinal plates. This illustrates the importance of modeling the

21

Next is the analysis of the stress distribution of the tanker in lightship condition.

Figure 25: Stress distribution of lightship condition

The analysis result (Figure 25) indicates that the maximum Von Mises stress at 162 MPa for lightship condition is within the yield strength of steel of about 250MPa. This occurs only over a very minute area at the stern. The global stress experienced by the model is approximately 43 MPa.

The maximum stress will result in a Factor of Safety of 1.54 for the model.

The Von Mises stress combines three dimensional stresses to a single value and is an invariant quantity that is independent of the element coordinate system used. As such, it is always a positive number.

22

The Von Mises stress is calculated as follows:

( x y ) 2 + ( y z ) 2 + ( z x ) 2 2

2 2 2 + 3( xy + yz + zx )

Figure 26: Stress distribution of stiffeners in lightship condition

Stresses on the stiffeners had to be analyzed in order to determine whether yielding has occurred. Figure 26 shows a maximum stress of 15 MPa on the stiffeners. This value is also below the yielding stress of the material, giving a safety factor of 17. The stresses experienced by the stiffeners are generally about 3 MPa. Only the stiffeners at the stern experienced higher stresses due to the loadings and lesser restrains at the stern.

23

Figure 27: Constrain forces in lightship condition

Figure 27 shows the constrain forces supporting the tanker in lightship condition. The maximum constrain force is 1106 N. It can be calculated that each keel block is supporting a weight of 100 tons. At present, the keel blocks maximum load capacity is determined to be 200 tons. This will then result in a safety factor of 2 for the keel blocks which can affirm the under loading of the keel blocks, preventing damage.

8.2

Keel blocks concentrated at the centre

The next case is to determine the important keel blocks positions to prevent damage to the hull of the tanker. It is known that the structural keel is a large beam which the hull of a ship is built around. The keel runs in the middle of the ship, from the bow to the stern, and serves as the foundation or spine of the

24

structure, providing the major source of structural strength of the hull. Therefore, the restrain forces were concentrated at the keel and the alternate rows of restrain forces were removed to minimise the amount of keel blocks. This arrangement is shown in Figure 28.

Figure 28: Arrangement of keel blocks concentrated at the keel

The results of concentrating the keel blocks at the keel and minimizing the rest of the keel blocks are shown in Figures 29, 30 and 31.

Figure 29: Displacement fringe when keel blocks were concentrated at the keel

25

The maximum displacement as shown in Figure 29 is approximately 6.5 cm as compared to 6 cm in Figure 22. The difference of 0.5 cm is deemed to be relatively small as the number of keel blocks was significantly reduced. However, more areas especially at the mid ship section experienced slightly more displacement. In general, these increases in displacement are still well within acceptable limits and can be considered to be very minute.

Figure 30: Stress fringe when keel blocks were concentrated at the keel

The stress analysis result (Figure 30) indicates that the maximum Von Mises stress is 170 MPa as compared to 162 MPa in Figure 25. This is also within the yield strength of steel at about 250MPa. The maximum stress is only an increase of approximately 5% resulting in a new safety factor of 1.47 instead of 1.52.

26

Figure 31: Stress distribution of stiffeners when keel blocks were concentrated at the keel

The stress distribution of the stiffeners in Figure 31 is considerably larger than in Figure 26, yielding 49.7 MPa as compared to 15 MPa. This can be accorded to the reduction of keel blocks. The stiffeners have to take up the stress to resist the deformation of the hull as a result of the reduction of keel blocks. However, the maximum stress obtained by the stiffeners is still well below the yield stress of the material.

Figure 32: Constrain forces when keel blocks were concentrated at the keel

27

The maximum constrain force in Figure 32 is 1.12106 N as compared to 1106N in Figure 27. Each keel block will thus support a weight of 112 tons instead of 100 tons, yielding a safety factor of 1.78. This incremental load that each keel block has to withstand is due to the reduction of the number of keel blocks and is still well within the maximum load capacity of 200 tons.

28

8.3

Keel blocks concentrated at the side

For effective comparison, the keel blocks were rearranged to be concentrated at the side instead of the keel as shown in Figure 33.

Figure 33: Arrangement of keel blocks concentrated at the side

Figure 34: Displacement fringe when keel blocks were concentrated at the side

29

As shown in Figure 34, the maximum displacement when the keel blocks were concentrated at the sides is approximately 8 cm as compared to 6 cm with the idealized case and 6.5 cm when the keel blocks were concentrated at the keel. This displacement is considered far-off from the idealized case.

Through the stress, displacement, constrain forces analysis and comparison; it can thus be deduced that the keel of the tanker supports a considerable amount of the total weight. Therefore, alignment of keel blocks under the keel is of utmost importance. Positions of other keel blocks are not as critical but they must be evenly spaced under the stiffeners. No doubt the keel blocks have not exceeded their maximum capacity, it should be noted that the model is based on an even distribution of load throughout. In reality, the tankers loading even in lightship condition are unlikely to be evenly distributed.

30

9.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a successful global model structure of the tanker was modeled with all the essential structures, mainly the double hull, frames, longitudinal plates and stiffeners. This model was able to be loaded in its lightship condition to analyze the stress distribution as well as the displacement throughout the tanker when it is in the dry dock. The results of the stress distribution verified that the tanker will not be damaged under idealized keel block positions and that the displacements of the tanker due to the lightship loadings are well within acceptable limits.

Furthermore, the rearrangement of the keel blocks concluded that the alignment of the keel blocks under the keel is paramount in the safe docking of the tanker. Misalignment will result in structural damage of the tanker.

31

10.

Recommendations

As mentioned in the paper, the restrain forces were positioned in placement of the keel blocks with the translations in the X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis as zero. An enhancement to the accuracy is to model the keel blocks as well as the dock floor. The keel blocks can be modeled with actual properties to ensure that deformation of the keel blocks occurs instead of zero displacement in the Y-axis as modeled by a restrain force. The dock floor can also be modeled with foundations supporting it to ensure that the load of the tanker is supported by the pilings resulting in a global deformation of the dock floor.

In addition, variations types of loading conditions such as filled ballast tanks or minimal cargo load can be simulated to ensure that the tanker is safe to dock at such situations.

32

11.

References

1. Rules for Classification and Construction, Germaischer Lloyd 2. Guidelines for Tanker Structures, Nippon Kaiji Kyokai 3. Mechanics of Materials, A.C. Ugural, McGraw Hill, 1991. 4. Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, K.J. Bathe, Prentice-Hall, 1982. 5. Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis, R.D. Cook, John Wiley & Sons, 1989. 6. A First Course in the Finite Element Method, Daryl I. Logan, PWS-Kent Publishing Company, 1986. 7. The Finite Element Method, O.C. Zienkiewicz, McGraw Hill, 1994.

33