LLOYD'S REGISTER INTEGRATED FATIGUE DESIGN
ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
Franck L. M. Violette, DUT., M.ENG.
Advanced Studies & Rule Development Group
Technical Planning & Development Department
Lloyd's Register of Shipping - Ship Division
71, Fenchurch Street
London, EC3M 4BS, United Kingdom
Abstract
This paper describes the multi-level fatigue design
assessment procedure developed by Lloyd's Register
to estimate the fatigue strength of ship structural
details. The method used
to determine a
representative fatigue strength capability for ship
structural details, and the supporting fatigue testing
programme of large ship structure are reviewed. The
traditional maximum lifetime load approach
estimate the fatigue demand is discussed, and the
spectral analysis procedure adopted in the subject
procedure is described. Examples of distribution of
fatigue damage around the hull envelope are given to
illustrate the influence of the load components, and
the wave environment.
1. INTRODUCTION
The objectives of Ship Classification are to develop
and implement Rules and Regulations, which in
conjunction with proper care and operation on the
part of the shipowner and operator, will provide an
appropriate standard of structural strength during the
service life of the ship. On the provision of an
adequate level of maintenance associated with
regular structural surveys and appropriate repair
procedures for incidental structural damages,
Classification Society Rules are intended to
safeguard the structural integrity of the hull structure
for a service life period of at least 20 years.
Computational structural analysis methods combined
with service experience of large and complex ship
structures have shown that success or failure in a
structural sense, is directly affected by
performance of structural details. The failure of
structural details is generally associated with two
interrelated cumulative damage processes, namely,
fatigue and corrosion, Violette (1994). As early as
1913, Lloyd's Register expressed its concern on the
fatigue mode of failure of ship structural details in a
Ab. No. 021
TECHgßsc UN1VERSITJ.T
aboratorum 'oor
Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD Oft
lei: 015 768 Fax: 015 7a
paper presented to the Royal Institution of Naval
Architects, Lloyd's Register (1913). Over the last
decade, fatigue failures of structural details and their
potential consequences have attracted an increased
attention amongst the shipping industry. In view of the
higher percentages of high tensile steel being used,
the application of sophisticated techniques to peorm
structural and fabrication optimisation, and the
implementation of strict environmental regulations, the
occurrence of fatigue cracking cannot be considered
any longer as a mere fact of life. Since fatigue cracks
to
can be possible points of initiatión for the failure of the
cargo containment barrier, and/or significant structural
failures, it is essential that fatigue performance be
given a more detailed consideration at the design,
and construction stages as well as during the ship's
operational life.
In 1989, Lloyd's Register (LR) initiated a long term
research and development programme with the aim
to develop and implement an integrated fatigue
design assessment procedure for ship structural
details. In June 1994, ShipRight FDA (Fatigue
Design Assessment), a multi-level integrated fatigue
design procedure has been released to world-wide
LR plan approval offices and to shipyards. This paper
reviews the main components of the research project,
and outlines the level 2 ShipRight FDA integrated
fatigue design assessment procedure. Some of the
more salient aspects of the procedure are illustrated
with examples from the fatigue analysis of the
longitudinal members of a double hull tanker.
2. SHIP STRUCTURAL DETAIL FATIGUE DESIGN
the 2.1 GeneraI
Whilst for at least the past two decades, Classification
Societies have carried out fatigue calculations for
damaged or novel ship structural components,
procedures or criteria for the design against fatigue
have not been explicitly or rationally considered in
1/17
Classification Society's Rules until recently, except for
specific ship types such as LNG ships. However, The extrapolation of ship structural concepts may
implicit fatigue requirements are incorporated for not be directly applicable to new designs, and the
many structural components through the use of service experience of double hull tanker structural
permissible stress levels
determined from the details, especially large double hull tankers, is
application of simpUfied fatigue damage assessment limited;
techniques combined with service experience data. In
fact, fatigue has been given due considerations at all Recent experience with high tensile steel used on
stages of the Classification process through implicit second generation single skin VLCC structures
requirements or procedures as follows has shown that when a significant degree of
structural optimisation has been carried out on
During the plan approval process, in addition to the primary web structures, the additional loads
the use of permissible stress levels, the surveyor created on the secondary members may increase
applies particular attention to the design of critical the risk of fatigue damage;
structural details by using a set of experience
based detail design recommendations compiled With double hull tankers, cargo leakage as a
over the years. This s carried out in close co- result of fatigue cracking would result in serious
operation with the ship designers in order to difficulties to clean and/or ventilate the double hull
achieve the best solution in terms of both the spaces due to their cellular arrangement.
fatigue performance and fabrication; Moreover, leakage of cargo oil, or inert gas into
the ballast spaces would place the ship in a
During the construction stage, the field surveyor hazardous situation with potential risks of
assigns particular attention to the critical areas explosion, loss of life, and environmental disaster;
which have been identified during the plan
approval process, in order to ensure that The ship structural performance and life could be
satisfactory levels of workmanship, alignment and severely influenced by the ballast tank coating
fit up are achieved; performance. The initiation of fatigue cracks in the
ballast spaces may precede coating breakdown.
And, finally, during the life of the ship, the scope If undetected, or if no remedial action has been
and extent of the periodical surveys give due taken, the localised coating breakdown in way of
attention to the critical structural details, and the a detail stress concentration will create a severe
detection of any onset of cracking. Should a localised corrosion cell, which in turn will
fatigue crack be detected, remedial action is accelerate the fatigue crack propagation process,
taken to prevent its reoccurrence, and the survey Violette (1994);
data is transferred to the LR damage database for
analysis. Noteworthy defects or increase in The quality of the workmanship, and the
fatigue failure trends of structural components are construction tolerances may influence the fatigue
communicated to plan approval surveyors, and performance of ship structural details. Fatigue
Rule development engineers, and an implicit cracking as a result of poor detail design may be
fatigue criteria such as a permissible stress level, difficult to cure without significant and expensive
or a detail design recommendation may be structural modifications.
formulated for inclusion in the Rules.
3. ShipRight FDA FATIGUE DESIGN
2.2 Limitations of an Experience Based
ASSESSMENT
Procedure
lt can be appreciated that the evaluation of fatigue
However, it should be recognised that with new
performance of ship structural details is a complex
generation ships such as double hull tankers, the
process, and that fatigue failures may have dramatic
value of service experience may not be directly
consequences. To attain and maintain a satisfactory
applicable. Whilst many of the new oil tanker
fatigue performance, a realistic fatigue procedure
structural details can be related to existing hull
should give due consideration to the following stages
configurations, the increased proportionof high
in the life of a structural detail
tensile steels, the extent of structural optimisation, as
well as changes in the loading patterns could change
The conceptual design of ship structural details;
the significance of an experience based procedure,
Ferguson & Violette (1991). Significant changes in
The analysis of the fatigue performance by a
terms of ship structural design and construction, and
direct calculation method giving due consideration
the introduction of strict environmental regulations
to the cumulative nature of the fatigue damage
have called for the development of rational direct
process, and accounting for fabrication and
calculation fatigue design procedures where the
workmanship factors;
following aspects which are of particular concern
need to be addressed:

Ab. No. 021 2/17

 The verification of the structural details
workmanship, alignment and fit-up tolerances,
through adequate survey procedures and defects
acceptance criteria during the ship construction;
The in-service survey procedures, and the
monitoring of the critical structural detail items
during the ship lifetime.
For this purpose, ShipRight FDA (1994) has been
developed as a multi-level fatigue design assessment
procedure (Level 1,2 and 3) to address each of the
requirements highlighted above. The procedure is a
total approach to the prevention of fatigue failures
encompassing the design, construction and in-service
performance of ship structural details. lt s supported
by the ShipRight CM (1994) Construction Monitoring
procedure. and the ShipRight HCM (1994) Hull
Condition Monitoring procedure. The main features of
the multi-level FDA procedure are reviewed in the
following sections.
LEVEL 1: STRUCTURAL DETAIL DESIGN
GUIDE
The primary purpose of the Structural Detail Design
Guide is to promote good detail design at an early
stage of the design process, and to provide guidance
for improvement of detail design. The Guide has been
compiled from the world-wide detail design and the in-
service expertise of plan approval, newbuilding and
field surveyors. Therefore, it is based on a vast
experience based knowledge database considering
aspects such as design and analysis, construction
tolerances and fabrication issues, and in-service
performance. In addition, extensive analytical, and
Finite Element Analyses (FEA) have been performed
for each recommended structural details to confirm
and optimise the structural configuration to maximise
its fatigue performance. A typical Structural Detail
Design Guide datasheet is shown in Figure 1. At
present, the Structural Detail Design Guide addresses
double hull tanker, and bulk carrier critical areas. The
development of the Guide is considered to be a
continuous process with regular updates to reflect
trends in service experience, design and construction
practice as well as to incorporate results from the
ongoing FDA and FEA studies, and LR fatigue testing
programme.
SHIP STRUCTURAL DETAIL FATIGUE
STRENGTH
For design purposes, the S-N curve approach to the
estimation of the fatigue strength capability is
considered to be the most common and convenient
approach. However, the assignment of a S-N curve to
a ship structural detail will invariably involve a certain
amount of engineering judgement. To ensure that the
FDA procedure could be applied consistently, it was
considered essential to automate the S-N curve
Ab. No. 021
selection process. This task is performed by the FDA
S-N Curve Expert procedure.
5.1 NominaI and Reference S-N Curve
The traditional nominal stress S-N curve approach s
expressed as a function of the nominal stress range
AS for a given typical structural detail as follows:
(1)
Traditional nominal stress S-N curves are widely
available from design codes such as BS5400 (1980),
UK.Den (1983), Eurocode (1985), 11W proposal
(1982), etc. In general, these standard are applicable
to a limited set of typical standard details. In view of
the large variety of ship structural details in terms of
both geometry and loading, the application of
standard detail S-N curves has shown to be a difficult
process. Comparative fatigue studies correlated with
service experience and/or full scale measurements
have shown that standard S-N curves may yield
fatigue lives significantly different from the recorded
values.
A more explicit method to apply the standard S-N
curves to ship structural details is to derive,, the
geometrical Stress Concentration Factor (SCF) of the
standard detail geometry, as well as the SCF of the
ship structural detail, in order to obtain a more
representative S-N curve. The S-N curve may
therefore be rewritten as follows
N
ship
1\
K,d j
,fl' ( 2)
= AS
K,d '
The disadvantages of this approach is that
geometrical information on the standard S-N Curve
structural detail is often limited, and FEA with
compatible mesh size for both the standard structural
detail, and the ship structural detail is required to
determine the SCF's. Moreover, it should be borne in
mind that standard S-N curves tend to represent the
lower limit of fatigue capability of the standard detail
i.e. geometrical and scantling configuration leading to
the worst fatigue strength within the scope of
application of the detail. For example, the transition
between BS5400 (1980) Class F and F2 is dictated
only by the attachment length (150 mm), and the
edge distance (10 mm), and no reference is made, for
example, for the influence of the plate thicknesses.
To enable a more representative estimation of the
fatigue strength for ship structural detail within the
3/17
r
LOCATION: Connection of side and longitudinal bulkhead longirudinais
to transverse webs in double side tanks GROUP
EXAÍVWLE No. 1: Asymmetrical face/higher tensile steel side longTh.idinal to No. i
transverse web flat-bar stifferters

CRITICAL AREAS DETAll. DESIGN IMPROVEMENT

S)-A1A1ETRIC4L
SHELL BULKHEAD SOIT TOE [1 SOFT TOE
PLATING ______________ ÁMD OR SR4CKETS
- SOFT//EEL
U U DETAIL
h-
MAX 15

liLi U è4AX1 (M L2.Od

dj
4cRmcALAREAS

d180-300
Area of stiffener
x o.J
75

I
4
X 0.5)
I
4

accordancewith --MAX15 -4-MAX15

Rule requirements NOTE
B,ac*et ThIckness Flat Sa, Thickness =6/18
Á.th,nwm Thickness 12Omm

CONSIDERATION ITEMS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Critical Location:
Fatigue Mechanism:
Building Tolerances:
Welding Requirements:
Asymmetrical face / higher tensile steel side longitudinal face bar connections at the heel
and the toe of the web stiffeners. Connections between the base line and O.8D above the
base line.
Soft toe and heel detail or symmetrical soft toe brackets to reduce peak stresses under
fatigue loading from dynamic seaway loads and ship motions.
Ensure alignment of the web stiffener, the back bracket and the web of the side
longitudinal.
Fillet welding having mínimum weld factor of 0.44 (Web stiffeners to face bars of side
longitudinals. Back brackets to face bars of side longitudinals).
A wrap around weld, free of undercut or notches, around the plate thickness.

FIGURE DETAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR DOUBLE HULL FIGURE

i TANIR STRUCTURAL DETAILS

Fig. I Structural Detail Design Guide Typical Datasheet

Lloyd's Register - ShipRight Strategic Research & Development Page 5

framework of a design procedure, it was considered Ka = Kg(R,tid7.la,d,c,th)Kje)K,i(ö)K,(e) (5)
that:

The nominal stress should remain the reference

stress used for FDA purposes, as it is a A-A
convenient stress measure for engineers involved
in structural design assessments;

And, a large library of S-N curves based on

actual ship structural detail geometries should be
A-A
made available. ti nCrltical Location
th
To satisfy these requirements, the hot spot stress
approach was reformatted as follows

N = IÇ(Ka AX)" (3)

Fig. 3. Stress Concentration Factor Parameters.
Thus,
The axial loading SCF has been chosen as the
= ASh. reference SCF for the computation of the structural
K detail fatigue strength capability by the FDA S-N
(4) Curve Expert. To account for the influence of the
SCF's for modes of loading other than axial, loading
N= nl, ShI ç '' h, mode bias factors are introduced in the computation
of the total nominal stress applied to the detail. The
Based on FEA of standard structural details, and the loading mode bias factor for loading componen.t i is
available S-N curves data, a reference S-N curve defined as follows
defined by K1, has been evaluated. The reference
S-N curve represent the fatigue strength of the KB, =-K (6)
welded material including the fillet weld geometrical Ka
stress concentration. The geometrical SCF of the ship
structural detail then becomes the driving parameter
to estimate the fatigue strength, and its derivation is To illustrate the SCF parametric formulation, Figure 4
reviewed in the following Section. For reference shows the variation of Ka for a soft toe flat bar
purposes, the S-N curves derived by the FDA S-N stiffener connection with d = loo mm,
Curve Expert procedure are assigned a value which
represent the stress range magnitude of the mean S-
t1/t2 =1.07th =I5mm,Kw(0)K,,,(S)Ke(e)=l.
N curve at stress cycles.
5.2 Geometrical Stress Concentration Factor K
1.350
Based on systematic linear elastic FEA of ship
structural details, parametric formulations of the
geometrical SCF's have been derived. The FE
1.325
modelling standard adopted to determine the SCF's is
based on a FE mesh of t x t in way of stress
concentration areas, where t is the thickness of the
plate containing the crack initiation site. The SCF has 1.300
been determined using the centroidal stress normal to
the expected crack plane for the element adjacent to
the theoretical intersection edge. Taking into account
that the weld factor for the connections under 1.275
investigation is of the order of 0.44t, the SCF stress
gradient pick up point is at a minimum distance of
0.06t from the weld toe. A typical FE mesh for a soft 1.250
toe - soft heel web stiffener connectìon to the flange
100 150 200 250 300 350
of a longitudinal member is shown in Figure 2. SoftToe Radius -mm
The parametric SCF formulation is defined as a Fig. 4. Ka versus Soft Toe Radius
combination of influence functions defined as follows
for the end connection geometry shown in Figure 3.

Ab. No. 021 5/17

Figure 5. illustrates the variation of K for a soft toe
flat bar stiffener connection with il = 200 mm,
R=I5Omm, th=l5mm, = 300 mm, and
Kw(0)K,,,(Et)Ke(e) = i
K measurements, to extend the results to the full
1.350
1.300
1.250
1.200
1.150
1.100
1.00 1.25 1.50 1 75
tl/t2 Ratio
Fig. 5. K versus t1 ¡t. Ratio
lt can be appreciated that the FDA S-N Curve Expert
approach permits to determine more realistic S-N
curves for ship structural details, since the S-N curve
is a direct function of the SCF, and thus the detail
geometrical parameters.
5.3 Fatigue Testing of Ship Structure Models
To increase the confidence level in fatigue strength
predictions and to gain a better understanding of the
fatigue crack initiation and propagation process in
ship structural details, Lloyd's Register initiated a
programme of fatigue testing of large ship structure
models in 1992. The Krylov Shipbuilding Research
Institute in Russia was commissioned to carry out
these tests. There are many benefits associated with
performing large scale fatigue tests of realistic ship
structures which may be summarised as follows
Shipbuilding workmanship standards are used to
fabricate the models;
Realistic ship loads are applied to the models
resulting in a more realistic stress field stress
,
concentration levels, and cyclic stress patterns in
way of the critical locations;
The kinematics of crack propagation at the
potential crack initiation sites provide valuable
information with regard to the relative severity of
each potential crack initiation sites, their
propagation rates, and the potential consequences
when applied to real ship structures;
The assessment of the redundancy level of the
structural system, and the load redistribution
Ab. No. 021
mechanisms which may affect the crack
propagation rates at certain crack initiation sites.
Extensive post analysis using FEA can be
performed to confirm the strain / stress
scale structure, and to optimise the structural
configuration with respect to fatigue strength;
And, finally, experimental data combined with FEA
permits the calibration of the parametric
formulations of the SCF's associated with the
reference S-N curve which have been
implemented in the FDA S-N Curve Expert.
To date, the ongoing experimental research
programme has addressed the following ship
structural details
1/4 scale models of VLCC hopper welded
connections to double side and double bottom;
1/4 scale models of VLCC hopper flanged
connections to double side and double bottom;
1/3 scale models of VLCC longitudinal connecons
to web fiat bar stiffener with various end
connections, and steel yield strength.
Photo 1-2 show the large scale ship structures
models under testing conditiqns. io to 106 load
cycles are applied to the models which are
instrumented with uniaxial and rosettes strain gauges
to monitor the field and the hot spot stresses.
Acoustic monitoring has also been used to determine
the spatial location of the onset of cracking well
before the crack could be detected by visual
inspection. The crack propagation rates have been
recorded in order to monitor the crack growth in the
structural components, and enable further analysis to
be performed using fracture mechanics methods.
6. LONG TERM STRESS RANGE SPECTRUM
MODEL
Since the wave environment generates complex
loading patterns, it can be appreciated that the
prediction of the long term stress spectrum for marine
structures remains a complex problem. Due to the
cumulative nature of the fatigue damage process, it is
essential that an adequate procedure be used to
predict the long term stress range distribution. Figure
6. illustrates the distribution of fatigue damage for
three typical long term stress range spectrum defined
analytically as Weibull functions with shape factors of
0.8, 1.0, and 1.2. lt is shown that most of the fatigue
damage is produced by the small to medium stress
ranges i.e. the low to medium seastates, by virtue of
their associated number of stress cycles ( iO5 to 108
6/17
 N-
o
o N
-c
Q- o
o
û-
 l. LL L I T.1I I
LL L .L _[_ J 11.11 L L-
L L_LL
LI
. L LLLLLLL.LL
i
.. -
..........
L_[:LLH
LU
JL .:...
.

.-. U..........
:J
LI
1l(lM
Il
IllllL
: t i t I t
f Li
:.c&: .. 1 1 t 1.1 LI_t

ro:r rr 'I:i
I .

j i_l I I Lt
tif.LL ..
L
_L
(t11llIll
LL_1LU_
L .J ELL -
LL.1_l_.
ILl l.i ULLI.rJ.LLL.t .i.L i.._
..L.LLLLLLJJ LJ._
..IL_[.LJJ.L.LHI!iH...
i i

LLLLLLLLLL _L Ir _L LL L a LLLL L

Fig. 2 Typical Fine Mesh FE Model for Soft Toe Soft Heel Longitudinal End Connection

225.00 5.00E-03

200.00
175.00
4.00E-03
cl)
150.00 o)
-- - 3.00E-03 E
125.00
C)
/ o
100.00 -- I - 2.00E-03 o)
a)

g 75.00
cl) u-
50.00 1.00E-03
25.00
0.00 0.00E+00
1E+00 1E+01 1E+02 1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E06 1E+07 1E+08

Number of Stress Cycles

Long Term Weibull 0.80 Long Term Weibull 1.00
- - - Long Term Weibull 1.20 Fatigue Damage - Weibull 0.80
Fatigue Damage - Weibull 1.00 - - - Fatigue Damage - Weibull 1.20

Fig. 6. Typical Long Term Stress Spectrum and Fatigue Damage Distributions

stress cycles). Therefore, in order to achieve a mathematical model used to predict the long term
reliable prediction the structural detail fatigue life, the stress distribution should give due attention to this

Ab. No. 021 8/17

part of the spectrum. To determine the long term
stress spectrum, two approaches are available,
namely, the maximum lifetime load approach, and the
spectral approach. Both procedures are reviewed in
the following sections, with emphasis on the spectral
method of analysis used in the FDA procedure.
6.1 Maximum Lifetime Load Approach
The main advantage of the maximum lifetime load
approach is its inherent simplicity. Based on the
readily available maximum lifetime loads parametric
expressions used for strength assessment, this
procedure is well suited for design purposes. Figure
7. illustrates the procedural steps involved in the
prediction of the long term stress spectrum. However,
since fatigue damage is proportional to the cube of
the stress range, and the procedure emphasises on
the 108 stress range which is remote from the area of
interest with respect to fatigue, variations in the 108
stress range and/or the Weibull shape factor can
result in a significant variation in the resulting fatigue
life as shown in Figure 8. In view of the sensitivity of
the resulting fatigue life to the limited set of modelling
variables, some of the modelling assumptions need to
be reviewed:
For a given structural detail, each individual
applied maximum lifetime loads is calculated at a
probability level of 108. Considerations to loads
computed at a probability level of say, 10 , may
be more appropriate provided the iO4 loads have
not been extrapolated from the 108 base using an
assumed long term distribution;
20.00
10.00
5.00
PiJ11
0.00
100 in
220 280
400 460
Stress range - N/mm2
Fig. 8 Sensitivity of Fatigue Damage to Stress Range and Weibull Shape Factor
Ab. No. 021
The partial load factors or correlation coefficients
used in the load effect combination model are
often based on the dominant load parameter. and
represent a snap shot seastate where the
dominant load component is maximised. This
combination may not be representative of the less
severe seastates represented by the lower part of
the spectrum, where other headings, wave
heights and periods, or load components may
dominate;
The number of stress cycles for a service period
of 20 years is in general based on the 10
incident waves assumption used for the North
Atlantic longitudinal strength requirement. Where
several load components are involved, the
resulting number of stress cycles may differ from
the number of incident waves;
The Weibull shape factor is often mapped on the
dominant load parameter shape factor for the
North Atlantic wave environment, and it is
questionable whether this is representative of the
resultant load effect arising from several load
components. Furthermore, since the shape of the
stress spectrum is directly affected by the wave
environment, the stress response in each of the
seastate, the ship loading conditions, and the ship
seakeeping performance, ¡t is disputable whether
this assumption is applicable for a range of ship
types, and characteristics.
w
C-
0.90 o
_C
cn2
DLL
----'
0.80 w
9/17
 Identification of Load
Process Applied to
Structural Detail

Computation of Maximum
Lifetime Loads Magnitude
I
Load Process I

Pr@10
I-
...
. Load Process n

Pn@10
V
'

.
P=lo -
I V
Computation of Structural
Influence Coefficient
cl C

I V
Computation of Maximum
Lifetime Stress Magnitude S1@ 10-e IO 4
l
P=iO -

I V
Identify Dominant Load
Effect & Assign Partial Load L L
Effect Factors
I
Calculate Total Stress = LIC'? +

I
."

L
Calculate Stress Range
I
Weibull Shape Factor based Shape Parameter
on Dominant Load Effect
I
% Lifetime N
Number of Incident Waves
I
Maximum Load Approach
Lifetime Stress Spectrum
I
Fig. 7 Maximum Lifetime Load Procedure

Levei2 "
Analytical / Parametric SpecFDA SoWer
Formulation Regular Waves
Wave Induced Loads & Amplitude & Phase Angle
Motion Computation Hull Girder Loads, External Wave Pressur
Level 3 Internal Cargo Pressure
- First Principle Ship Motions
& Load Software
Loads - Load Effects
Stress Combination
Level 2
- Analytical, FE Bean, Model
SCF
Structural Response Local Stress Influence
Analysts Coefficients
Levei3
e Global 3D FE Model
Local Zoom FE Model

Seastate Short Term Stress

Statistical Analysis Wave Height - Wave Period SSC Wave Energy Spectrum Response in Uncertainty Stress Model
Ship Heading - Ship Speed Irregular Waves

Short Term
Structural Detail Fatigue
Fatigue Strength Fatigue Uncertainty Workmanship
Strength - S-N Curve
Damage Rat.

Service Profile Probability Matrix

loo Al Fatigue Wave Wave Height - Wave Period
Voyage Simulation Ship Heading - Ship Speed
Environment
Loading Condition

Safe Life Acceptance Deterministic Fatigue Life

Uncertainty Fatigue Model
Criteria Probability of Failure

Service Experience Fatigue Monitoring

Fig. 9 Spectral Fatigue Analysis Procedure

Ab. No. 021 10/17

lt can be appreciated that this procedure is subject to FDA Level 2 computation of the wave induced loads
a number of assumptions, and modelling is based on a parametric formulation of the ship six
simplifications. To achieve reliable fatigue life degrees of motions, and the global and local loads.
estimates, calibration using service experience data Using the basic concept of the single degree of
has been shown to be essential. Whilst this procedure freedom vibration model, and the systematic analysis
cannot be rejected as a design tool to obtain of the computation of the ship motions and loads of
efficiently an estimate of the fatigue strength, the over 250 representative hull forms, the Response
sensitivity of the fatigue process, and the dependence Amplitude Operator (RAO) for the motions and loads
of the required calibration on the service experience has been decomposed into a series of influence
base make this procedure difficult to apply in a functions based on the work by KSRI (1992)
consistent manner. Furthermore, reduced confidence
levels are introduced when the structural RAO(V, x,w) = f (V, , [a, ] )f(V, x. [a1 ]_) ( '

configuration or the loading patterns depart from the

For example, for the vertical bending moment, the
service experience base used for calibration.
RAO can be further decomposed to isolate the
6.2 FDA Spectral Analysis Procedure influence parameters as follows:

To enhance the level of confidence in the RAO(V,,w)= fa'80(L,B,T,Fn,Cw,CB,k,j(h)

determination of the long term stress spectrum, and
address the issues of the maximum lifetime load fa(X)fa (x) L)f (x)
approach highlighted above, the FDA procedure uses (8)
a first principles approach based on the spectral
method of analysis. Two levels of analysis have been The amplitude f
function
180(.)
determines
maximum response amplitude which for the vertical
the
developed using the same theory, but different level
of mathematical modelling. Level 2 is used for design bending moment occurs at 180°. The amplitude
purposes and uses simplified mathematical models. function fa(X)describes the ratio the response to
Leve! 3 uses sophisticated mathematical models, and the maximum response amplitude at 180° for a given
is aimed at confirmation of the fatigue performance of ship to wave angle as shown in Figure 10. The
novel structural details. The procedural steps of Level
2 and Level 3 are illustrated in Figure 9
amplitude function f (x) describes the position of the
maximum response amplitude on the wave frequency
The application of the level 2 procedure to longitudinal axis as shown in Figure 11.
members of a double hull tanker can be summarised
in the following steps 1.00

6.2.1 Computation of Wave Induced Loads

0.80
The wave induced primary load components
considered are
0.60
External hydrodynamic wave pressure;
0.40
Hull girder vertical wave bending moment;
0.20
Hull girder horizontal wave bending moment;
0.00
Water ballast/cargo inertia pressure. o 30 60 90 120 150 180
Ship to Wave Heading - Degrees
The amplitude and phase angle of the above load
components are calculated in regular waves for the Fig. 10. Vertical Bending Moment fa(X)
following ranges of wave parameters for each
significant loading conditions as shown in Table 1.
The function f, () describes the RAO basic shape
Table i
as a function of the wave frequency, response natural
Parameter - Range Increment frequency, the ship length, and the function f (x).
7. 0-360° 20°
0.2-1.2rad/s 0.O4rad/s L (x) is the function describing the longitudinal
V 0-Vs 25%Vs distribution of the bending moment.
Loading Conditions Fully loaded
Ballast Expressions in a similar format have been derived for
the horizontal, and torsional bending moments, the
ship motion six degrees of freedom, and the external
hydrodynamic wave pressure RAO's. Since the phase

Ab. No. 021 11/17

angles do not lend themselves to a relatively simple
description by analytical functions, the phase angle of
the RAOs has been stored in a database for
computation purposes pending further analysis.
1.40
1,30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0 30 60 90 120 150
Ship to Wave Heading - Degrees
Fig. 11. Vertical Bending Moment f(x)
6.2.2 Structura! Influence Coefficients
For each load components considered above, the
structural influence coefficient C, ( i.e. direct stress
normal to the most likely plane of crack propagation
at the weld toe connection of web stiffener to the
longitudinal flange ) due to the application of a unit
load ¡ is determined as follows
4E1
Rotation Side 2 Ç = K1 (16)
/
For the secondary load component arising from the
deflection of the primary structure, the deflections and
rotations transfer functions are calculated from FEA
for a number of wave cases representative of the
array of regular wave conditions defined in Table 1.
6.2.3 Short Term Fatigue Damage
For a given ship to wave heading, wave frequency.
ship speed and loading condition, the total stress can
be expressed as follows
n
(17)
For the given stress check point location, ship loading
condition, ship speed, ship heading to waves, and
180 seastate expressed in terms of significant wave
height H113, and mean zero crossing period T, the
short term stress statistics are calculated. The
spectral function S (w) is calculated directly from
the wave spectral function S(w) (ISSC spectrum),
the transfer function H1 (w) of the ith load process,
and the complex conjugate of the H(co) of th jth
load process as follows:
S(w)=S(w)C,C1H,(w)H(w) (18)

. Vertical wave bending moment The spectral moments required for calculation of the
spectral bandwidth and zero crossing frequency are
C1 = K8 (9) given as follows

= S (w) dw (19)
. Horizontal wave bending moment

I Assuming that the stress process is narrow banded,

C2 = K13 (10) the stress range distribution can be expressed ¡n
zzz terms of a Rayleigh distribution
Hydrodynamic wave pressure
s exp
s2
(20)
C = K8 f(x) 4:
2
8 -)
12ZLF
For the side shell, where the presence of the wave
Water ballasticargo inertia pressure free surface creates a non-linear effect with a
truncation of the pressure load harmonics, a time
C4 = K8 f(x) (12) domain simulation procedure is performed to
12ZLF
calculate the short term stress statistics.
For the secondary load components arising from the Using a closed form solution for the fatigue damage,
deflection of the primary structure, the structural the short term fatigue damage rate and associated
influence coefficient C due to the application of a unit stress cycle rate can be calculated. For a given stress
deflection or rotation i is determined as follows check point location, ship loading condition, ship
speed, ship heading to waves, and seastate
Deflection Side 1 C5=KB expressed ¡n terms of significant wave height H113,
6E1 and mean zero crossing period T, the accumulated
Deflection Side 2 C6 = K8 fatigue damage ¡s expressed as follows:
12

Rotation Side 1 C7=K8

4 EI D='' N(S,)
(21)
The accumulated fatigue damage in one seastate can
be expressed as follows

Ab. No. 021 12/17

 probability matrix of occurrence of the short term
(22) seatates as follows'
T,. B"Q
For a narrow banded process, the accumulated Dt= (27)
fatigue damage in one seastate may be rewritten as K
follows: where Q, = P,P,PkP/, j kl and ¡s the
. .k ,1
B"
D= n
K
JS"p(S) dS t(m,m1,S0,B) (23) stress level parameter for a given seastate i,j,k,l
I)
6.2.6 Fatigue Acceptance Criteria
j..i(m,m1 ,S0, B)(2J)" "F The fatigue life results are given in two formats as
= nr K follows

Since the stress process is not a strictly narrow The conventional deterministic fatigue life format
banded process, a rainflow correction factor X(m,c) calculated with an S-N curve with an associated
probability of survival of 97,5%, and a fatigue
is introduced to remove the conservatism due to the
damage factor of 1,0 for 20 years;
narrow band assumption, Wirshing (1977). The
expected number of stress cycles is obtained from the
The probabilistic format based on a simple log-
stress process zero crossing frequency as follows norma? format for multiplicative limit state functions
= Tu and
+
Uo
=-:
i 1m,
(24)
yields a probability of failure and a safety index for
a given number of service years Wirshing (1987).

7. DOUBLE HULL VLCC FDA APPLICATION

The deterministic fatigue damage accumulated in a
given seastate can be obtained from the following To illustrate typical distributions of fatigue damage,
expressions FDA computations have been performed foF an
idealised double hull VLCC ship with uniform typical
TB " Q
D= (25) end connection design i.e. flat bar web stiffener
K 200x12 around the envelope.
m
Q= X(n ).i(m,m ,B,S0)o(2-.h)"o' +1 (26) 7.1 Influence of Loading Components
2
Figures 12,13 illustrate the fatigue damage
For each seastate, the short-term fatigue damage
distribution due to the hydrodynamic wave pressure
accumulation rate, and stress cycle rate are
computed to enable the computation of the long term
alone in head seas, in a fully loaded and ballast
condition respectively for a given seastate (H113,T). lt
fatigue damage.
can be seen that the maximum fatigue damage
6.2.4 Voyage Simulation occurs below the waterline. In the fully loaded
Since fatigue damage is a cumulative process, and condition, the fatigue damage in way of the outer
the long term stress range distribution is a function of bottom is comparatively low due to both the
the long term wave environment, it is essential that depthwise variation of the longitudinal scantlings, and
due consideration is given to the derivation of a the exponential decay of the hydrodynamic pressure.
realistic wave environment. Using a concept similar to In ballast condition, the fatigue damage on the lower
100 Al longitudinal strength standard based on the part of the side shell tends to be more uniform.
North Atlantic wave environment, the 100 Al fatigue
wave environment standard has been formulated. lt is
computed systematically for a combination of trading
routes for the ship type, and ship characteristics
subject to the FDA investigation. The trading routes
are a direct function of the ship type, and they have
been determined from statistical analysis of world-
wide trading pattern. The Global Wave Statistics data,
N /
BMT (1986), is used to determine a service profile
matrix giving the probabilities of occurrence of the
seastates defined in terms of significant wave height,
mean wave period, loading condition, ship to wave
heading and service speed. Fig. 12. Fatigue Damage Factor Fd Distribution -
Hydrodynamic wave pressure only - Full
6.2.5 Computation of Long Term Fatigue Damage Load - Head Seas - Envelope Fd= 6.0
The total lifetime accumulated fatigue damage Dt over
a specified service period Ts is computed from the

Ab. No. 021 13/17

 ''I'll
J-
Fig. 13. Fatigue Damage Factor Ed Distribution -
Hydrodynamic wave pressure only - Ballast
- Head Seas - Envelope Fd10.0
Figure 14. illustrates the fatigue damage distribution
in beam seas. lt is shown that on the weather side of
the ship, the fatigue damage is significantly larger
than on the lee side. The influence of the rolling
motion is also noticeable with the maximum fatigue
damage zone extending over the waterline.
Fig. 14. Fatigue Damage Factor Fd Distribution -
Hydrodynamic wave pressure only - Fully
Loaded - Beam Seas - Envelope Fd=20.0
Figure 15. illustrates a typical distribution of fatigue
damage due to the wave induced hull girder vertical
bending moment.
I .--Fully Loaded
Ï I
! a Fully Loaded & Ballast
111111 HhllilIllhli 11h11 Ill
Fig. 15 Fatigue Damage Factor Fd Distribution
Vertical Bending Moment- Fully Loaded
Head Seas - Envelope Fd13.0
Figure 16 illustrates a typical distribution of fatigue
damage due to the wave induced hull girder
horizontal bending moment . The difference in fatigue
damage on the side shell s due to the variation of S-
N curves due to the difference in the SCF arising from
the ratio of the flange thickness to flat bar thickness.
Ab. No. 021
!I. ï
Fig. 16 Fatigue Damage Factor Ed Distribution -
Horizontal Bending Moment- Fully Loaded -
Beam Seas - Envelope Fd=0.15
7.2 100 Al Fatigue Wave Environment
Figure 17 shows the probability distribution of the
wave direction for the subject ship based on the 100
Al fatigue wave environment for large crude oil
tankers. lt is shown that these distributions differ for
the fully loaded and ballast voyage. Due to a slight
dominance of the wave direction, the fatigue darage
is maximised on one side of the ship in the fully
loaded voyage, and the other side in the ballast
voyage.
340
320 40
60
3o414
P4
280
260
240
20'
180
--- Ballast
Fig. 17 Probability Distribution of Wave Direction
Figures 18,19 illustrate the distribution of fat!gue
damage at midship and at a forward frame next to the
forward bulkhead of tank No. 1 respectively. lt is
shown that the fatigue damage in way of the midship
section is dominated by the vertical bending moment
at the deck and bottom, whisit the side shell is subject
to higher fatigue loading in way of the fully loaded
waterline. For the forward section, due to the larger
amplitude of wave pressure as a result of the relative
motion of the ship, and the reduction in the vertical
bending moment amplitude, the side shell and outer
14/17
bottom, especiaHy in way of the fully loaded waterline Due to the dominance of the quartering wave
area is more prone to fatigue damage. direction, t is expected that the fatigue damage will
be higher due to the combined action of the vertical
and horizontal bending moment, as well as the lateral
motions inducing higher hydrodynamic wave
pressures.

-n.

/= llIllIllIIlllIllll!I. II IlillIllhl lii

I
/
Fig. 18 Fatigue Damage Factor Ed Distribution -
Midship Section -Envelope Fd=1.0

Fig. 21 Fatigue Damage Factor Ed Distribution -

Midship Section -Envelope Fd=1.0

11111111 llIlIIIIII 11111111111

lui

Fig. 19 Fatigue Damage Factor Fd Distribution -

Forward Section -Envelope Fd=1 .0

7.3 Alaska to Gulf of Mexico Wave Environment Fig. 22 Fatigue Damage Factor Fd Distribution -
Forward Section - Envelope Fd1 .0
o
340 Figure 21,22 illustrate the distribution of fatigue
320 damage at midship and at a forward frame next to the
forward bulkhead of tank No. 1 respectively. lt is
300
shown that due to the increased probability of
280

260

240
iI 100
occurrence quartering seas, the fatigue damage due
to the hydrodynamic pressure in way of the side shell
and the outer bottom is increased. lt should be
pointed out that this wave environment only applies to
a small percentage of the total trading patterns
encountered by this ship type, and is given to
highlight the significance of the wave environment to
220 fatigue damage.

180 8. FATIGUE CONTROL PLAN AND

-.-- Fully Loaded
-- Ballast
e-- Fully Loaded & Ballast
Fig. 20 Probability Distribution of Wave Direction
Figure 20 shows the probability distribution of the
wave direction for the subject ship based the Alaska
to Gulf of Mexico trading pattern The distributions
for the fully loaded and ballast voyage exhibit some
degree of symmetry about the quartering seas axis.
CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Since fatigue performance of ship structural details
can be influenced by the workmanship standard, the
fit-up and the alignment of the structural components,
t is essential that due attention is given during the
construction stages to ensure that the structure will be
representative of the assumptions used in the fatigue
.
design assessment. To achieve this objective, a
Fatigue Control Plan ¡s developed at the plan

Ab. No. 021 15/17

approval stage, and the items to be considered are as ensuring an adequate level of detail design is
follows performed by providing the Structural Detail
Design Guide;
Identification of critical areas by the FEA Structural
Design Assessment procedure (SDA), and the ensuring that adequate structural design
FDA procedure; concepts and sound analysis techniques are
used by providing a first principle fatigue design
Marking of the critical areas and structural details assessment tool supported by an ongoing
on the ship plan; research programme of theoretical and
experimental work;
Definition of the construction tolerances for the
critical structural details in terms of welding ensuring that the workmanship, and construction
requirements, fit-up and misalignment tolerances. standards are performed to a satisfactory level,
The erection sequence of the blocks is also to be and that the fatigue strength can be maintained
specially considered iii order to minimise by the provision of enhanced survey procedures,
misalignment, and locking of residual stresses and the application of a hull condition monitoring
during assembly. system.

The fatigue control plan uses the fatigue life 10. REFERENCES
results computed by the FDA procedure to
determine the level of inspection during British Maritime Technology, Global Wave Statistics,
construction. 1985.

During the newbuilding construction, the field
surveyor will draw particular attention to the critical
areas highlighted by the Plan Approval Office, and the
Fatigue Control Plan. Enhanced levels of visual
inspection, and NDEINDT may be required at
selected critical locations.
9. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
Throughout the development of the ShipRight FDA
procedure, the objectives have been to provide a
flexible, reliable and total approach to assess the
problem of fatigue damage of ship structural details.
The main features of the first principle Fatigue Design
Assessment procedure have been reviewed. The
procedure based on the structural spectral method of
analysis has been implemented into a user friendly
Window TM integrated software for design and
assessment purposes. The disadvantages associated
with the application of the traditional maximum load
approach to the determination of the long term stress
range spectrum which have prompted the
development of the subject procedure have been
summarised. Novel direct calculation features such as
the S-N Curve Expert, the computation of wave
induced loads by parametric expressions, the use of a
voyage simulation procedure have been outlined, and
typical application examples have been given to
illustrate the application of the procedure.
In summary, in order to attain and maintain a
satisfactory fatigue performance of ship structural
details, it is essential that a global approach giving
due consideration to the design, construction and ¡n
service stages of the life of structural details be
applied. This has been achieved by
BS 5400, Part 10, 1980. Code of Practice for Fatigue.
Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges. British
Standard Institution.
ECCS - Technical Committee 6 - Fatigue
Recommendations for Fatigue Design of Steel
Structures, 1985
Ferguson J.M., Violette F.L.M, Some Effects on Ship
Structural Design created by the Increased
Application of Higher Tensile Steels, Proc. IMSDC 91,
Kobe, Japan.
liS/lIW Doc. 700-82, Welding in the World, No 20.7/8,
1982
KSRI, Load Spectra for Ship Structure Fatigue
Evaluations, Restricted, 1992
Lloyd's Register, Paper presented at the Royal
Institution of Naval Architects, London, 1913
Lloyd's Register, ShipRight FDA - Structural Detail
Design Guide, 1994
Lloyd's Register, ShipRight FDA - Fatigue Design
Assessment - Procedures Manual, 1994
Lloyd's Register, ShipRight SDA - Structural Design
Assessment - Procedures Manual, 1994
Lloyd's Register, ShipRight HCM - Hull Condition
Monitoring - Procedures Manual, 1994
Lloyd's Register, ShipRight CM - Construction
Monitoring - Procedures Manual, 1994

Ab. No. 021 16/17

Lloyd's Register, Comparative Fatigue Damage U Mean zero crossing frequency
Analysis of a 280,000 Dwt VLCC, September 1992 -
Restricted P, = p(i jkl) probability ith loading condition

Offshore Installations Guidance on Design and

:
PI =p(i iki) probability jth ship to wave

Construction. New Fatigue Design Guidance for Steel heading

Welded Joints in Offshore Structures. UK Den, Pk =p(kijl) probability kth ship speed
August 1983.
p, = p(l ¿1k) probability Ith seastate (H1I3,TZ)
Violette ELM, The Effect of Corrosion on Structural SCF ship structural detail
Detail Design, Int. Conf. Marine Corrosion Prevention, 50F standard detail
Royal Institution of Naval Architects, London, Oct. Knom Intercept nominal S-N curve
1994 Kh, Intercept reference S-N curve
hv Hot spot stress range
Wirshing P.H, Fatigue under wide band random m S-N curve inverse slope
Stresses using the rainflow method, Journal of m' = m S-N Curve negative inverse slope
Engineering Materials and Technology, ASME, 1977

Wirshing P.H, Chen Y.N., Consideration of Probability

- Based Fatigue Design for Marine Structures, Proc.
Marine Structural reliability Symposium, Arlington, VA,
1987.

11. NOMENCLATURE

I SecQnd moment of area

ZU.' Section modulus about flange
zzz Hull girder section modulus about ZZ
zYY Hull girder section modulus about YY
s Stiffener spacing
¡ Effective span
f(x) Bending moment shape function at
critical location x from span point
K8, Bias stress concentration factor
loadcase i
C, Structural influence coefficient of the ith
load process P,(t)
P,(t) Load process i
H/i) Stress process ¡ complex form
n Total number of load processes I ship
motions influence parameters
p(S) Stress range probability function
a Standard deviation of the stress process
so S-N curve stress range at stress
cycles
S, tS Nominal stress,stress range
N(S) Number of allowable stress cycles at
stress range S,
n(S) Number of stress cycles with stress
range S for the given seastate
Expected number of stress cycles in the
given seastate
B Modelling bias for the stress prediction
model
p/mm I,SO,B) Correction factor for multi-linear S-N
curve
m Slope of selected S-N curve
K Intercept of selected S-N curve
E Spectral bandwidth
T Seastate duration

Ab. No. 021 17/17