ssc - 419 supplemental commercial design guidance for fatigue ship ...

SSC - 419SUPPLEMENTAL COMMERCIALDESIGN GUIDANCE FOR FATIGUEThis document has been approvedFor public release and sale; itsDistribution is unlimitedSHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE2002

1. Report No.SSC - 4192. Government Accession No. 2. Recipient’s Catalog No.4. Title and Subtitle5. Report DateSupplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatigue August 31, 20016. Performing OrganizationCode7. Author(s)8. Performing OrganizationSielski, Robert A., Wilkins, J.R. Jr., Hults, J.A.Report No. SR-14039. Performing Organization Name and Address10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)PRIME, Inc. – MIDAS4009 Williamsburg Ct.11. Contract or Grant No.Suite 200DTCG39-99-C-E00221Fairfax, VA 2203212. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address13. Type of Report and PeriodShip Structure CommitteeCoveredU.S. Coast Guard (G-MSE/SSC)Final Report2100 Second Street, S.W.14. Sponsoring Agency CodeWashington, DC 20593-0001G-M15. Supplementary NotesSponsored by the Ship Structure Committee. Jointly funded by its member agencies.16. AbstractMethods of fatigue analysis of ship structure for commercial and naval ships were reviewed.This review included primary and secondary structural loads, ship operational environments,method of computing hull response to the loads, commercial and naval structural details, and thenominal strength of the hull girder. Structural inspection requirements were reviewed.The containership version of the ABS SafeHull program was used for the analysis of 10ships of the U.S. and Canadian Navies. The program, which was developed for commercialships, was able to be adapted to naval ships, with some shortcomings and limitations associatedwith this adaptation. In the Phase A module of the SafeHull program, some areas of the structureare not analyzed for fatigue, such as some of the areas of discontinuity and stress concentrationon the naval ships. The Phase B of the SafeHull program is intended to deal with such areasthrough finite element analysis, but limitations of the program prevented its application to thenaval ships.Naval ships have a different operating environment and period of service than commercialships, and adaptation of the program and its results for these differences is limited. A moregeneralized spectral fatigue procedure must be used to account for such differences inenvironment and operations.The Phase A analysis of the midship section of the 10 naval ships indicated that all of thestructure was satisfactory for fatigue except for the side longitudinals of some of the ships nearthe waterline. Operational experience has not shown these areas to be a problem, although someships have experienced corrosion in the structure near the waterline.17. Key WordsFatigue, Ship Structures, Commercial Ship,Naval Ship19. Security Classif. (of thisreport)Unclassified20. Security Classif. (of thispage)Unclassified18. Distribution StatementDistribution is available to the public through:National Technical Information ServiceU.S. Department of CommerceSpringfield, VA 22151 Ph. (703) 487-4650121. No. ofPages22. Price

CONVERSION FACTORS(Approximate conversion of common U.S. Customary unitsused for ship structures to metric or SI units)To convert from To Function ValueLENGTHinches meters divide by 39.3701inches millimeters multiply by 25.4000feet meters divide by 3.2808VOLUMEcubic feet cubic meters divide by 35.3149cubic inches cubic meters divide by 61,024SECTION MODULUSinches 2 feet centimeters 2 meters multiply by 1.9665inches 2 feet centimeters 3 multiply by 196.6448inches 3 centimeters 3 multiply by 16.3871MOMENT OF INERTIAinches 2 feet 2 centimeters 2 meters 2 divide by 1.6684inches 2 feet 2 centimeters 4 multiply by 5993.73inches 3 centimeters 4 multiply by 41.623FORCE OR MASSlong tons tonnes multiply by 1.0160long tons kilograms multiply by 1016.047pounds tonnes divide by 2204.62pounds kilograms divide by 2.2046pounds Newtons multiply by 4.4482PRESSURE OR STRESSpounds/inch 2 Newtons/meter 2 (Pascals) multiply by 6894.757kilo pounds/inch 2 mega Newtons/meter 2 multiply by 6.8947(mega Pascals)pounds/inch 2 kg/cm 2 divide by 14.2232kg/cm 2 mega Pascals multiply by 0.098065BENDING OR TORQUEfoot tons meter tons divide by 3.2291foot pounds kilogram meters divide by 7.23285foot pounds Newton meters multiply by 1.35582ENERGYfoot pounds Joules multiply by 1.355826STRESS INTENSITYkilo pounds/inch 2 inch 1/2 (ksi√in) mega Newton m 3/2 multiply by 1.0998J-INTEGRALkilo pound/inch Joules/mm 2 multiply by 0.1753kilo pound/inch kilo Joules/m 2 multiply by 175.3TEMPERATUREDegrees Fahrenheit Degrees Celsius subtract& divide by321.82

Executive SummaryThis report was prepared for the interagency Ship Structure Committee Current U.S. government shipacquisition directives emphasize the use of commercial practices wherever possible. The objective of thisproject, in compliance with those directives, was to evaluate commercial methods for analyzing the fatigueloadings on ships over their operational life. The scope of the project included documenting currentcommercial approaches and practices for the structural design of a ship hull girder for environmental loads. Asa minimum, the scope included service life, operating time and area, speed and headings, wave height andwhipping probabilities, S-N curves, allowable stress range criteria, hull girder strength, and construction and inserviceinspection requirements. It further required that the current commercial design practices for fatigue beapplied to 5 past and 5 current Navy Hulls. At the project kick-off meeting the Ship Structure CommitteeProject Technical Committee SR-1403 agreed upon the 10 U.S. Navy and Canadian Navy ships to be analyzed.Current methods of fatigue analysis of ship structure for commercial and naval ships were reviewed todevelop background for the study. This review included primary and secondary structural loads, shipoperational environments, methods of computing hull response to the loads, commercial and naval structuraldetails, and the nominal strength of the hull girder. Structural inspection requirements were reviewed.There are considerable differences between the documented methods used for fatigue analysis ofcommercial ships and of military ships. The commercial methods best documented are those of the AmericanBureau of Shipping (ABS). Specific procedures have been developed and calibrated for three types of ships:containerships, tankers, and bulk carriers. These ABS simplified fatigue analysis procedures have beenincorporated into the ABS computer program SafeHull, implementing their classification rules for these typesof ships. The ABS philosophy towards fatigue is that the fatigue strength of welded joints and details in highlystressed areas is to be based upon at least 20 years of operation of the ship. Fatigue considerations will increasescantlings above minimum rule requirements, but will not be used to reduce scantlings. Through analysis of anumber of ships, ABS developed lifetime fatigue loading spectra for the hull structure that are characterized bya Weibull distribution function [see Glossary for explanation of Weibull distribution]. These fatigue loadingspectra are used with the fatigue S-N curves [see Glossary for explanation of S-N curve.] for welded structuraldetails developed by the U.K. Department of Energy (DEN) (UK DEN, 1990), and interpreted for ship structureby ABS. Other ship classification societies have also developed their own procedures for incorporating fatigueanalysis into ship structural design.The U.S. Navy has developed fatigue analysis procedures using a fatigue loading spectrum computed forthe assumed operating conditions of each individual ship, using generalized wave response functions fromexperimental data. The fatigue strength of structural details is obtained from U.S. Navy experimental datasupplemented by data developed by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials(AASHTO) (AASHTO, 1996).The Canadian Navy fatigue design procedure is based on the procedures of the U.K. Navy. The procedureuses an exponential frequency distribution function of a maximum lifetime hull girder bending momentdeveloped from static balance of the ship on an 8-meter high wave. Data on fatigue strength of structural detailsis taken from a British standard that is similar to the U.K. DEN fatigue data (Maddox, 1991).The differences in the above methods for fatigue analysis are based mostly on historical development andpreferences of analysts who developed the methodologies, and not on structural or hydrodynamic differencesbetween commercial and naval ships. Therefore, a methodology developed for a commercial ship should be3

able to be applied to a naval ship. However, the calibration of the methodology for commercial ships is notnecessarily valid for naval ships.For the purposes of design, all of the above methods develop the lifetime loading spectrum assuming shipoperations in the North Atlantic. In defining a 20-year fatigue life, ABS assumes that the ship will spend themajority of its time at sea, specifically, 80 percent of the time for a containership. The U.S. Navy generallyassumes that ships will spend only 35 percent of the time at sea, although for a period of 30 or 40 years. Studiesof the operations of actual ships show that U.S. Navy ships tend to spend most of their time in a more benignenvironment than the North Atlantic Ocean, and therefore will have greater fatigue lives than predictions basedon North Atlantic operations would indicate.In developing the loading for fatigue analysis, ABS bases loads on linear ship motion computer programs,supplemented by nonlinear analysis when appropriate. As stated above, the U.S. Navy uses generalizedexperimental data for developing loading, but is conducting extensive research on methods of nonlinearanalysis, as is the Canadian Navy. Such nonlinearities in the response of ships to waves can have a significanteffect on predictions of maximum lifetime loads. However, the nonlinearities have less effect on the loads forfatigue analysis because the majority of the loading that causes fatigue damage comes from repeated applicationof low amplitude loads, which are more linear in nature.The exception to the statement that nonlinearities are not important for fatigue analysis is wave-inducedwhipping. This is a nonlinear transient phenomenon caused by the ship slamming into waves that causes hullgirder vibration for 5–10 cycles at a frequency of 1–2 Hz, significantly increasing the number of fatigue loadingcycles. ABS accounts for slamming by increasing the maximum design bending moment, but the U.S. Navyincorporates whipping cycles into the fatigue loading. The Canadian procedure implicitly includes whippingthrough the assumed exponential distribution of the fatigue spectrum.Fatigue damage to the majority of hull structure comes from wave-induced hull girder bending verticalmoments. The actual vertical section modulus of the hull will therefore have a strong effect on the actualbending stress incurred in waves, and therefore on the fatigue life of the ship. ABS bases hull girder strength onstandards developed by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS). However, the IACSstandards have been supplemented for specific ship types, such as containerships, based on the experience ofABS. For unusual ship types or unusual anticipated operating conditions, additional hydrodynamic analysismay be performed to increase the hull girder strength above the IACS minimum requirements.The U.S. Navy bases hull girder strength on the traditional naval architectural static balance of the ship on atrochoidal wave, with wave height of 1.1 times the square root of ship length for combatant ships. This wavemoment and the associated still water moment are used with somewhat conservative allowable hull girderdesign stresses to obtain the required hull girder section modulus. As stated above, the Canadian standard forhull girder bending is based on static balance on an 8-meter wave. Allowable stresses are less conservative thanthose used by the U.S. Navy. The result of these standards is that the Canadian ships have about the same hullgirder section modulus as they would have if designed to the ABS standard. However, the section modulus ofan otherwise equivalent U.S. Navy ship is 25 percent to 90 percent higher than would be required by ABS.Secondary loads, such as the varying pressure on the side hull due to wave action and ship motion, havebeen studied more extensively by ABS than by the U.S. Navy. The standards for fatigue analysis that are basedon such loads tend to be higher for ABS, particularly for longitudinal stiffeners in the side shell near thewaterline. However, comparison of analytic loads with the limited experimental data available has shown poorcorrelation, indicating a need for additional studies of these loads.4

Glossary of TermsClassification—The process of establishing and administering standards or Rules. Those seeking classificationmust adhere to these Rules to gain class.Fatigue—Failure of material from repeated cyclic application of loads. The number of load cycles in thelifetime of a ship is 10 8 or greater.Fatigue Loading Spectrum—A representation of the random amplitude loads applied to ship structure from shipoperations in a random seaway. A loading spectrum is generally characterized by an exceedance curve,which has the load on the ordinate, and the number of times a load of that magnitude is exceeded duringthe lifetime of the ship on the abscissa. In a semi-log curve, with the abscissa a logarithmic scale, theexceedance curve is close to a straight line (an exponential distribution), or has a slight curvature toapproximate a Weibull distribution.Linear Cumulative Fatigue Theory—A theory of fatigue failure for loading of variable amplitude. The amountof fatigue damage by all the stress cycles of a particular stress amplitude is the fraction of the number ofcycles at that amplitude to the number of cycles to cause failure under constant amplitude loading of thatstress amplitude.Response Amplitude Operator (RAO)—Also known as Frequency Response Functions (FRF) or transferfunctions. The amount of response to a unit wave height of some hull response parameter, such asbending moment. The value of the response is determined over the range of all anticipated waveencounter frequencies.Sea Spectrum—A characterization of the randomly occuring waves at a particular loacation at a particular time.Paramaters used include the low-frequency and high frequency of the significant wave height, modalfrequency, and a shape parameter.Sea State—A characterization of the amplitude of waves at a particular location at a particular time. Sea statesare generally characterized by the average of the one-third highest waves. There are several standardtables of probability that the wave height will be within a given range at a particular location in theocean.S-N Curve—A graphic representation of the results of a number of fatigue tests on identical specimens testedunder repeated loading at the same amplitude of stress. The number of loading cycles (N) is plotted onthe abscissa, and the amplitude of the applied stress range (S) is plotted on the ordinate. When the S-Ncurve is plotted on a logarithmic scale, the shape of the curve through the data points tends toapproximate a straight line.Weibull Distribution—A random distribution with a cumulative distribution function of:F S (s) = P(S ≤ s) = 1 – exp[-(s/S m ) ξ ] ln (N T )Where:S is the stressS m is the design stressN T is the number of times in the lifetime that the stress S m is exceededξ is the Weibull shape parameter, generally ranging between 0.7 and 1.3 for hull girder waveloading.6

Whipping—Vibration of the hull girder of a ship at its natural frequency, generally 1 to 2 Hz for the first modeof vertical vibration. Excitation is generally from impact of the hull with a wave at the bow. As manyas ten cycles of decreasing amplitude will occur from a single impact.7

AcknowledgmentThis work was conducted under contract DTCG39-99-C-E00221 with the U.S. Coast Guard Researchand Development Center. The authors would like to express appreciation to the members of the ProjectTechnical Committee SR-1403 of the Ship Structure Committee, Phil Rynn of ABS, David Kihl of NSWCCD,David Stredulinski of DREA, and especially to the PTC chair, Mike Sieve of NAVSEA. The assistance of theABS SafeHull staff led by Gary Horn was essential, including the help from John Baxter and especially the ableassistance of Ping Liao, whose in-depth expertise in SafeHull was invaluable. Yung-Sup Shin of ABSprovided valuable advice on loading. Tom Ingram and Joan Watts of ABS provided help with the specialversion of SafeHull for containerships less than 130 meters long. Alex Ritchie of DREA provided informationon Canadian ships. Ron Saber of Midas produced the initial input to SafeHull.8

Table of ContentsSection Title PageExecutive SummaryiiGlossary of Termsvi1. Introduction 1-11.1 Purpose 1-11.2 Commercial Approaches and Practices for the Structural Design of the Ship 1-1Hull Girder for Environmental Loads1.3 Operational Environments Used in Commercial and USN Ship Design 1-1Practice1.4 Hull Response Methods 1-21.5 Commercial Structural Details 1-21.6 Nominal Strength of the Hull Girder 1-31.7 Secondary Loads Prediction 1-31.8 In-service Hull Girder Inspection Requirements 1-41.9 Application of Commercial Methods for Fatigue Analysis of Existing Ships 1-41.10 Shortcomings/Limitations of the Commercial Approaches 1-51.11 Suggested Modifications to the Commercial Approaches 1-52. Current Commercial Practices for the Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girder 2-1for Environmental Loads2.1 Purpose 2-12.2 Introduction 2-12.3 ABS Approach and Practice 2-32.3.1 Typical Rule Requirements 2-32.3.2 ABS SafeHull and Dynamic Loading Approach 2-72.3.3 ABS Fatigue Analysis 2-132.3.4 Relationship Between ABS Rules, SafeHull, and DLA 2-152.3.5 Simplified and Spectral Approaches to Fatigue 2-172.3.6 ABS Benchmarking of the Fatigue Design Procedure 2-182.4 Design Criteria for U.S. Navy Ships 2-192.5 Canadian Navy Structural Design Criteria 2-212.5.1 Longitudinal Strength 2-212.5.2 Side and Bottom Shell 2-222.5.3 Fatigue 2-232.6 Commercial Rules for Military Ships 2-232.7 Naval Ship Assessment by the SafeHull System 2-232.8 Summary 2-243. Operational Environments Used in Commercial and USN Ship Design Practice 3-13.1 Purpose 3-13.2 Introduction 3-13.3 ABS Fatigue Analysis 3-53.4 U.S. Navy Fatigue Analysis 3-63.5 Summary 3-139

Section Title Page4. Commercial Methods for Predicting Ship Lifetime Bending and Torsional 4-1Moments4.1 Purpose 4-14.2 Introduction 4-14.3 Software Code 4-14.3.1 SafeHull and other ABS Computer Programs 4-14.3.2 U.S. Navy Hull Response Methods 4-44.3.3 Canadian Navy Hull Response Methods 4-84.3.4 Other programs 4-84.4 Longitudinal Distribution of Moments 4-94.5 Ship Speed and Heading Probabilities 4-114.6 Wave Cells 4-124.7 Response Amplitude Operators 4-124.8 Wave Spectra 4-134.9 Summary 4-155.0 Fatigue Data for Ship Structural Details 5-15.1 Purpose 5-15.2 Introduction 5-15.3 Commercial Structural Details 5-25.4 Structural Details on Military Ships 5-45.5 Other Fatigue Data 5-55.6 Evaluation 5-55.7 Nonlinear Analysis and Fracture Mechanics Analysis 5-145.8 Summary 5-146. The Nominal Strength of the Hull Girder 6-16.1 Purpose 6-16.2 Introduction 6-16.3 ABS Methods for Determining Hull Girder Nominal Strength 6-26.3.1 Primary ABS Standard 6-26.3.2 ABS Dynamic Loading Analysis (DLA) Approach 6-36.4 U.S. Navy Methods for Determining Hull Girder Nominal Strength 6-46.5 Canadian Navy Methods for Determining Hull Girder Nominal Strength 6-76.6 Comparison of Naval Ship Section Moduli with Commercial Requirements 6-86.7 Summary 6-107. Lifetime Secondary Loads Prediction Technology Base for Commercial Ships 7-17.1 Purpose 7-17.2 Background 7-17.3 External Hydrodynamic Pressure 7-17.4 Hydrodynamic Impact Loads 7-57.5 Tank Sloshing Loads 7-57.6 Summary 7-78. In-service Hull Girder Inspection Requirements of Commercial and Naval Ship 8-1Operators8.1 Purpose 8-110

Section Title Page8.2 Commercial Ship Requirements 8-18.3 Military Sealift Command Maintenance Philosophy 8-38.4 Canadian Statement of Structural Integrity (SSI) Overview 8-58.5 Design and Maintenance of Canadian Coast Guard Ships 8-78.6 U.S. Navy Maintenance Policy 8-78.6.1 Maintenance Authority 8-88.6.2 Maintenance Material Management 8-88.6.3 Naval Ship’s Technical Manual 8-108.6.4 Underwater Inspections 8-118.6.5 Thin Hull Check Lists 8-118.6.6 Corrosion Control Information Management System (CCIMS) 8-128.6.7 Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) 8-128.6.8 Example – SURFLANT Policies 8-138.7 Summary 8-139. Application of Commercial Methods for Fatigue Analysis of Existing Ships 9-19.1 Purpose 9-19.2 Introduction 9-19.3 Phase A Analysis 9-19.3.1 Input Data 9-19.3.2 Results of Analysis 9-69.4 Phase B Analysis 9-259.5 Summary 9-3510. Shortcomings/Limitations of the SafeHull Approach for Fatigue Analysis of 10-1Naval Vessels10.1 Purpose 10-110.2 Introduction 10-110.3 Phase A Shortcomings 10-410.4 Phase A Limitations 10-510.5 Phase B Shortcomings and Limitations 10-610.6 Summary 10-711. Suggested Modifications to the SafeHull Approach for Fatigue Analysis of 11-1Naval Vessels11.1 Purpose 11-111.2 Introduction 11-111.3 Modifications of SafeHull Input by the User 11-111.4 Modifications of SafeHull Output by the User 11-111.4.1 Modification for Operability 11-211.4.2 Modification for Service Environment 11-611.4.3 Other Modifications of SafeHull Output 11-711.5 Modifications that Could be Made to the SafeHull Software 11-711.5.1 Tank Definition 11-711.5.2 Structural Details 11-711.5.3 Slamming Factor 11-811.5.4 Phase B Analysis 11-811.6 Summary 11-811

Section Title Page12. Conclusions 12-113. Recommendations 13-114. References 14-1Appendix A Fatigue Analysis Summary for Ship A A-1Appendix B Fatigue Analysis Summary for Ship B B-1Appendix C Fatigue Analysis Summary for Ship C C-1Appendix D Fatigue Analysis Summary for Ship D D-1Appendix E Fatigue Analysis Summary for Ship E E-1Appendix F Fatigue Analysis Summary for Ship F F-1Appendix G Fatigue Analysis Summary for Ship G G-1Appendix H Fatigue Analysis Summary for Ship H H-1Appendix I Fatigue Analysis Summary for Ship I I-1Appendix J Fatigue Analysis Summary for Ship J J-1Appendix K OPNAV Instruction 4700.7J, Maintenance Policy for Naval Ships, K-1December 4, 1992Appendix L S9086–CN–STM–040, Naval Ships’ Technical Manual L-1Appendix M Underwater Ship Husbandry Manual, S0600-AA-PRO-010, 0910-LP- M-1018-0350, Revision 2, October 1, 1998Appendix N The Corrosion Control Information Management System (CCIMS) N-1Inspection Manual,Appendix O United States Code, Title 10—Armed Forces, Subtitle C—Navy andMarine CorpsO-1List of IllustrationsFigure Title Page2.1 Typical Fatigue Data (Maddox, 1991) 2-112.2 Definition of Bow Flare Geometry for Bow Flare Shape Parameter 2-152.3 Relationship between ABS Rules, SafeHull, and DLA 2-163.1 ABS H-family of wave spectra for 3 meter Significant Wave Height (Thayamballi 3-6et al., 1987)3.2 Percent of Time Underway for Ship G 3-114.1 LAMP Based Load Analysis System 4-34.2 Organization of SPECTRA Program for Computing Lifetime Bending Moments 4-64.3 Prediction System for Ship Motions, Wave Loads, and Structural Responses.4-7(Engle et al., 1997)4.4 Comparison of Computed Bending Moments Midships (ISSC, 1997) 4-94.5 Comparison of the Longitudinal Distribution of the Maximum Computed Bending 4-11Vertical Moments (Station 10 is the FP) (ISSC, 1997)4.6 Vertical Bending Moment Square Root RAO of Military Ship in Head Seas 4-124.7 Vertical and Lateral RAOs from Experimental Data (Sikora, 1998) 4-145.1 Benign Structural Detail Categories (NSWCCD, 1998) 5-75.2 Moderate Structural Detail Categories (NSWCCD, 1998) 5-95.3 Severe Structural Detail Categories (NSWCCD, 1998) 5-1112

Figure Title Page5.4 Design Code S/N Curves (2.3% Probability of Failure) (NSWCCD, 1998) 5-136.1 Ineffective Area in Longitudinal Strength Calculation 6-37.1 Pressure Reduction Factor Applicable to Significant Wave Height (Chen and Shin, 7-21997)7.2 Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Hull Pressures on CFAV Quest 7-47.3 Comparison of Swash Tank Pressures without Impulse 7-77.4 Comparison of Slosh Tank Pressures with Impulse 7-79.1 Phase A Hull Input for a Typical Ship 9-29.2 SafeHull Tanks for Development of Local Loading 9-39.3 Section of SafeHull Model of a Typical Naval Vessel 9-49.4 Section of SafeHull Model of a Typical Containership 9-49.5 SafeHull End Connection Input 9-59.6 Details of Cutouts for Stiffeners 9-69.7 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship A 9-109.8 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship B 9-129.9 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship C 9-139.10 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship D 9-159.11 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship E 9-179.12 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship F 9-189.13 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship G 9-199.14 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship H 9-209.15 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship I 9-219.16 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship J 9-239.17 SafeHull Phase B Finite Element Model of CG 47 9-269.18 Interior of SafeHull Phase B Finite Element Model of CG 47 9-279.19 Typical Stress Plots from NASTRAN Analysis (kg/cm 2 ) 9-299.20 Typical Stress Plots of Bottom from NASTRAN Analysis (kg/cm 2 ) 9-299.21 Phase B Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Details for Ship G 9-33List of TablesTable Title Page2.1 ABS Comparison of Predicted Fatigue Damage with Service Experience2-19(ABS, 1993)2.2 UK MOD Allowable Hull Girder Stress (percent of yield strength) 2-222.3 Comparison of Commercial and2-25Naval Approaches for Fatigue Assessment3.1 Wave Height Probabilities for Different Operating Areas (Glen et al., 1999) 3-23.2 Percentage of Time at Sea of Ships (SSC SR-1388) 3-33.3 Sample Tanker Operating Profile 3-33.4 Operational Profile for Combatants (Michaelson, 1996) 3-43.5 Variation of Severity Parameters with Respect to Wave Environment (Chen and 3-5Thayamballi, 1991)3.6 U.S. Navy Standard Operational Profiles for Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers 3-73.7 U.S. Navy Standard Operational Profiles for Aircraft Carriers and High Speed Cargo 3-8Ships13

Table Title Page3.8 U.S. Navy Standard Operational Profiles for Auxiliaries and Commercial Cargo 3-8Ships3.9 Sea State Probabilities 3-93.10 Effect of Sea Spectrum and Operational Profiles on Predicted Fatigue Lives 3-134.1 ABS Longitudinal Distribution of Slam Induced Vertical Bending Moments (ABS 4-10Rules 5.3A.3.61c)5.1 Design Code S-N Curves (NSWCCD, 1998) 5-66.1 U.S. Navy Design Hull Girder Stress 6-56.2 Comparison of Maximum Bending Moments Computed by SPECTRA8 and ABS 6-6Rules6.3 Actual Section Modulus Compared to ABS Requirement for Naval Ships 6-98.1 Comparison of Hull Girder Inspection Policies 8-149.1 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Longitudinals for Ship G 9-89.2 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Flat Bars for Ship G 9-89.3 Comparison of Tanker and Containership SafeHull Loadings9-27Based on SafeHull Version 6.0 (Rules 2000)9.4 Comparison of SafeHull Phase A and Phase B Analyses for Ship G (CG 47 Class) 9-319.5 SafeHull Phase B Analysis of Fatigue of Flat Bars for Ship G (CG 47) 9-329.6 Comparison of Phase A and Phase B Section Moduli for Ship G 9-349.7 Difference between Tanker and Containership9-34Fatigue Analysis of Typical Stiffener of Ship G11.1 Computation of Permissible Stress Range 11-511.2 Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Longitudinals for Ship G Modified to 30 Years inNorth Atlantic with 35 Percent Operability11-61. Introduction1.1 PurposeThis report represents an attempt to apply to naval ships a method developed for the fatigue analysis ofcommercial ships. All aspects of structural design and construction as well as the operation of the ship at seahave a profound effect on the fatigue life of ship structure. Therefore, a review of these factors, especially ascurrently applied to the design of commercial and naval ships was undertaken as part of the study. Onecommercial method, the containership version of the SafeHull program of the American Bureau of Shipping(ABS), was then applied to 10 naval ships. This application was not straightforward, and requiredmodifications to the input of the program, and interpretation of the program output. This effort represents anexample of the shortcomings and limitations of such an application of a program developed for one type ofships when applied to a different type.As part of this study, the literature concerning commercial and naval methods of design for fatigue wasreviewed. The documents reviewed are listed in the list of references at the end of the report. The principalsubject matters investigated are listed below with a summary of the subject. The subjects will be discussed infurther detail in the remaining chapters of this report.14

1.2 Commercial Approaches and Practices for the Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girder forEnvironmental LoadsThere are considerable differences between the historical approaches to the structural design of militaryand commercial ships for environmental loads. These differences have diminished in recent years as thecommercial procedures have evolved to structural design based on analytically developed loads and detailedstress analysis. In many regards, particularly in the development of loads, a greater level of sophistication iscurrently used in the Dynamic Loading Approach (DLA) of the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) than iscurrently used by NAVSEA for design. The differences may diminish in the future as the classificationsocieties develop rules for military ships and if the military authorities adopt these rules. The degree ofdifference cannot be ascertained until ships are designed using the new rules, and the scantlings so developedare compared to equivalent ships designed under the old approach. One important factor relative to fatigue lifeof structure will be to determine which approach will result in heavier scantlings and thus have an inherentlygreater fatigue life. In either case, because fatigue assessment has now become standard practice for bothcommercial and military ship designs, either approach should result in improved fatigue lives.1.3 Operational Environments Used in Commercial and USN Ship Design PracticeThe operating environment clearly influences the fatigue life of ship structure, with some environmentsfar worse than others. The number of operational years for which a ship is designed, and thus, for whichavoidance of fatigue damage is necessary, is generally an owner’s option. Commercial ships are normallydesigned for fewer years of operation than naval ships, but spend a greater percentage of that time at sea. Themaster of a commercial ship is less likely to reduce speed or take a more seakindly heading in heavy weatherthan the commanding officer of a naval ship will during peacetime, but at time of war, the naval ship is morelikely to be driven harder.The area of operations of a ship has a great effect on fatigue life. A ship that operates throughout theentire Atlantic Ocean will have a fatigue life that is twice as long as a similar ship operating in only the NorthAtlantic. The more conservative assumption of North Atlantic Operations is generally used for design, butwhen comparing predictions of fatigue failure with service experience, actual operational conditions should beused.1.4 Hull Response MethodsThe principal issue in the prediction of lifetime bending and torsional moments is the importance ofnonlinearities in wave profiles and in the response of ships to waves. They are extremely important inpredicting the maximum lifetime response. In fatigue analysis, however, the majority of the fatigue damageoccurs at lower sea states where the waves and the response of ships to them are linear. Therefore,consideration of nonlinearities is generally not important for predicting a fatigue loading spectrum, with theexception of slam-induced whipping.The commercial and military methods of fatigue analysis currently used in design have a deterministicbasis, using lower-bound probability fatigue data, but not otherwise considering the stochastic nature of loads,strength or analysis. However, there can be large variability in all of these factors, so that actual fatigue life canvary over a full order of magnitude Thus, calibration of fatigue analysis with operating experience can bedifficult, especially if few failure occur in service, making the failure database small.15

Issues remain as to the necessary extent of nonlinear analysis methods in moment predictions, and therelative merits of experimental data compared to analytical results. Standardized operating environments maybe useful for design, but conditions when it is prudent to deviate from the standard must be determined.1.5 Commercial Structural DetailsIn almost all cases of fatigue failure of ship structure, the cracking will originate in a weld. In someinstances, the weld that fails will be a simple butt weld, but that is usually true only for defective welds.Welded structural details, such as intersecting stiffeners or changes in geometry, produce local stressconcentrations that magnify the effect of discontinuities in welds, and these details are the predominant originof fatigue cracks.Considerable data exists on the response of both commercial and military welded ship structural detailsto fatigue loading. These data are compared in Chapter 5. There are three distinct approaches towards the useof this information. One is to use test data for a structural test specimen that is similar in geometry and inwelding procedure to the ship detail being analyzed. The second approach is to use standard fatigue curvespublished by several different organizations. The third approach is the “hot-spot” approach, which relies on adetailed finite element analysis to predict local stress levels within a detail, and use those stresses with a singlestandard fatigue curve.In considering the available database of fatigue data, differentiation must be made between the structuraldetails associated with commercial ships and with naval ships. In the past, commercial ships were generallycharacterized by less care in design and fabrication compared to naval ships, but there have been changes inrecent practice that bring the two types closer together. Furthermore, structural details can frequently be brokendown into standard configurations, such as bracket toes and cruciform joints, and these configurations maydetermine the fatigue strength of the structural detail, whether it is on a commercial or a military ship. In thisway, the same database can be used for both ship types. However, issues remain in the interpretation of thedatabases, such as whether a linear or bilinear S-N curve should be used for design and analysis.1.6 Nominal Strength of the Hull GirderAssessment of hull girder strength for commercial ships is an integral part of classification society rules.In past practice, hull girder strength was provided by an overall section modulus approach to hull girderstrength, using a standard rule for minimum section modulus. Such methods are still contained in the rules ofclassification societies. Today, that traditional method is being supplanted by hydrodynamic analysis todetermine loads, detailed finite element analysis to determine stress distribution, and failure analysis todetermine strength.Two of the critical items that affect the fatigue strength of the structure are the nominal stress range andstress concentrations. A ship with a high section modulus can have greater global and local stressconcentrations and reduced weld quality and still have the same fatigue life as a ship with a lower sectionmodulus but constructed to a higher standard. It is therefore important to understand how various standards forhull girder nominal strength affect the actual section modulus of the ship.For ships classed by ABS, there are minimum standards for hull girder strength and enhancements tothose standards for certain types of ships and to suit special classification requirements of ABS. Ownerssometimes require enhancements to the minimum requirements. Likewise, the U.S. Navy and the Canadian16

Navy have standards for hull girder strength. It will be shown that these different standards will result indifferent hull girder section moduli, and therefore different operating stresses for similar ships built to thedifferent standards.1.7 Secondary Loads PredictionFor critical areas of the hull girder, especially the strength deck and the bottom structure, primary hullgirder bending moments are the most important source of alternating stresses that lead to fatigue failure. Forother areas of the structure, secondary loads, such as external hydrodynamic pressure on the side shell are moreimportant. The side shell near the waterline is near the neutral axis, and therefore has little stress from verticalhull girder bending, but is frequently subject to great variation in loading due to wave action and ship motion.The technical base for computation of these secondary loads appears to be stronger in commercial practice thanin military practice, possibly because of a history of cracking on many commercial ships, particularly single hulltankers.Other secondary loads of particular interest are tank sloshing loads and bow slam forces. The emphasisin research has been to predict the maximum pressure loads. The spectrum of response to lesser amplitudes ofship motion and lower wave heights for use in fatigue analysis has not been studied as extensively.1.8 In-service Hull Girder Inspection RequirementsFor commercial ships, requirements for inspecting the hull girders of ships in service are provided ingovernmental regulations and international regulations. For naval ships, the requirements are provided inmaintenance policies established by the naval services of their respective countries. In general, hull inspectionsfor commercial ships are carried out by schedules established by authorities such as the U.S. Coast Guard.Underwater hull inspections are accomplished during scheduled and unscheduled drydockings. For naval ships,topside inspections are a part of normal maintenance schedules, which vary depending upon the ship type andthe history of problems of different ship classes. Underwater hull inspections have become a routinemaintenance item for U.S. Navy ships and an Underwater Husbandry Manual has been developed for thisspecific purpose. Likewise, under certain circumstances, ABS accepts underwater inspection to inspect hullstructure in lieu of drydocking.1.9 Application of Commercial Methods for Fatigue Analysis of Existing ShipsThe ABS fatigue design practices and approaches, as embodied in the SafeHull Phase A program forcontainerships was used to assess the hull structure of 10 current and past U.S. and Canadian naval vessels. Theresulting analysis showed that in most cases the vessels analyzed met the ABS criteria for hull girder structureat midships. The exception occurred with several of the ships for which fatigue failures in side shelllongitudinals at or near the waterline were predicted. Although structural failures have not been seen in thoseships in service, greater corrosion has been noticed, this may be the result of the breakdown of coatings becauseof fatigue cracking.Application of the SafeHull Phase B program module for containerships to one of the naval ships wasunsuccessful because the assumptions on hull geometry assumed in that program do not pertain to the particularvessel analyzed, or to similar naval vessels. Therefore, the current Phase B containership version of theSafeHull program is not useful for the fatigue analysis of naval vessels. The tanker version can be used, but the17

difference in loading for full-form, slow-speed tankers compared to fine-hulled, high-speed naval vesselsreduces the viability of that approach.1.10 Shortcomings/Limitations of the Commercial ApproachesIn this project, only one of the variety of commercial methods available for conduct of fatigue analysisof ship structures, the containership version of the SafeHull program developed by ABS, was used to determinethe fatigue life of typical naval vessels. Application of a standardized computer program that was developed fora particular type of vessel to an entirely different type for which use was not contemplated is bound to befraught with difficulties. It should not be surprising then that there were many problems encountered in tryingto adapt the Phase A and Phase B modules of SafeHull to the fatigue analysis of naval ships. The ABSSafeHull program can provide a calibrated basis for assessment of fatigue strength of naval vessels. However,the limitations in the program preclude its use for the analysis of all areas of the structure.1.11 Suggested Modifications to the Commercial ApproachesThere are three different categories of modifications to be made: modifications of input by the user,modifications to the SafeHull output by the user, and suggested changes in the SafeHull software that wouldmake such analyses more applicable to naval vessels. The SafeHull suite of programs was developed for theanalysis of three very specific types of ships. This project has not used the containership version of SafeHull inthe manner in which it was intended to be used. To be able to make the analysis at all, the user had to provideinput that did not always correspond to the intended format.The fatigue analysis results from SafeHull must, in general, be modified when applied to naval vesselsfor several reasons, such as changes in the years of operation and percentage of time underway, changes in theoperating environment, changes in structural details, and differences in fabrication standards.Use of SafeHull for structural design of a naval ship is inappropriate because the design criteria fornaval vessels are significantly different than for commercial ships. However, fatigue analysis is not based onstandardized design criteria, but is related to basic engineering principles. Therefore, if modifications weremade to the program to accept a more general ship geometry, the program could serve as a useful tool forfatigue analysis of naval ships.18

2. Current Commercial Practicesfor the Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girderfor Environmental Loads2.1 PurposeThe purpose of this chapter is to identify a list of current commercial approaches andpractices for the structural design of the ship hull girder for environmental loads and to provide abrief description of each. The following current commercial approaches are addressed:1. ABS Approach and practice;2. ABS Rules, SafeHull, and Dynamic Loading Approach (DLA) and the relation betweenthese approaches;3. Simplified and spectral approaches to fatigue analysis; and4. ABS benchmarking procedure2.2 IntroductionCommercial practice for the design of hull structure has evolved over the last fewdecades from a simple rulebook look-up procedure to the use of detailed load, stress, and failureanalysis in conjunction with design for productivity. This process continues to evolve, but istypified by the computer-based design and analysis programs developed by several classificationsocieties, such as the SafeHull suite of programs developed by the American Bureau of Shipping(ABS), and the ShipRight program developed by Lloyds Register of Shipping.Part of the reason for this evolution has been changes in the ships themselves. As shipsbegan to grow in size, the extrapolation of old experience-based tables of scantlings and otherrules for design were not prudent without a reevaluation of loads, analysis methods, and failuremodes. New hullforms and ship configurations also developed, and the old rules didn’t apply.Designers were also beginning to apply new methods of analysis in design, and the oldframework would not accommodate them.There were also criticisms from several quarters that the well established rules of theclassification societies were based too heavily on empirical relationships without a solid basis onprinciples of engineering science and that they were too prescriptive (Pomeroy, 1999). Thesocieties realized that there was a need for greater transparency in the rules so that the userswould have a clearer understanding of the assumptions that underlay their application. Anexample of that trend is in the commentaries on the rules that ABS is now developing, such asthe commentary on the loads for tankers (ABS, 1999).The primary basis for designing the structure of commercial ships is contained in therules of various classification societies, of which about 80 exist worldwide. The most significantare those who belong to the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), namely:2-1

Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girder• American Bureau of Shipping (USA)• Bureau Veritas (France)• China Classification Society (China)• Det norske Veritas (Norway)• Germanischer Lloyd (Germany)• Korean Register of Shipping (South Korea)• Lloyds Register of Shipping (UK)• Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (Japan)• Registro Italiano Navale (Italy)• Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (Russia)IACS also includes the following Associate Members:• Hrvatski Registar Brodova - Croatian Register of Shipping• Indian Register Of Shipping• Polish Register Of ShippingThe technical base of IACS is provided in the IACS Bluebooks, which represent a set ofstandards that have been developed through cooperation between all the member societies. Thestandards for ship structure deal principally with the strength of the hull girder. The bookcontains unified requirements, recommendations, and interpretations for material, hull girderstrength, superstructure and deckhouses, equipment (anchors and chain), and rudders. There arealso specific requirements for bulk carrier safety similar to those later adopted by theInternational Maritime Organization (IMO). Each member society in IACS is expected to adoptthe unified requirements into their rules. By basing their rules on the IACS standards, themember societies compete on the basis of factors such as the services that they will give toowners and not on the basis of permitting lower structural standards than competing societies.Ship owners cannot go from one IACS member to another looking for lower requirements incritical areas, because they are all the same. However, IACS unified requirements do not coverlocal criteria for plate, frames or support structure. Therefore, the statement that ship design willnot differ between societies is the ideal but not the fact.The following comparison of design practices, both commercial and military, issomewhat abstract, to a degree. The description of commercial practice is an outsider's view ofwhat classification is and what class does. Without actually applying the requirements to adesign and receiving an approval from a classification society, one can not be certain all iscompletely understood. No set of written rules can cover all situations, especially innovativedesigns, and much of the classification procedure involves interpretation of the rules, which isthe exclusive right of the classification society. Likewise, naval vessels are designed using manyother criteria than the written design standards. Besides combat loads, experience from theoperation of similar ships has led to unwritten practices, which are not included in the designstandards, such as additional stiffening is certain areas. Therefore, the final ship design may bedifferent from what would follow from simple application of design standards.2-2

Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girder2.3 ABS Approach and PracticeABS philosophy toward fatigue design is discussed in the Guide for Dynamic BasedDesign and Evaluation of Container Structures (ABS, 1996).“The fatigue strength of welded joints and details in highly stressed areas, whichare important to the safety of the structure, is to be assessed, especially for thoseconstructed of higher strength materials…. The fatigue lives of structures in theseareas should generally not be less than 20 years.” ABS embodies theirrequirements for ship structure in their Rules for Building and Classing SteelVessels (ABS, 2001). The ABS rules are contained in five parts:1. Classification, Testing and Surveys2. Materials and Welding3. Hull Construction and Equipment4. Machinery Equipment and Systems5. Specialized Vessels and ServicesSection 1. Strengthening for Navigation in IceSection 2. Vessels Intended to Carry Oil in BulkSection 3. Vessels Intended to Carry Ore or Bulk CargoesSection 4. Vessels Intended to Carry Liquefied Gases and Chemical Cargoes inBulkSection 5. Vessels Intended to Carry PassengersSection 6. Vessels Intended to Carry ContainersSection 7. Vessels Intended to Carry Vehicles2.3.1 Typical Rule RequirementsThe ABS rules have progressed over the last several decades from being tables ofrequired scantlings based on the size and type of vessel to equations for determining thescantlings of the members. Typical requirements are for the required section modulus of amember, minimum depth of the member, and minimum proportions, such as the ratio of webthickness to depth. The equations for the required section modulus are different for the varioustypes of structural members, such as longitudinal beams (stiffeners). The equations are alsodifferent for similar structural members in different types of ships. The rule requirement for thesection modulus of a longitudinal stiffener will be different for a general cargo carrier than for anoil tanker or for a container ship. Other parameters included in the equations are shown in theexamples below. In the examples, the notation [SafeHull classification notation is required.] iscontained in the rules for tankers with length greater than 150 meters. This means that regardlessof how the design is developed, a SafeHull Phase A and Phase B analysis is required before theship will be classed by ABS. The notation [Not included in SafeHull] is made for tankers oflength less than 150 meters, as SafeHull does not address such ships, and therefore its use is not acondition of classification.All of the variables are not defined here, particularly those that cross-reference othersections of the ABS rules. The purpose of this exhibition of the rules is to demonstrate thedifference in the format of the rules for similar in different types of ships.2-3

Structural Design of the Ship Hull GirderGeneral Cargo ShipsSection 3-2-5/13.7 Longitudinal Frames (1995)The section modulus, SM, of each longitudinal side frame is to be not less than obtainedfrom the following equation:SM = 7.8chsl 2 (cm 3 ) SM = 0.0041chsl 2 (in. 3 )Wheres = spacing of longitudinal frames in meters or feetc = .95h (above 0.5D from the keel) = the vertical distance in m or ft from the longitudinal frameto the bulkhead or freeboard deck, but is not to be taken as less than 2.13 m (7.0 ft).(at and below 0.5D from the keel) = 0.75 times the vertical distance in m or ft fromthe longitudinal frame to the bulkhead or freeboard deck, but not less than 0.5D.Vessels Intended to Carry Oil in BulkSection 5-1-4/9.5 (Ships with length greater than 150 meters)Deck and Side Longitudinals (1995) [SafeHull classification notation is required.]The net section modulus of each individual side or deck longitudinal, in association withthe effective plating to which it is attached, is to be not less than obtained from the followingequation:SM = M/f b cm 3 (in 3 )M = 1000psl 2 /k N-cm (kgf-cm, lbf-in.)where:k = 12(12, 83.33)p = nominal pressure in N/cm 2 (kgf/cm 2 , lbf/in 2 ) at the side longitudinal considered asspecified in Table 5/2A.3.1.= nominal pressure in N/cm 2 (kgf/cm 2 , lbf/in 2 ), as defined in Table 5/2A.3.1 for decklongitudinals.s and l are as defined in 5/2A.4.3.3.f b = permissible bending stresses, in N/cm 2 (kgf/cm 2 (lbf/in 2 )= (1.0 - 0.60 α 2 SM RD /SM D )S m f y for deck longitudinals= 1.0[0.86 - 0.52 α 1 (SM RB /SM B )(y/y n )]S m f y ≤ 0.75 S m f y for side longitudinals belowneutral axis= 2.0[0.86 - 0.52 α 2 (SM RD /SM D )(y/y n )]S m f y ≤ 0.75S m f y for side longitudinalsabove neutral axisα 2 = S m2 f y2 /S m f yS m , f y and α 1 are as defined in 5/2A.4.3.3.S m2 = strength reduction factor as obtained from 5/2A.4.3.2a for the steel grade of topflange material of the hull girder.f y2 = minimum specified yield point of the top flange material of the hull girder in N/cm 2(kgf/cm 2 , lbf/in 2 )2-4

Structural Design of the Ship Hull GirderSM RD = reference net hull-girder section modulus based on the material factor of the topflange of the hull girder in cm 2 -m (in 2 -ft) = 0.92 SMSM D = net design hull girder section modulus at the deck in cm 2 -m (in 2 -ft)SM RB and SM B are as defined in 5/2A.4.3.2a.y = vertical distance in m (ft) measured from the neutral axis of the section to thelongitudinal under consideration at its connection to the associated plateSM = required hull-girder section modulus in accordance with 3/6.3.4 and 3/6.5.3 basedon the material factor of the top flange of the hull-girder in cm 2 -m (in 2 -ft).y n = vertical distance in m (ft) measured from the deck (bottom) to the neutral axis of thesection, when the longitudinal under consideration is above (below) the neutral axis.Section 5-2-2/153/2/1 (Ships with length less than 150 meters) Structural Sections[Not included in SafeHull.]Each structural section for longitudinal frames, beams, or bulkhead stiffeners, inassociation with the effective plating to which it is attached, is to have a section modulus, SM,not less than obtained from the following equation:SM = 7.8chsl 2 (cm 3 ) SM = 0.0041chsl 2 (in. 3 )s = spacing of longitudinal frames in m or ftc = .95 for side longitudinalsh = distance in m or ft from the longitudinals…to a point located 1.22 m (4 ft) above thedeck at side amidships in vessels of 61 m (200 ft) in length, and to a point located2.44 m (8 ft) above the deck at side amidships in vessels of 122 m (400 ft) in lengthand above; at intermediate lengths h is to be measures to intermediate height abovethe side of the vessel.Vessels Intended to Carry Containers (130 meters to 350 meters in Length)Section 5-5-4/13.3 Side Longitudinals and Side Frames (1998)The net section modulus of each side longitudinal or side frame, in association with theeffective plating is to be not less than obtained from the following equations:SM = M/f b cm 3 (in 3 )M = c p s l 2 10 3 /k N-cm (kgf-cm, lbf-in.)wherec = 1.0without strutsc = 0.65with effective strutsp = nominal pressure, in N/cm 2 (kgf/cm 2 , lbf/in 2 ), at the side longitudinal considered, asspecified in 5-5-3/Table 2, but is not to be taken less than 2.25 N/cm 2 (0.23 kgf/cm 2 ,3.27 lbf/in 2 ). For side frames, pressure is to be taken at the middle of span of sideframe.s = spacing of side longitudinals or side frames, in mm (in.)l = span of longitudinals or frames between effective supports, as shown in 5-5-4/Figure8, in m (ft)2-5

Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girderk = 12 (12, 83.33)f b = permissible bending stresses, in N/cm 2 (kgf/cm 2 , lbf/in 2 )= 1.5 [0.835 -0.52 a 2 (SM RDS /SM D )(y/y n )]S m f y =0.75 S m f y for side longitudinalsabove neutral axis in load case 3-B in 5-5-3/Table 2= 1.0 [0.835 -0.52 a 1 (SM RB /SM B )(y/y n )]S m f y =0.75 S m f y for side longitudinalsbelow neutral axis= 1.5 [0.835 -0.52 a 2 (SM RD /SM D )(y/y n )]S m f y =0.75 S m f y for side longitudinals aboveneutral axis in load case 3-A in 5-5-3/Table 2= 0.90 S m f y for side framesa 2 = S m2 f y2 /S m f yS m , f y and a 1 are as defined in 5-5-4/11.3.1.S m2 = strength reduction factor for the strength deck flange of the hull girder as defined in5-5-4/11.3.1f y2 = minimum specified yield point of the strength deck flange of the hull girder, inN/cm 2 (kgf/cm 2 , lbf/in 2 )SM D and SM RDS are as defined in 5-5-4/13.1 and SM RDS is to be taken not less than 0.5 SM RD .SM RB and SM B are as defined in 5-5-4/11.3.1.SM RD = reference net hull girder section modulus based on material factor of the strengthdeck flange of the hull girder, in cm 2 -m (in 2 -ft)= 0.95 SMSM = reference gross hull girder section modulus amidships in accordance with 5-5-4/3.1.1, where k w is to be taken as k o 1/2 in calculating M w (sagging and hogging)in 5-5-3/5.1.1 for this purpose, based on material factor of the strength deckflange of the hull girder, in cm 2 -m (in 2 -ft)y = vertical distance, in m (ft), measured from the neutral axis of the section to the sidelongitudinal under consideration at its connection to the associated plate y n =vertical distance, in m (ft), measured from the strength deck (bottom) to theneutral axis of the section, when the longitudinal under consideration is above(below) the neutral axisy n = vertical distance, in m (ft), measured from the strength deck (bottom) to the neutralaxis of the section, when the longitudinal under consideration is above (below)the neutral axisVessels Intended to Carry Containers (Under 130 Meters (427 feet) in Length)Section 5-6-2 Hull StructureThe design of structure for local loads, in general, is to be the same as required in Section3-2-5 for general cargo ships.The above examples are cited to show the degree of specialization within the rules. Insome cases, these differences stem from the difference in ship type and service conditions. Inother cases, the differences within the rules come from greater emphasis in rule development onvarious types of ships. The ABS rules have changed radically in recent years for certain types2-6

Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girderof ships because of the development of the SafeHull system, which will be discussed below. Theconsistent part between a SafeHull and pre- SafeHull ship or non-SafeHull ship is the minimumhull girder strength. This is an IACS unified requirement applied by all classification societiesand does in fact have seakeeping assessment as its basis for the wave induced bending momentsand other wave effects assessed in the structure. The current rules for tankers over 150 meters inlength, bulk carriers and containerships reflect the developments associated with the SafeHullsystem.For tankers of length greater than 150 meters and containerships with length greater than130 meters, the forms of the design equations are similar. The major differences are in thedefinition of loads and of allowable stress.2.3.2. ABS SafeHull and Dynamic Loading ApproachIn 1993, ABS released the SafeHull program for the classification of double hull tankers(Chen et al., 1993). This was followed by a version for bulk carriers in 1995, and forcontainerships in 1997. The SafeHull approach is a follow-on to previous approaches,distinguished in particular for the inclusion of the Dynamic Load Approach (DLA). DLA is amethodology for design whereby the combination of dynamic load components is used toinvestigate the structural response of a ship and determine those areas of the ship wherescantlings must be increased above the minimum rule requirements. All tankers, bulk carriers,and containerships that will be classified by ABS now and in the future will require the use ofSafeHull, and will receive the notation SH in their classification. Specific guidance for the DLAapproach was provided for tankers in 1993 (ABS, 1993), for Bulk Carriers in 1994 (ABS, 1994),and for Containerships in 1996 (ABS, 1996). The above documents have now been assimilatedinto the ABS Rules in special sections for these ship types. For other ship types, such a breakbulk or Roll-On / Roll-Off ships, no specific guidance is provided, but the basic foundation ofthe DLA approach remains. That foundation is for the designer to come to a full understandingof all of the loads that will be imposed on the ship during its lifetime, and to understand theresponse of the structure to those loads, ensuring that the response is reasonable. It is not a fullyprobabilistic process, because the resistance of the structure to the loads is treateddeterministically, but the loads are treated probabilistically, with the general probability ofexceedance being 10 -8 . (ABS, 1999).If an owner so desires, the use of the DLA notation in classification can still be madewith ship types for which no version of SafeHull has been developed. The requirements for suchnotation is contained in Part 3, Section 2 of ABS rules, and contains the following requirements:• An acceptable load and structural analysis procedure must be used that will take intoconsideration the dynamic load components acting on the vessel.• The dynamic load components include- External hydrodynamic pressure loads- Dynamic loads from cargo- Inertial loads of the hull structure2-7

Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girder• The magnitude of the loads and their load components are to be determined fromappropriate ship motion response calculations• The calculations of loads should represent an envelope of maximum dynamicallyinduced stresses in the vessel.• A finite element analysis of the hull structure is required to ensure the adequacy ofthe hull structure for all combinations of the dynamic loadings. Although theterminology “dynamic loading” is used, the actual finite element analysis isgenerally not a dynamic structural analysis, but is a static analysis. Dynamicanalysis is only required in certain instances, such as the computation of vibrationfrequencies for avoidance of resonant conditions.With the DLA approach, the scantlings obtained from the analysis can only representincreases beyond other requirements in the rules. The analysis can not be used to justify adecrease in scantlings below the basic rule requirements. Ships classed using the Dynamic LoadApproach require that consideration be given to fatigue, although a detailed spectral analysis isnot always required.The development of the SafeHull approach to structural criteria for double hull tankerswas based on:• Development of load criteria, including hull girder and local loads• Review of damage reports to identify problem areas• Analysis of existing ships for comparison and calibration to successful experience• Development of strength criteria to determine initial scantlings• Development of strength assessment criteria• Verification and calibration of the criteria with theoretical predictions and serviceexperience• Development of a PC-based suite of computer programsSafeHull embodies the DLA approach through a 2-phase approach to analysis of the ship.In Phase A, the minimum scantlings are assigned to the structure in accordance with the basicrule requirements, and checks are made of the fatigue strength in specific areas, such as theconnections of longitudinal stiffeners to web frames and bulkheads. In Phase B, more detailedanalyses of the hull, including finite element analyses, are used to refine the scantlings to meetthe structural demands from the loads investigated. The Phase B analysis can include a detailedspectral fatigue analysis of selected areas of the hull structure.. The results of the Phase Banalyses are used to increase scantlings above the minimum rule requirements, but are not usedto reduce scantlings.Ships assessed by SafeHull have an integrated approach of defining the loads,establishing the pass / fail criteria, and then requiring an assessment of the total structure usingthe finite element method. Evaluating prior service and establishing criteria to provide structuralrequirements to reflect unsatisfactory experiences has developed rules prior to SafeHull. Boththe SafeHull approach and the former rules-based approach can provide a suitable ship, but theactual answers will not always be the same (Chen et al., 1993).2-8

Structural Design of the Ship Hull GirderThe fatigue analysis procedure contained in SafeHull is a continuation of a proceduredeveloped previously that has been used for the assessment of the fatigue strength of tankers(ABS, 1989), but is now contained in the ABS rules for tankers, bulk carriers, and containercarriers. During Phase A, guidance is provided for fatigue of structural details in the form of anallowable stress range. This stress range was developed by ABS after analysis of a number ofships considering 20 years operation in the North Atlantic, and deriving an appropriate shapeparameter for a Weibull distribution to describe the fatigue-loading spectrum.During Phase B of the SafeHull analysis, a detailed finite element analysis of the cargoregion of the hull is performed using standardized loadings. In addition, detailed 2-dimensionalmodels of components such as web frames and stringers, or areas of stress concentration aremade. Analysis of the overall hull model is made using standardized loadings. These loadingsare derived from analysis of a number of ships. Nominal design wave-induced hull-girder loadsare based on operation for 20 years in the North Atlantic. Internal dynamic tank pressure isdetermined based on added pressure head due to ship motions and on the inertia force of cargodue to ship accelerations. The external hydrodynamic pressure used in SafeHull was determinedfrom a parametric study of ship motions in waves, and that study was calibrated by model testresults. The parametric studies of all loadings that are contained within SafeHull eliminate therequirement for the designer to determine these loads. Note that for a DLA analysis of a shiptype that does not have a SafeHull module, the designer is required to perform suchhydrodynamic analyses.SafeHull consists of a suite of computer programs for the ship types and phases ofanalysis involved. Documentation is provided through a series of manuals (ABS, 2000):• Getting Started — Instructions for loading the program on a computer• Phase A User’s Guide— Step-by-step instructions for entering the required data- Tanker- Bulk Carrier- Containership- Rules Utility• Phase B User’s Guide — Step-by-step instructions for entering the required data- Tanker- Bulk Carrier- Containership• Finite Element Analysis - Extent of model, basic mesh size, boundary conditions,application of loads, detailed stress analysis, fine-mesh analysis- Tanker- Bulk Carrier- Containership• Data Reference Manual — Describes each input variable and how it is to be entered.- Tanker- Bulk Carrier- Containership2-9

Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girder• ABS Modeler’s Users Guide — Manual for the Modeler, which is used to developNASTRAN finite element models from either the Phase A output or from anAutoCad or IMSA file.• ABS Rules — The current ABS rules are provided with the SafeHull documentation2.3.2.1 SafeHull Fatigue AnalysisThe wave-induced hull girder loads that are used in SafeHull for fatigue analysis arebased on assumed ship operation for 20 years in the North Atlantic. For fatigue analysis, tankersare assumed to operate 100 percent of the time during that 20-year period. For bulk carriers andcontainerships, an assumption of 70 to 80 percent operability over a 20-year life is made.The fatigue design approach of SafeHull is documented in the ABS publication “Guidefor the Fatigue Strength Assessment of Tankers” (ABS, June 1992). The approach usescumulative damage theory in conjunction with U.K. Department of Energy (DEN) fatigue datafor welded joints (UK DEN, 1990). These curves assume an “endurance limit” at 10 7 cycles,although in use, ABS uses a reduced slope beyond 10 7 cycles, and continues the slope of thecurve in a straight line for underwater welds. The UK DEN fatigue data was selected by ABSfor several reasons:• The bureau had used this data for 10 years for ship and offshore classification work,and was therefore familiar with the data and had confidence in its use.• The UK DEN data appear to be more consistent and offer better coverage of the highcycle,low-stress regime of interest to ship and offshore structures.• The data are uniform, providing a consistent reduction in fatigue life with increasedseverity of weld detail. This avoids a pitfall of using limited experimental data, whichcould have contrary results because of the variation in experimental data.• The data offer mathematical convenience because they can be expressed as anexponential function similar to other standard S-N data. (For other standardizedcurves, see Chapter 5.)• The data has been used in several worldwide applications, including Lloyds Rules.The development of the UK DEN data is documented by Stephen J. Maddox of TheWelding Institute, which developed the data (Maddox, 1991). Representative data (although notthe entire database) is provided to indicate the basis for the curves. It appears that the data isobtained from the testing of small specimens that were produced in a laboratory, and are,therefore, not necessarily indicative of full size structure and standard shipyard quality welds..Figure 2.1 shows typical data. Note that in this case, the data are for a maximum of 10 7 cyclesand so do not substantiate the assumption in the design curves of an endurance limit at 10 7cycles. Since it is small specimen data, the low-stress, high-cycle regime has not beenthoroughly explored.2-10

Structural Design of the Ship Hull GirderFigure 2.1 Typical Fatigue Data (Maddox, 1991)Because the data do not represent all possible structural details that will occur in shipstructure, weldments that are not represented by the details can be analyzed using a linear elasticfinite element analysis that includes a refined mesh in the vicinity of the weld toe. The “hot-2-11

Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girderspot” stress gradient approach is used to determine the applicable stress range. The ABS hotspot approach uses the stress calculated at a distance 1.5 times the thickness of the member fromthe weld toe and at 0.5 times the thickness of the member from the weld toe. The stress is thenlinearly interpolated to the weld toe to determine the adjusted stress range, which is then usedwith the Class E S-N curve.The ABS approach to fatigue uses these data, detailed stress analysis, determination ofthe appropriate stress range probability distribution, and spectral analysis. The spectral approachis the basis for a background parametric analysis that is used to determine a permissible stressrange. These permissible stress ranges were determined from a computed maximum lifetimestress range, the number of cycles resulting from a 20-year exposure in the North Atlantic, andan assumed shape factor for a Weibull distribution of the stress spectrum. If the exposure time isdifferent than 20 years, or the operating environment is different from that in the North Atlantic,the Weibull shape parameter and the allowable stress range have to be adjusted. Adjustment isalso necessary if the intended operability is different from the assumed operability used indeveloping the ABS Weibull distribution.If the stress field is induced by more than one load component, a spectral approach tofatigue analysis is required instead of the Weibull type approach. SafeHull accommodates eitherapproach in determining the appropriate maximum stress range.A commentary was developed by ABS to document the loads used in SafeHull,particularly the approach used for determining the maximum loadings for tankers (ABS, June1999). The procedure includes simulation of a ship operating at 70 percent of maximum speedin all headings, varying in 15-degree increments from head seas to stern seas.The following load components [Dominant Load Parameters (DLP)] are calculated asFrequency Response Functions (FRF), also known as Response Amplitude Operators (RAO),with the ABS/SHIPMOTION computer program:• External wave pressure at selected surface points at several locations along the shiplength• Accelerations (vertical, lateral, and longitudinal) at the boundary points of the liquidcargo and ballast tanks• Accelerations at several points along the ship length• Wave-induced vertical, lateral, and torsional moments and shears along the length ofthe hull• Ship motions in roll and pitchShort-term and long-term response is computed using the H-family (SNAME, 1982)spectral wave data for 20 years in the North Atlantic, corresponding to a probability ofexceedance of 10 −8 . The short-term response is used in determining the fatigue-loadingspectrum, since a short time in a particular sea state at a given heading and speed is sufficient tocharacterize that portion of the fatigue spectrum. Long-term response, on the other hand,represents a longer exposure time in order to determine maximum values of bending momentsand other characterizations of response.2-12

Structural Design of the Ship Hull GirderRynn and Morlan (1995) made a summary of the experience of ship designers in usingSafeHull. One of the results of using the finite element approach is that the scantlings of the hullbecome interrelated. In the former rules-based approach, all scantlings were treated separately.Now, a change in one scantling can impact an adjacent scantling, so design becomes an iterativeprocess. Another observation is that intuition in such things as determining which of severaladjacent panels would have the greatest susceptibility to buckling can often be wrong, so allpanels in a particular area need to be checked.2.3.3 ABS Fatigue AnalysisFatigue assessment is required for all ships for which a SafeHull analysis is required. Inmany instances, a fatigue analysis will be required, even though the ship is not classed usingSafeHull. Part 3 Section 2 of the Rules states “The attention of users is drawn to the fact that,when fatigue loading is present, the effective strength of higher-strength steel in a weldedconstruction may not be greater than that of ordinary-strength steel. Precautions againstcorrosion fatigue may also be necessary.” and “The designer is to give considerationto…proportions and thickness of structural members to reduce fatigue response due to engine,propeller, or wave-induced cyclic stresses, particularly for higher-strength steels.”The ABS approach to fatigue is very specific for the ships for which SafeHull moduleshave been developed, that is, tankers, bulk carriers, and containerships. The procedures arecontained in:• Part 5, Section 2, Appendix 5/2AA of the ABS Rules “Guide for Fatigue StrengthAssessment of Tankers”,• Part 5, Section 3, Appendix 5/3AA of the ABS Rules “Guide for Fatigue StrengthAssessment of Bulk Carriers”• Part 5, Section 6, Appendix 5/6AA of the ABS Rules “Guide for Fatigue StrengthAssessment of Container Carriers.”The following discussion will focus on containerships because their hullform is closest tothat of a combatant ship, generally having a fine hull form, and operating at moderately highspeeds (about 20 knots) although some containerships have speeds as high as 33 knots.The Guide for Fatigue Strength Assessment of Container Carriers provides a permissiblestress range for various structural details, which are classified in accordance with the UK DOEclassification. The permissible stress range is given in terms of a “long-term distributionparameter,” γ. The parameter γ is in turn a function of the location on the ship, and the fullnessof the bow.γ = m s γ 0where for deck and bottom structures, m s varies between 1.05 and 1.02 as the “forebodyparameter” A r d k varies between 155 m 2 and 112 m 2 . If A r d k is greater than 155 m 2 then m s is to2-13

Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girderbe calculated by direct calculation, although the rules do not provide the procedure for thecalculation. For locations other than the deck and bottom, and for ships where A r d k is less than70 m 2 , m s is equal to 1.0.γ 0 = 1.40 – 0.2 α L 0.2 for 130 < L ≤ 305 m= 1.54 – 0.245 α 0.8 L 0.2 for L > 305 mwhereα =1.0 for deck structures0.93 for bottom structures0.86 for side shell and longitudinal bulkhead stiffeners0.80 for side frames, vertical stiffeners on longitudinal bulkhead and transversebulkheadsA r d k is defined in Section 5/6A.3.6.2 of the Rules. A r is the maximum value of a bowflare shapeparameter, A ri , calculated for the first 4 hull stations in the forebody. d k is a nominal half deckwidth based on the hull stations in the forebody.A ri = (b Ti /H i ) S [b j 2 + s j 2 ] 1/2 , j – 1, n n ≥ 4dk=40.2∑bTi1b ti and s i are illustrated in Figure 2.2.The long-term distribution parameter, γ, is the Weibull distribution shape parameter, andas can be seen from the foregoing, increases with the length of the ship and with the propensityfor bow flare slamming.The guides for fatigue strength assessment of tankers, bulk carriers and for containercarriers are similar. The tables of permissible stress range for classes of structural details as afunction of the long-term distribution parameter are identical. Between bulk carriers andcontainer carriers, the definition of γ 0 is the same except that the lower limit for length is 150meters for bulk carriers, compared to 130 meters for container carriers. The definition of m s issimilar between bulk carriers and container carriers, except the definition of the bow flareparameter is different between the two ship types. For tankers, the long-term distributionparameter, γ, is a function of length only, and that definition is different from that of bulk carriersand container carriers.2-14

Structural Design of the Ship Hull GirderHighest Deckb4S4S3S2b3b2S1b1LWLCLFigure 2.2 Definition of Bow Flare Geometry for Bow Flare Shape Parameter2.3.4 Relationship between ABS Rules, SafeHull, and DLAThe basic scantlings for all ships are determined by the requirements of the ABS Rules,examples of which are cited above. SafeHull analyses, both Part A and Part B, are required forthe classification of all tankers, bulk carriers, and container ships. The DLA approach is anowner’s option in classification. With both SafeHull and DLA, the minimum scantlings requiredby the rules are still required. Use of these advanced procedures can only result in an increase inscantlings, not a reduction. Phase A of SafeHull is a simplified approach to design, providinginitial checks on the scantlings, which must be verified by a detailed Phase B analysis, includinga finite element analysis of the hull. In general, SafeHull permits a simplified fatigue analysis tobe performed, similar to the analysis described in Section 2.3.3. The simplified fatigue analysisusing the long-term distribution parameter is contained in SafeHull Phase A and documented inthe rules, such as in Part 5, Section 6, Appendix 5/6AA of the ABS Rules “Guide for FatigueStrength Assessment of Container Carriers.” The same answer should result from a manualanalysis performed using the rules as a guide as from a SafeHull Phase A analysis. When acritical detail does not meet the simplified criteria, then a full spectral fatigue analysis may bemade if the detail is not to be changed. The spectral analysis will also be required if theanticipated operating conditions for the ship are to be different from the 20-year North Atlanticoperations assumed for developing the ABS permissible stress ranges. Figure 2.3 illustrates thedifferent approaches.2-15

Structural Design of the Ship Hull GirderDetermine MinimumScantlings Using ABSRulesYesTanker, Bulk Carrier orContainership?ABS SafeHull Phase AWeibull FatigueStress RangeNoOwner Requirementfor DLA?YesNoABS SafeHull Phase BWeibull FatigueStress RangeFinite Element Analysis of HullStress Range for Detail lessthan Permissible StressRange?NoYesYesChange Detail?ChangeDetailSpectral FatigueAnalysisAcceptable Fatigue Life?YesFinalScantlingsFigure 2.3 Relationship between ABS Rules, SafeHull, and DLA2-16

Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girder2.3.5 Simplified and Spectral Approaches to FatigueThe ABS simplified approach to fatigue, as described above, is based on use of a Weibulldistribution for the load exceedance curve. The load exceedance curve is a plot of responseparameter, such as bending moment, versus the number of stress cycles that exceed that responselevel. For example, if a load exceedance curve has a point with an ordinate of 1,000kiloNewton-meters and abscissa of 10 5 cycles, then there are 10 5 cycles in the load spectrum thathave a bending moment of 1,000 kiloNewton-meters or higher. The load exceedance curve isconverted to a stress exceedance curve through structural analysis. In some cases, hull girdersection modulus can be used to determine the stress from a bending moment load spectrum, butin other cases, a finite element analysis is needed. When several load conditions are actingsimultaneously, some assumption must be made concerning the phasing between the differentloads in order to combine them in one stress spectrum.The use of a Weibull distribution to characterize the fatigue loading spectrum for shipswas first reported by Nordenström (1973). This approach is well documented, such as in theShip Structure Committee Report SSC-318, Fatigue Characterization of Fabricated Ship Detailsfor Design (Munse et al., 1982). Munse used this closed-form approach to the fatigue-loadingspectrum in order to develop a relationship between maximum design stress and fatigue life for aparticular structural detail using information on both the probabilities of the fatigue loadingspectrum and the S-N data for the structural detail. The probability is introduced through areliability factor defined by Munse. A similar approach was taken by Wirsching (Mansour,1990). The Wirsching approach uses a slightly different form of the reliability factor, but bothapproaches provide for direct recognition of the inherent randomness and uncertainty in theloading, the analysis procedure, and the fatigue strength of the structure. This approach wastaken by ABS in developing their simplified fatigue approach (Chen, 1998).where:mN ⎛ =TSDG⎜1m +A ln? ⎝ ?[ ( N)]2-17m⎞⎟⎠D = The Palgren-Miner cumulative damage, taken as D = 1N T = the total number of loading cycles in the life of the shipS = the maximum stress rangem = the slope of the S-N curve in the relationship N = A/S mξ = the Weibull shape parameterΓ= the Gamma functionIn some instances, such as when the simplified approach indicates a possible fatigueproblem and additional factors need to be considered, ABS will use a direct spectral approach tofatigue life calculation. The advantage is that through development of a fatigue loadingspectrum for a specific ship, the actual design assumptions such as percent of operability,preferred headings and speeds in differing sea states, area of operation and consequentprobability of occurrence of different wave heights and modal periods, and the responseamplitude operators (RAOs) for the particular ship can be readily used to derive a fatigue loading

Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girderspectrum that makes no assumption on shape of the distribution function. The fatigue loadingspectrum can also be easily augmented with loading cycles from slam-induced hull girderwhipping.If a fatigue loading spectrum is developed, then the hull girder bending moments bywhich the spectrum are characterized can be converted to stress at various structural detailsthrough analysis of varying levels of sophistication, although the approach must assume a linearrelationship between bending moments and stress. The resulting stress spectrum is used with theS-N data for the structural detail being investigated to determine the fatigue life. The fatiguedamage computation in this case must be deterministic, assuming fixed values of parameters,such as characterization of the S-N curve. Typically, S-N data with a high probability ofexceedance, such as a lower 95 percent bound, is used to characterize the fatigue data.When different loads are acting simultaneously, they can be combined by either assumingsome phasing between them, or a “stress RAO” approach can be used. In the latter, the RAOsfor load effects such as vertical and horizontal bending are converted to stress and then used withthe wave encounter spectrum to obtain a stress spectrum.The trade-off (other than reduced computational time) between the use of a “simplified”fatigue approach based on a Weibull loading spectrum and a direct analysis using a fatiguespectrum is then between a reliability based approach and a deterministic approach to fatiguelife. As implemented in SafeHull, however, the probability of exceedance is not directlycalculated.ABS provides general guidance for performing a spectral analysis in the SafeHull LoadCriteria for Tanker Structures, Commentary on Load Criteria (ABS 1999). Response is to becomputed at 15 degree increments of heading for response in regular waves at a speed equal to75 percent of maximum ship speed. A sea spectrum appropriate for the anticipated operatingconditions for the ship is used to determine the response spectrum. In most cases, the default is20 years operation in the North Atlantic, but alternative sea conditions and service lives can beused.2.3.6 ABS Benchmarking of the Fatigue Design ProcedureThe SafeHull fatigue analysis was compared to the service experience of six differenttankers that had service experience of 5 to 19 years (ABS, 1992). The number of ships examinedwas limited because of a lack of well-documented damage history of ships in service. In general,the actual time for crack initiation of the ships in service was less than the predicted fatigue lifewhen the life was 11 years or less. However, when the predicted service life was 30 years ormore, there were no reported instances of cracking. Table 2.1 summarizes that comparison. Theratio of the actual stress range for a structural detail, f R , is compared to the computed allowablestress range, P S . A value higher than 1.0 implies a greater than 5% probability of cracking in 20years.2-18

Structural Design of the Ship Hull GirderTable 2.1 ABS Comparison of Predicted Fatigue Damage with Service Experience(ABS, 1993)SHIP A B-1 B-2 C D EYear Built 1977 1986 1988 1975 1977 1974f R / P S 1.23–1.991.14–1.351.24–1.790.77–1.180.86–1.040.60–1.17Predicted 3–11 8–14 3.5–11 12–>30 18–>30 12–>30Fatigue Life(years)Actual Yearsto Damage2–4 2–5 N.D. N.D. 5–7 12–14Note:Data is for side longitudinals of single hull tankers in the region between 0.33 of draft to 1.15 of draft.N.D. — No fatigue damage was reported.The data in Table 2.1 do not show as strong a correlation between actual and predictedbehavior as might be desired. The fatigue behavior of other areas of the structure was alsoexamined, and in general, no fatigue damage was reported in areas where the ratio f R / P S wasless than 1.0. For that reason, ABS feels that use of the fatigue method provides a reasonablebasis for design.2.4 Design Criteria for U.S. Navy ShipsThe basic description of the procedure for designing the structure of U.S. Navy ships iscontained in the Structural Design Manual for Naval Surface Ships (NAVSEC, 1976). Thatmanual represents a documentation of U.S. Navy approach as of 1976, and there have been fewsignificant changes since that time.One of the most important considerations in the U.S. Navy approach is the standardizedapproach to loads. Hull girder bending moments are based on a static balance of the ship on atrochoidal wave of the same length as the ship, and with a height equal to 1.1 times the squareroot of the length. Loads on the side and bottom of the ship are based on the head to the designwaterline plus a factor times the square root of the length of the ship. For combatant ships, thatfactor is 0.675, but for noncombatant ships, it is 0.55. Loads on the side and bottom are alsodetermined by computing the static head to the design waterline with the ship heeled to somemaximum angle. That angle will vary with the size of the ship, but for ships of the size ofcruisers or destroyers, it is 30 degrees. A wave slap loading of 500 pounds per square foot istaken on side plating above the waterline. In the forward area of the hull, allowance is made forslamming loads by taking a design head to a given height above the weather deck at the forwardperpendicular, and tapering linearly to the design waterline amidships. That height varies from 8to 12 feet, depending on the size of the ship.With the standardized method for calculating hull girder bending moments, the allowablestress is 7.5 tsi for medium steel ships, 8.5 tsi for high strength steel, and 9.5 tsi for HY-80 or2-19

Structural Design of the Ship Hull GirderHSLA-80 steel. The section modulus at all points along the hull must be sufficient so that theallowable hull girder bending stress is not exceeded.In the design of longitudinal members, the stress computed from the local loading isadded to the stress from hull girder bending using an interaction formula. For longitudinalstiffeners, the interaction formula is for combined compressive and bending load is:where:fFbbfc+K Fsc≤1.0f b is the compressive bending stress in the member computed using the designload.F b is the allowable bending stress, equal to 27 ksi for medium steel ships, 40 ksifor high strength steel, and 55 ksi for HY-80 or HSLA-80 steel.f c is the assumed hull girder compressive bending stress, equal to the allowablestress increased by a margin of 1.0 tsi. This stress is taken as the maximumat the strength deck and keel, and for shell plating, tapered to one-half themaximum at the neutral axis.K s is a slenderness coefficientF c is the buckling strength of the member.The U.S. Navy approach is nearly a “first principles” approach, except that the designloads are less than the maximum loads and a high factor of safety is used to compensate for thereduced loads. It was estimated (Sikora et al., 1983) that the standard bending moments will beless than the maximum lifetime hull girder bending moments by a factor ranging from 0.430 to0.916, with an average value of 0.73. On that basis, the allowable hull girder bending stress foran average medium steel ship would be 7.5 ÷ 0.73 = 10.3 tsi., with a range between 8.2 and 17.4tsi. The design wave loads on the side of the ship are similarly less than the lifetime maximumloads. Therefore, the allowable bending stress for stiffeners is significantly less than the yieldstrength.One of the greatest changes in U.S. Navy design practice since the writing of the designmanual has been the use of the finite element method. In 1976, this method of structural analysiswas only beginning to be used in ship structural design, but it has since become standardpractice, particularly for the design of transverse members. In finite element analysis, thestandard loads are still used in conjunction with the standard design allowable stresses. Thejustification for this approach is that the former methods of stress analysis did attempt toreplicate the exact response of the structure to a given load. For example, when a longitudinalstiffener is supported by uniformly spaced transverse frames and subject to a uniform load, thebending moments will be the same as for a fixed end beam, which was used in analysis.Likewise, approximate methods of analysis of transverse frames, such as the Hardy-Crossmoment distribution method were also used to estimate bending moments and shears.Recently, combatant loads, such as hull girder whipping moments and fatigue effectshave been used for design of U.S. Navy ships, particularly the LPD-17 Class (Sieve et al., 1997).That analysis was conducted assuming 40 years of operations in the NATO North Atlantic sea2-20

Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girderspectrum, with 35 percent of the lifetime spent at sea. The Ochi 6-Parameter wave spectrum wasused. The Response Amplitude Operators (RAOs) used were the NSWCCD “universal” RAOscontained in the computer program SPECTRA (Sikora, 1999), including whipping moments.The S-N curves used were from the standard American Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials (ASSHTO), using a linear plot with no endurance limit. With thisanalysis, an allowable stress range was determined and used for the design of ship structuraldetails.Additionally, there is currently an effort underway to develop a Load and ResistanceFactor Design (LRFD) approach for naval ship structures. This effort will produce separatefactors for loads and for strength of members, so that computed maximum lifetime loads can beused in conjunction with strength computations in a reliability-based design.2.5 Canadian Navy Structural Design CriteriaThe current approach for the ships of the Canadian Forces is based on the standard of theNavy of the U.K. (SSCP23, 1988).2.5.1 Longitudinal StrengthThe standard wave bending moment for U.K. combatant ships is computed by conductinga static balance on a trochoidal wave of length equal to the length of the ship and with a height of8 meters. This standard was derived by analyzing several combatant ships in the 100 to 200meter length range. Computations were performed for wave encounters in all of the areas whereBritish ships normally operated, and determining the maximum vertical bending momentexpected to occur with a 1 percent probability of exceedance in 3 × 10 7 wave encounters. Designbending moments are then derived as:M ds = M SW + 1.54 (M s – M SW )M dh = M SW + 1.54 (M h – M SW )whereM ds , M dh = the design sagging and hogging momentsM SW = the still water bending momentM s , M h = sagging and hogging moments calculated by static balance on an8-m trochoidal waveThe maximum bending moment at midships computed in this manner is then distributedalong the length of the ship using a standard method. The maximum moment is carried forwardof midship for 0.15 of the ship length, and then reduced linearly to zero at the forwardperpendicular. The moments are carried aft of midships using the shape of the computedmoments. Neither lateral bending nor torsional bending is considered except when the ship haslarge openings in the strength deck.2-21

Structural Design of the Ship Hull GirderWave loading on the side and bottom plating is the greatest of the following:• a 5 meter (16.4 foot) minimum head• the head to the design waterline plus 0.3 √L (L in meters)• a head to 1.1 √L at the forward perpendicular, tapering to the design waterlineamidships.(L in meters)The allowable hull girder bending stress is a function of the yield strength of the materialand the breadth-to-thickness ratio of plating in the strength deck and shell, as shown in Table 2.2Table 2.2. UK MOD Allowable Hull Girder Stress (percent of yield strength)Allowable StressYield StrengthAllowable Stress forMild Steel (tsi)Breadth/thickness (b/t) Strength Bottom Strength BottomDeckDeckb/t < 60 0.65 0.54 10.1 8.490 > b/t > 60 0.57 0.43 8.9 6.7b/t > 90 0.43 - 6.7 -Note that it has been the British practice to use only mild steel for hull structure. Criticalareas, such as crack arrestor strakes, use tougher materials, but higher strength steel is not used toreduce weight because of concerns for buckling and fatigue.The allowable primary hull girder stress is greater for the strength deck than for thebottom structure because the effects of pressure loading are included when assessing strength. Inthe design of deck plating and longitudinals, only the calculated primary hull girder bendingstress is considered. The maximum bending moment is divided by the actual hull girder sectionmodulus to determine the compressive stress in the deck. Various methods are given in SSCP23for computing the strength of the members, including load-shortening curves and grillagestrength methods to determine the collapse strength of the structure. The recommendation ismade that in later stages of design finite element analyses should be conducted to calculate thestrength of the structure more accurately. Because a maximum lifetime load is used, no factor ofsafety should be taken.2.5.2 Side and Bottom ShellFor the design of stiffeners in the bottom shell, the computed primary bending stress isadded to the secondary stress from stiffener bending. This combined stress is used in thebuckling calculations without a factor of safety for assessing structural adequacy. Likewise,longitudinals on the side shell are designed similar to those on the bottom, with the primary hullgirder bending stress reduced based on the distance from the neutral axis. Again, no factor ofsafety is used in computing structural adequacy.2-22

Structural Design of the Ship Hull Girder2.5.3 FatigueSSCP23 –Vol. 1 chapter 13, includes calculation of a permissible design stress range.The bending moment exceedance curve is assumed to be exponential, which is equivalent to aWeibull distribution with a shape parameter of 1.0. The exponential distribution is combinedwith linear cumulative fatigue damage and the BS 5400 S-N curves to obtain permissible stressranges for each detail class. This approach was validated by comparison of the predicted meanfatigue life for several details with the actual performance of several ship classes that hadexperienced cracking during 20 years of operation.2.6 Commercial Rules for Military ShipsSome classification societies have developed or are developing rules for the design ofmilitary ships. Lloyds released their provisional rules in July 1999 (Lloyds, 1999). Lloydsintended to update these in January 2000 following initial evaluation by users. Det norskeVeritas had announced their intention to release rules for military ships in the Autumn of 1999(Majumdar, 1998), but that effort has apparently been delayed. Likewise, ABS is working withthe Naval Sea Systems Command to develop rules for military ships.The Lloyds Rules represent a complete departure from the previous design practice of theRoyal Navy. For example, hull girder bending moments are determined using the basicequations that are required by all classification societies who are members of IACS. However,for determination of the extreme vertical wave bending moment, the formula is multiplied by afactor of 1.5. This increase in design moments implicitly increases fatigue life by increasingsection modulus, and thus decreases nominal field stress in the hull. The rules also containdefinition of sea conditions for the direct computation of extreme hull girder bending moments.Fatigue analysis procedures under the new rules are the same as contained in Lloyds RegisterStructural Detail Design Guide. Military loads, such as underwater shock or missile blast loads,are dealt with as additional design considerations by which scantlings are increased above theminimum rule requirements. Provision is also made for the use of the Lloyds Total LoadAnalysis (TLA). TLA uses the rule-based loads, but combines the effects of various loads, suchas hull girder bending and pressure loads, on the side shell using load combination factors thatallow for the phasing between the various loads. Structural analysis is based on closed-formsolutions for various structural elements rather than a global finite element analysis as requiredby the ABS Dynamic Load Analysis (DLA).2.7 Naval Ship Assessment by the SafeHull SystemSafeHull is a system for analysis of Tankers, Bulk Carriers and Container Ships.Development of SafeHull required definition of loads, response and failure criteria. The strengthof the hull girder is in accordance with unified requirements of IACS (International Associationof Classification Societies). The development of the unified requirement for hull girder strengthis based on operation in the North Atlantic. The route is from Northern Europe to the NortheastUnited States (Rotterdam to New York).2-23

Structural Design of the Ship Hull GirderThe loads on the hull and structural elements (plate and stiffening) are determined fromoperating on this route. The comparison of the structural response to failure criteria selected iscalibrated to defined failures. When studying naval ships using SafeHull it is necessary to havestructural failures to calibrate the results. Although naval ships operate in the North Atlantic,operation will also include other areas. This will require modification of the SafeHull System toaccount for the naval ship operation scenario.The essential elements considered by ABS in developing SafeHull are:1- LOADS- The loads from the external environment, and the internal loads from cargoand ballast including inertial loads.2- RESPONSE- Structure must be analyzed in a consistent method for the imposedloads to establish the response.3- ASSESSMENT- The response (stresses) are to be determined to be within properlycalibrated failure criteria for yielding, buckling and fatigue.4- VALIDATION- SafeHull criteria has been validated by using known failures toestablish the limits for yielding, buckling and fatigue.5- CRITERIA- Without known failures to calibrate the structure of a ship type against, arigorous method for assessment of the ship type such as Dynamic Load Approach(DLA), a system based on first principles must be used. The design of naval shipspresently uses methods of this type. Commercial ships are also at times designed tosuch a system and for this, ABS would apply SH-DLA.6- FAILURE- Naval ships in general are found to be more robust than commercial shipsdue to extensive assessment during the design development which includes evaluationto first principles. Efforts to reduce the rigor in design require proper definition of theloads, response and failure criteria to apply.2.8 SummaryThere is a considerable difference between the historical approaches to the structuraldesign of military and commercial ships for environmental loads. These differences havediminished in recent years as the commercial procedures have evolved to include structuraldesign based on analytically developed loads and detailed stress analysis. Both the ABS DLAapproach and the current NAVSEA approach use definition of loads made by analysis of typicalships, and generalize the results for future designs. The approaches, in general, provide fordirect computation of ship response and for differences in assumed operational profiles. Thedifferences between procedures may diminish in the future as the classification societies developrules for military ships and the military authorities adopt these rules. The degree of differencewill not be able to be ascertained until ships are designed using the new rules, and the scantlingsso developed are compared to equivalent ships designed under the old approach. The approachthat results in heavier scantlings should have an inherently greater fatigue life. Because fatigueassessment has now become standard practice for both commercial and military ship design,either approach should result in improved fatigue lives. Table 2.3 summarizes the differences inthe approaches for fatigue assessment.2-24

Structural Design of the Ship Hull GirderTable 2.3 Comparison of Commercial andNaval Approaches for Fatigue AssessmentABS Simplified ABS Spectral U.S. NavySPECTRAProgramU.S. NavyDetailedAnalysisCanadianMethodWeibullDistributionSpectral Analysis Spectral Analysis Spectral Analysis ExponentialDistributionApplication Assessment Assessment Design Assessment DesignPhilosophy Prevent fatiguecracking(in general)Prevent fatiguecracking(in general)Prevent fatiguecracking(safe life)Prevent fatiguecracking(safe life)Prevent fatiguecracking(safe life)PracticeHull GirderBending andShearExternalHydrodynamicPressureInternal TankLoadsLongitudinalDistribution ofBending MomentsWave heightprobabilitiesLateral/TorsionalBendingShip HeadingprobabilitiesAssess details inhighly stressedareas importantto safetyMaximumresponse fromstandardequationsRange ofstandard designloadsAssess details inhighly stressedareas importantto safetyHydrodynamicanalysisHydrodynamicanalysisincluding shipmotionShip motion andLimit nominalstress and stressconcentrationsResponse fromgeneralizedalgorithmsFrom RulesCan be includedSloshing analysis SimplisticallyTrapezoidal Computed Sinusoidal(1-cosine)H-Series NorthAtlanticRule MomentsNot applicableH-Series NorthAtlantic or fromapplicableshipping routeSeakeepingAnalysisEqual probabilityof all headingsLimit nominalstress and stressconcentrationsResponse frommodel tests andfull-scale shipinstrumentationLimit nominalstress and stressconcentrationsStatic Balance on8-meter waveNot considered Not considered Function of shiplengthNATO NorthAtlanticConsideredseparatelyf (ship type,speed, waveheight)Can be includedSimplisticallySinusoidal(1-cosine)NATO NorthAtlantic orapplicablealternativeCan be combinedto suitapplicationsf (ship type,speed, waveheight)Not consideredTrapezoidalNATO NorthAtlanticNot consideredHead Sea,(L W =LBP)Ship Speed Not applicable 75% maximum Various Various Not consideredWave Cells Not applicable 16 wave heightsx 11 modalperiods = 17616 wave heightsx 11 modalperiods = 176Various; Can beApplicationSpecificNot consideredWave Spectra Not applicable 2-parameterscatterMethod of Hull Hull beam Finite ElementStress Analysis bending AnalysisStiffener bending Bending plusanalysistorsionIf finite elementmodel hassufficient detailOchi 6-ParameterHull beambendingNot consideredVarious typesavailableFinite ElementAnalysisIf finite elementmodel hassufficient detailNot consideredHull beambendingNot considered2-25

Structural Design of the Ship Hull GirderFatigue LoadSpectrumABS Simplified ABS Spectral U.S. NavySPECTRAProgramWeibulldistributionWhippingBow flareincrement toloadsFatigue Analysis Linearcumulativedamage based onUK DENbilinear S-NcurvesDesign Life 20 years at 70%– 80%operability forcontainer shipsTotal DaysSpectral analysisconsidering allsea conditions tobe encounteredNot considered iflinear seakeepingusedLinearcumulativedamage based onany widelyrecognized S-NcurvesOwnerrequirements5110–5840 OwnerOperationrequirementsOperating area North Atlantic Anticipatedshipping route orunrestrictedserviceSupporting testdata/reports forS-N curvesUK DENReportsAs appropriateSpectral analysisconsidering allsea conditions tobe encounteredEmpirical fromtrial dataLinearcumulativedamage based onAASHTO linearS-N curves30–40 years at35%–60%operabilityU.S. NavyDetailedAnalysisSpectral analysisconsidering allsea conditions tobe encounteredModel or shipdataLinearcumulativedamage based onany appropriateS-N curvesShip/ApplicationSpecificCanadianExponentialdistributionImplicit in shipcalibration dataLinearcumulativedamage based onBS 5400 bilinearS-N curves20 years at 100%operability3830–8760 Ship/ApplicationSpecific7300North Atlantic Actual operating North Atlanticarea orunrestrictedserviceNCHRP reports As appropriate Maddox (1991)availablePermissible Stress f(detail) f(detail) f(service life, f(service life, f(detail)Rangedetail, ship type) detail, ship type)Corrosion Considered Considered Not Considered Not Considered Not ConsideredAnalysis time and Minimal Significant Minimal Significant MinimalcostComputerProgram UsedSafeHull/EmpiricalFLECS SPECTRA SPECTRA -2-26

3. Operational Environments Used in Commercialand USN Ship Design Practice3.1 PurposeThis chapter identifies and lists commercial ship design operating environments. It alsoaddresses the operational environmental factors considered during the design of ships for theU.S. Navy and Canadian Navy. For each of the identified design practices, the following aspectsare discussed:1) Service Life2) Assumptions about total years of operation and percent of at-sea time3) Operating areas and associated wave spectra applied3.2 IntroductionThe operating environments for commercial ships will vary with the area of operations,type of service, and anticipated service life. A cruise ship operating in the Caribbean willexperience a more benign environment than will a containership operating in trans-Atlanticservice. Moreover, the cruise ship will take greater efforts to avoid rough weather than will thecontainership. However, these differences are not reflected in the rules for developing thescantlings of commercial ships. The assumption is made that even if a ship is intended by itsowners to operate in restrictive service, future owners may operate the ship in an entirelydifferent manner.The general assumption in developing the design loads for commercial ships is that thevessel will operate for 20 years in a harsh environment, such as the North Atlantic (ABS, 1999).The loads so derived are assumed to have a probability of exceedance of 10 -8 . Only if it isknown that a more severe environment is to be expected, such as a tanker operating on the WestCoast to Alaska (TAPS) trade, will more severe environments be used for determining thedesign loads. Table 3.1 illustrates this difference between the probability of occurrence ofdifferent wave heights in the North Atlantic and the TAPS trade as developed for twocommercial ships operating on these routes (Glen et al., 1999). This information was developedby plotting the course of two ships operating on these routes and summing the different sea statesencountered, using data from global wave statistics (Hogben et al., 1986).3-1

Operational EnvironmentsTable 3.1 Wave Height Probabilities for Different Operating Areas (Glen et al., 1999)NATOSea StateNorth AtlanticCalifornia to Alaska(TAPS Trade)Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound1 0.0148 0.1005 0.0484 0.11202 0.0620 0.1128 0.1258 0.15373 0.1906 0.1803 0.1928 0.18804 0.1804 0.1525 0.1644 0.14725 0.2526 0.2667 0.1999 0.18866 0.2996 0.1818 0.2679 0.20707 0.0000 0.0054 0.0013 0.0035In special cases where a ship is to operate only in benign conditions, reduced loading canbe used for fatigue assessments. In most cases, the fatigue assessment performed during designrepresents an owner’s requirement so that maintenance costs can be reduced. A fatigueassessment is used to increase scantlings and fatigue classifications of structural details above theminimum rule requirements, and the extent of such increases is often a decision made by theowner, not the classification society. One area where the classification societies reduce theloading requirements is in the number of fatigue cycles assumed during the lifetime of the ship.For fatigue analysis, ABS assumes that tankers operate 100 percent of the time during a 20-yearlifetime. For bulk carriers and containerships, a 70 to 80 percent operability over a 20-year lifeis assumed. ABS also assumes that the ship will take headings relative to waves of equalprobability, and that the ship will be operated at 75 percent of maximum ship speed.The actual operating conditions of ships may vary from the assumptions made byclassification societies or military design authorities. In a study made for the Ship StructureCommittee (Glen et al., 1999), information was gathered from commercial ship owners and theU.S. Coast Guard on actual operational conditions that ships encountered over a period of time.This information is somewhat limited in that the commercial ship data was limited to 3 shipsoperating over an average of 1.7 years for a total of 5 ship years of operation. It should thereforenot be considered as typical for all commercial ships, only indicative of what operational profilesmight actually be. The report includes data from a high-speed container ship operating on aregular route in the North Atlantic, a tanker operating between California and Alaska, a trampbulk carrier, and a U.S. Coast Guard cutter. In all cases, it was shown that an assumption ofrandom speeds and headings relative to the direction of waves in different sea states is not valid.However, the relationship between speed, heading, and sea state varied depending on the shipsize and type. The report provides such probabilities for the ships analyzed, but does notgeneralize the results for use with other ships. Most importantly, the report did not assess thedifference in fatigue life prediction that results from the use of specific operational profilescompared to random operational profiles.The percent of time at sea of the four ships studied is shown in Table 3.2. Also shown inTable 3.2 is data on the operation of 86 combatant ships of the U.S. Navy. This data was taken3-2

Operational Environmentsfrom the U.S. Navy Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs (VAMOSC)database, and will be discussed below.Table 3.2. Percentage of Time at Sea of Ships (Glen et al., 1999, VAMOSC)ShipPercent of Time at SeaContainer Ship, Europe to United States 1 53Tanker, California to Alaska 1 65Tramp Bulk Carrier 1 59U.S. Coast Guard Cutter 1 40U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier 2 56U.S. Navy Cruiser 2 52U.S. Navy Amphibious Transport Ship 2 541 (SSC SR-1388)2 VAMOSC Data, October 1997 — September 1998, maximum operations for ship classFor the fatigue analysis that was performed during the study, a ship life of 20 years wasassumed because the data gathered represented only a portion of the lives of the ships, rangingfrom one to three years. The operating profile for the tanker in the full-laden southbound leg ofits voyage is shown in the Table 3.3. Table 3.3 gives the probability of a combination of speed,heading, and sea state on the given route. By contrast, the operational profile of navalcombatants is shown in Table 3.4 (Michaelson, 1996). Table 3.4 is more general than Table 3.2.It gives the conditional probability that a ship will operate at a particular combination of speedand heading, given that it is in a particular sea state. The operational profile in Table 3.4 is arecommended profile that was based on the analysis of 15 years of operations of 20 navalcombatants. It is important to note that the operational profile represents 300 ship years ofoperation.Table 3.3. Sample Tanker Operating Profile (Glen et al., 1999)(1000 x Probability of combination of speed, heading, and sea state)SpeedSea State 1 Sea State 2(knots) Head Bow Beam Quart. Follow. Head Bow Beam Quart. Follow.0–6 0.109 0.301 0.364 0.542 0.126 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0006–10 0.214 0.594 0.717 1.067 0.248 0.086 0.246 0.283 0.443 0.10310–14 0.493 1.367 1.650 2.457 0.571 0.613 1.749 2.009 3.144 0.73014–18 3.447 9.564 11.546 17.192 3.998 3.504 10.004 11.492 17.986 4.175Sum 4.3 11.8 14.3 21.3 4.9 4.2 12.0 13.8 21.6 5.03-3

Operational EnvironmentsSpeedSea State 3 Sea State 4(knots) Head Bow Beam Quart. Follow. Head Bow Beam Quart. Follow.0–6 0.125 0.286 0.330 0.548 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0006–10 0.467 1.066 1.232 2.045 0.461 1.285 2.968 3.568 5.686 1.29310–14 7.089 16.186 18.702 31.036 6.990 5.956 13.757 19.538 26.351 5.99114–18 18.637 42.549 49.163 81.588 18.376 15.857 36.628 44.032 70.159 15.950Sum 26.3 60.1 69.4 115.2 26.0 23.1 53.4 64.1 101.2 23.2SpeedSea State 5 Sea State 6(knots) Head Bow Beam Quart. Follow. Head Bow Beam Quart. Follow.0–6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.061 0.103 0.137 0.221 0.0496–10 0.639 1.530 1.818 15.035 3.428 5.663 9.540 12.669 20.388 4.49010–14 3.317 7.940 9.430 15.035 3.428 5.633 9.540 12669 20.388 4.49014–18 9.891 23.676 28.121 44.833 10.223 6.085 10.306 13.686 22.024 4.850Sum 13.8 33.1 39.4 62.8 14.3 13.4 22.7 30.2 48.6 10.7SpeedSea State 7(knots) Head Bow Beam Quart. Follow.0–6 0.941 0.843 1.651 2.268 0.4566–10 1.254 1.125 2.201 3.024 0.60810–14 2.509 2.249 4.402 6.049 1.21614–18 0.627 0.562 1.100 1.512 0.304Sum 5.3 4.8 9.4 12.9 2.6Table 3.4 Operational Profile for Combatants (Michaelson, 1996)(Probability of speed and heading in given sea state)Speed0–3 Meter Have Height 3–6 Meter Wave Height(knots) Head Bow Beam Quart. Follow. Head Bow Beam Quart. Follow.0–10 .06884 .09032 .06641 .07458 .04791 .06131 .09045 .04422 .04422 .0271410–20 .10590 .15724 .10414 .13127 .07297 .14975 .19698 .13970 .09447 .06131>20 .01583 .02168 .01473 .01815 .01004 .01809 .02714 .01307 .02412 .00804Sum 0.1905 0.2692 0.1852 0.2240 0.1309 0.2291 0.3145 0.1969 0.1628 0.0964Speed>6 Meter Wave Height(knots) Head Bow Beam Quart. Follow.0–10 .11111 .08642 .08642 .02469 .0246910–20 .16049 .16049 .09877 .08642 .04938>20 .00000 .01235 .02469 .01235 .06173Sum 0.2716 0.2592 0.2098 0.1234 0.1358Many commercial ship owners and operators are installing hull response monitoringsystems (over 200 by 1997) to measure and display key ship motions and hull structuralresponses. A study of such systems was made by the Ship Structure Committee (Slaughter et al.,1997). The information provided by such systems is helpful in making fatigue analyses of the3-4

Operational Environmentsships monitored. Because the owners generally consider such information proprietary, there hasbeen no effort to date to systematically analyze this data in the development of typical fatiguespectra for commercial ships. However, it does represent one commercial approach to fatigueanalysis.3.3 ABS Fatigue AnalysisChen and Thayamballi (1991) gave a discussion of the approach being taken by ABS todevelop a fatigue analysis procedure. They developed the parameters “response severity” (RS),“fatigue severity” (FS) and “fatigue vulnerability” (FV), defined as:RS = MPEV/[MPEV] NFS = D / D NFV = FS / RS mMPEV is the most probable extreme value of the wave height that will occur in aparticular environment, and [MPEV] N is the most probable extreme value on a standardizedroute, Rotterdam to New York. D is the Palmgren-Miner cumulative damage summation for aship operating in a particular environment, and D N is the damage summation for the standardizedroute. The coefficient m is the slope of the S-N curve for a structural detail being analyzed. TheFV parameter measures how vulnerable a structure is to fatigue damage in a given waveenvironment. Using these parameters, they demonstrated that the most severe wave environmentdoes not always represent the most severe environment for a particular ship on the basis offatigue. Chen and Thayamballi then ranked 104 ocean zones on the basis of the threeparameters, clearly showing that the operating area of the ship influences the extent of fatiguedamage. The fatigue vulnerability ranged from a value of 0.1 for the most benign to 3.4 for themost severe. The results for a few environments and routes are shown in Table 3.5.Table 3.5. Variation of Severity Parameters with Respect to WaveEnvironment (Chen and Thayamballi, 1991)RegionResponse Severity(RS)Fatigue Severity(FS)Fatigue Vulnerability(FV)Grid Point 128 1.030 1.587 1.454Gulf of Alaska 1.151 2.314 1.518Alaska to California 1.087 1.329 1.035Alaska to Yokohama 1.069 1.585 1.296Europe to New York 1.000 1.000 1.000Chen and Shin (1997) discuss the ABS approach to loads analysis. The H-family ofspectral wave data (ABS, 1980) that was developed for strength assessment is used by ABS. TheABS H-family of North Atlantic measured wave spectra consists of 5 weather groups ofsignificant wave heights of 3, 6, 9, 12, and 14.69 meters. Each weather group is represented by3-5

Operational Environments10 wave spectra, except for the 14.69-meter group, which contains 12. An H-family group forthe 10-meter significant wave height case is shown in Figure 3.1Figure 3.1 ABS H-family of wave spectra for 3 meter Significant Wave Height(Thayamballi et al., 1987)In assessing strength, the emphasis is on the highest waves, which are characterized bythe tails of the probability density functions. However, for fatigue assessment, all waveoccurrences are important. The wave spectrum used should have an unbiased joint probability ofcharacteristic period and significant wave height.The approach to load determination as used by SafeHull is given by ABS (1999). Thisdocuments the approach used in deriving the design loads for tankers. The assumption is madethat the ship will operate in the North Atlantic for 20 years, with random headings and at 75percent of full speed.3.4 U.S. Navy Fatigue AnalysisIn performing fatigue analyses, the U.S. Navy uses the computer program SPECTRA todevelop the fatigue loading spectrum. This program was described by Sikora et al. (1983), laterby Sikora and Beach (1986), and most recently by Sikora (1998). The computer program iscapable of developing a fatigue spectrum for any ship operating for any length of time in anywave environment, four of which are incorporated into the program. The characteristics of theship are described by linear response amplitude operators (RAOs), which may be either defaultvalues or separately input by the user. The default values are based on the testing ofinstrumented models in the David Taylor Model Basin at Carderock, Maryland. The user inputRAOs would be obtained either from model or full-scale measurements. Since these RAOs are3-6

Operational Environmentsship specific, they would reflect the best estimate of ship response. If unavailable, a normalizedgeneral empirically based RAO can be derived given the heading, speed and principaldimensions of the ship. The RAO’s are differentiated as to ship type:• Commercial and Naval Auxiliaries• Amphibious Assault• Aircraft Carriers• Frigate• Destroyers and CruisersOther than this differentiation by ship type, a particular vessel is characterized only bylength and beam. From this information, RAOs are developed for a variety of ship headings andspeeds. The probability of a ship taking a particular heading and speed during differing waveconditions is also characterized by standard tables built into the program for different ship types,although the operator has the option of inputting a different set of probabilities.The SPECTRA program includes prediction of slam-induced hull girder whipping.Model test data and at-sea measurements of vertical and lateral whipping were analyzed and anexponential distribution was developed. The rate of slamming is taken as proportional to theencounter frequency, and inversely proportional to the length of the ship.Tables 3.6 through 3.8 shows the operating profiles used for U.S. Navy ships in fatigueanalyses in the SPECTRA program.Table 3.6 U.S. Navy Standard Operational Profiles for Frigates, Destroyers, and CruisersSpeed(knots)51525Heading Significant Wave Height (meters)0–5 5–10 >10Head .0125 .0250 .0000Bow .0250 .3750 .8075Beam .0250 .0250 .0000Quarter .0250 .0500 .0425Follow .0125 .0250 .0000Head .0875 .0225 .0000Bow .1750 .3375 .1420Beam .1750 .0225 .0000Quarter .1750 .0450 .0080Follow .0875 .0225 .0000Head .0250 .0025 .0000Bow .0500 .0375 .0000Beam .0500 .0025 .0000Quarter .0500 .0050 .0000Follow .0250 .0025 .00003-7

Operational EnvironmentsTable 3.7 U.S. Navy Standard Operational Profiles forAircraft Carriers and High Speed Cargo ShipsSpeed(knots)51525Heading Significant Wave Height (meters)0–5 5–10 >10Head .0100 .1250 .1750Bow .0200 .1250 .1750Beam .0200 .0625 .0875Quarter .0200 .1250 .1750Follow .0100 .0625 .0875Head .0963 .1150 .0750Bow .1925 .1150 .0750Beam .1925 .0575 .0375Quarter .1925 .1150 .0750Follow .0963 .0575 .0375Head .0188 .0100 .0000Bow .0375 .0100 .0000Beam .0375 .0050 .0000Quarter .0375 .0100 .0000Follow .0188 .0050 .0000Table 3.8 U.S. Navy Standard Operational Profiles forAuxiliaries and Commercial Cargo ShipsSpeed(knots)515Heading Significant Wave Height (meters)0–5 5–10 >10Head .0100 .1250 .1750Bow .0200 .1250 .1750Beam .0200 .0625 .0875Quarter .0200 .1250 .1750Follow .0100 .0625 .0875Head .1150 .1250 .0750Bow .2300 .1250 .0750Beam .2300 .0625 .0375Quarter .2300 .1250 .0750Follow .1150 .0625 .0375In the SPECTRA program, the wave environment can be represented by one of fourenvironments, General North Atlantic, NATO North Atlantic, Ochi North Atlantic, or GeneralPacific. The probability of wave height occurrence of each environment is shown in Table 3.9.The user also has the option of inputting the statistics of a different wave environment. The seaspectrum in these environments can be a Pierson-Moskowitz, Bretschneider, Ochi 6-Parameter,3-8

Operational Environmentsor North Atlantic 2-Parameter. The program also computes slam induced whipping and addsthat response to the fatigue loading spectrum.Table 3.9 Sea State ProbabilitiesSignificantWave HeightFrequency of Occurrence(meters) General North NATO North Ochi North General PacificAtlantic Atlantic Atlantic15 .00010 .0000 .00041 .000001The standard practice for the U.S. Navy, such as (Kihl, 1991), is to use the default valuesof the RAOs and operating probabilities during ship design. The Ochi 6-Parameter sea spectrumis used with NATO North Atlantic wave probabilities. In the study by Kihl, that spectrum andthat probability table were used to determine the average fatigue life of various structural details.The design life and operability were first defined and used to generate the fatigue load spectrum.Critical details such as frame and bulkhead penetrations, openings, and transverse butt weldsover the entire ship were then analyzed to determine the fatigue life of each detail. The ship thathe analyzed had been designed using the standard U.S. Navy design procedures, which did notinclude fatigue analysis at that time. Recent U.S. Navy practice is to include fatigue analysis aspart of the structural design of ships, such as the Amphibious Transport Dock LPD 17 (Sieve etal., 1997). This ship class was evaluated for fatigue using SafeHull Phase A (See Chapter 9).The SafeHull Phase A analysis indicated no areas in the midship section that were inadequate forfatigue. This comparison illustrates the suitability of this commercial method when used innaval ship design. The SafeHull comparison was made after the design was completed using thenaval procedure, but is shows that an existing commercial method can be used to screen detailsfor further assessment by methods that are more exact. The fatigue design of the LPD 17 Classby the U.S. Navy was based on the default RAOs of SPECTRA, the operating profile for aircraft3-9

Operational Environmentscarriers and high speed cargo ships, the Ochi 6 parameter sea spectrum, General Atlantic waveheight probabilities, and 50 percent operability over a 40-year service life.Data available from the U.S. Navy Visibility and Management of Operating and SupportCosts (VAMOSC) database indicates the number of days that U.S. Navy ships actually are at seaduring a year. It is important to note that the data represents 230 ship years of operation and thatsimilar data for commercial ships in the reference (Glen et al., 1999) is limited to 5 ship years.The assumption of 35 percent operability is borne out by data provided by the VAMOSCdatabase as shown in Figure 3.2 for Ship G of this study. The average time underway for allships of the class from Fiscal Year 1986 to FY 1998 is 34.1 percent. However, the trend hasbeen one of decreasing operations during the 1990s, going from a peak of 41.4 percent in FY1991 to 28.7 percent in FY 1998. If future operations are at this reduced tempo, then predictionsof fatigue life based on 35 percent operability will be conservative. On the other hand, there isconsiderable variability within the VAMOSC data. The standard deviation of the operabilityover the years recorded is 939 hours, so that the mean minus two standard deviations is 5.8percent operability, and the mean plus two standard deviations is 55.5 percent operability.Between ship classes and within ship classes, there is considerable variability. Oneaircraft carrier operated for 5,757 hours and 4,129 hours in FY 80 and 81, respectively, whichrepresents 56 percent operability. However, all aircraft carriers of that class averaged 34 percentoperability over a 20-year period. One cruiser operated for 5,208 hours and 3,960 hours in FY91 and FY 92, respectively, which represents 52 percent operability, although the 10-yearaverage for that class was 34 percent operability. One amphibious transport ship operated for4,699 hours in FY 91, which represents 54 percent operability, although the 18-year average forthat class of ships was 26 percent operability.A study was made of the actual operational profiles of U.S. Navy ships by Michaelson(1996). Weather observations made by 40 naval ships over 15 years were examined in order tocreate ship operational profiles. These ships included a variety of ship types to reveal anydifferences in their operating characteristics. The data included the ship speed, ship heading andwave height and direction. The data was grouped in the following categories:• Aircraft carriers• Combatant ships• Amphibious ships• Auxiliary shipsTable 3.4 above shows the resulting operational profile for naval combatant ships.3-10

Operational EnvironmentsShip G Class OperabilityPercent TimeUnderway per Year45%40%35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%FY 86 FY 88 FY 90 FY 92 FY 94 FY 96 FY 98Fiscal YearFigure 3.2: Percent of Time Underway for Ship GBecause the wave height and direction are based on visual observations, the accuracy ofthe information could be questioned. Common judgment is that wave height observations tendto approximate the average for the one-third highest waves (H 1/3 ). For that reason, H 1/3 is calledthe significant wave height. However, there is some indication (such as Ochi, 1978) that if theobservers are mariners, they will tend to underestimate the height of the higher waves. Adifferent conclusion was reached by Nordenström (SNAME, 1989) that trained wave observerstend to underestimate the height of the lower waves, and to overestimate the height of the higherwaves. Ochi developed the relationshipwhere H V is the reported wave height.H 1/3 = H V 1.08 (meters)However, Nordenström developed the relationship3-11

Operational EnvironmentsH 1/3 = 1.68 H V 0.75 (meters)If the significant wave height is 10 meters, both of the above formulas yield the sameresult; namely, that the observer would report the height as 8 meters. A significant wave heightof 17 meters would be recorded as 14 meters if the Ochi correction is correct, and as 12 meterswith the Nordenström correction.Because the data analyzed is from the observations of mariners, it would seem moreproper to use the Ochi correction, although the observers on some ships, such as aircraft carriers,are trained meteorologists, and their perceptions could be different. Furthermore, there is thedifference of height of eye between different ship types, which was not accounted for in eithercomparison of observed and measured wave heights. An observer on the bridge of a combatantship would be only 5 to 10 meters above the water, on an auxiliary or merchant ship 20 to 40meters above the water, and on an aircraft carrier 50 meters above the water. The difference inheight of eye would make a significant difference in the way that the observer would see thewaves, and thus make different judgments about wave height. The study by Michaelsondiscounted these corrections, and made all of the analysis of data on the basis of the observedwave heightOne of the important conclusions of the Michaelson study is that the spectrum of theobserved waves is significantly less than that of standard wave spectra. For example, there wereless than 1 percent of the recorded observations for wave heights of 4 meters, but the NorthAtlantic wave data indicate a 10 percent probability of encounter. This difference is more thancan be accounted for by the difference between observed and recorded data. The analysisshowed that the naval ships tend to operate mostly in coastal waters, and little in the open ocean.The assumption of operation solely in the North Atlantic is therefore extremely conservative fornaval ships.Another result of the Michaelson study is that even in lower sea states, the heading is notrandom, but ships tend to favor head seas. Michaelson commented that the forward motion of anobserver might tend to skew observations toward head seas. However, it is also likely that shipson training missions would tend to favor the most sea kindly heading so as to maximize crewperformance during training exercises. Michaelson did not compare the predicted fatigue livesusing previous assumptions to the lives that would be predicted using the new data, but asignificant increase in life would result from the lowered sea states. The report did providerecommended profiles of ship headings and speeds in various sea states that can be used for thedevelopment of fatigue loading spectra, particularly with the NSWCCD program SPECTRA.To determine the impact of different probability of sea states and operational profilewithin a sea state, a fatigue analysis of a typical naval vessel was made using the U.S. NavySPECTRA program with two different sea state probabilities. The probabilities were those fromTable 3.9 for NATO North Atlantic and for General Atlantic. The latter is the more benignenvironment, and as can be seen in Table 3.10, results in fatigue lives approximately twice aslong as when the NATO North Atlantic probabilities are used.The fatigue lives shown in Table 3.10 for the NATO North Atlantic Sea Spectrum shouldbe comparable to results for a detailed SafeHull Phase B analysis using 3-dimensional finite3-12

Operational Environmentselement analysis because ABS assumes operations in the North Atlantic. Other differences, suchas the S-N curves of the welded structural details, and assumed headings and speeds couldproduce other changes in the results. It would be informative to see what fatigue lives such ananalysis would predict, although such a comparison was beyond the scope of this study.Table 3.10: Effect of Sea Spectrum and Operational Profiles on Predicted Fatigue LivesLocationFatigue Life UsingNATO North AtlanticSea Spectrum and Table3.6 Operational ProfileMean S-NDataLowerLimit S-NDataFatigue Life UsingGeneral Atlantic SeaSpectrum and ModifiedOperational Profile forMichaelson (1996)Mean S-NDataLowerLimit S-NDataShip G, Fr. 129 Dk. Edge 92 33.6 210 77Ship G, Fr. 136 Dk. Edge 16.6 6.1 38.1 13.9Ship G, Fr. 129 Dk. Edge 13.0 4.7 30.3 11.1Ship G, Fr. 136 Dk. Edge Modified 7.9 2.9 18.6 6.83.5 SummaryThe operating environment clearly influences the fatigue life of ship structure, with someenvironments far worse than others. The actual area of operation can have a significant effect onfatigue life. There is a significant difference between the amount of operability data used in thisstudy for commercial and military ships, and so comparisons made on percentage of operabilityare questionable. The number of operational years for which a ship is designed to avoid fatiguedamage is generally an owner’s option. However, consistency is needed in defining years ofoperation in terms of the percent of time the ship will actually be at sea. Likewise, assumptionson actions taken by a master to reduce damage or make the ship ride more kindly in various seastates need to be considered. There is a definite trend shown by existing data that headings thatare more favorable and reduced speeds will be taken during heavier weather, and thisinformation should be included in a fatigue assessment. This is true for both commercial shipsand military ships operating in peacetime. However, when designing military ships, cautionmust be used in considering the experience of peacetime operations. During extended militaryoperations, it may not be possible to change course and reduce speed to meet mission objectives.Therefore, more severe service may occur during wartime than during peacetime.3-13

4. Commercial Methods for PredictingShip Lifetime Bending and Torsional Moments4.1 PurposeThis chapter describes the commercial methods used to predict the lifetime bending andtorsional moments of ships during their design phases.4.2 IntroductionA number of methods, both military and commercial, are used to predict the maximumbending and torsional moments to which ships are subjected over their operational life and todevelop applicable loads spectra for them. Some of the considerations associated with thesemethods are:• Software codes used• Wave height and whipping probabilities• Longitudinal distribution of moments• Ship heading probabilities• Ship speeds• Wave cells• RAOs• Wave spectra• RAO and wave spectra domainsThese and other factors have been reviewed to determine their effect on design for fatigue.4.3 Software Codes4.3.1. SafeHull and other ABS Computer ProgramsThe design program of the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), SafeHull, imbeds theABS loading approach for fatigue analysis in the Phase B analysis. The program has beendeveloped only for tankers, bulk carriers, and containerships, although some applications of theprogram have been made for the analysis of other types of ships. This is possible in the Phase Bpart of SafeHull because it is an analysis program, not a strict application of set rules. WithSafeHull, loadings are developed from a series of maximum wave events and applied to a finiteelement model of the cargo section of the hull. These loadings represent a distillation ofexperience and analysis of a number of hulls (ABS, 1999).For either a simplified fatigue analysis or the Phase A SafeHull fatigue analysis, the loadsused are the rule bending moments, shears, and torsional moments. More sophistication isrequired for SafeHull Phase B and a Dynamic Load Analysis (DLA). The ABS approach toloads determination for a Phase B SafeHull or a DLA analysis is based on a suite of computerprograms ranging from linear strip theory to advanced 3-dimensional nonlinear time domain4-1

Ship Lifetime Bending and Torsional Momentsanalysis (Shin et al., 1997). Several methods are included in the current system for ship motions,wave loads, and impact analysis. The combination of these methods can result in a capablemulti-level computation and simulation system for ship design and analysis. The followingmethods are available at ABS:2-D Linear Frequency Domain Analysis: ABS/SHIPMOTION (1980) is used as a baselevel for exploring the entire design domain. It is a traditional frequency-domain linear striptheorycomputer code, based on the theory developed by Salvesen, Tuck and Faltinsen (1970).Once the linear transfer functions are calculated, short term and long term extreme valueanalyses are performed to establish the extreme value and its probability distribution using linearspectral analysis. The design value of the critical load then can be determined at the probabilitylevel corresponding to the lifetime of the ship. Because most fatigue damage of ship structureoccurs from low-stress, high-frequency loading, the linear analysis from ABS/SHIPMOTION isapplicable for fatigue calculation, including the computation of vertical, lateral, and torsionalbending moments. However, other computer programs are necessary for computing maximumloads, as well as for evaluating unusual hull forms, such as catamarans and SWATH vessels.This program does not compute whipping response. This response is currently addressed in therules for bulk carriers, Section 3A of the ABS Rules.3-D Linear Frequency Domain Approach: This linear theory used in the development ofthe computer program PRECAL is similar to 2-D linear theory but 3-D effects near bow, transomand overhanging stem can be correctly accounted for in the local pressure calculation. The shipis modeled as a number of 3-D panels and hydrodynamics is solved by a 3-D source distribution.Quadratic Strip Theory for weakly non-linear system: Non-linear quadratic theory hasbeen developed by Jensen, et al. (1979) and successfully applied to the analysis of non-linearvertical bending moments for a container ship with a large bow flare. Short term and long termvalues and probability distribution can be determined separately for hogging and saggingbending moments.Two-dimensional quasi-linear time domain approach for wave and impact inducedresponses: Kaplan (1993) developed QLSLAM (Quasi-Linear SLAM) using a 2-D stripapproach to predict the wave impact on the ship motion and hull girder load. This simplifiedanalysis can be used effectively as a screening tool to identify the critical event for maximumhull girder load (vertical, horizontal and torsional) including bow flare and bottom slamming.The numerical solution is very stable and efficient.Non-linear time domain approach: LAMP-1, LAMP-2, and LAMP-4 are part of theLAMP (Large Amplitude Motion Program) system. This system of programs was developed bySAIC Corporation, Annapolis, Maryland, mostly under U.S. Navy funding. LAMP developmentis based on time-domain formulation and 3-D hydrodynamics. LAMP-1 is the linear version,whereas LAMP-2 and LAMP-4 are nonlinear codes with different degrees of sophistication. TheLAMP code system includes the prediction of impact loads and the resulting whipping responses(Lin, et al., 1994). LAMP has been expanded to a complete analysis system with modelgeneration, impact analysis and structural load interface for analysis using the finite element4-2

Ship Lifetime Bending and Torsional Momentsmethod. A top-level diagram of the LAMP system is given in Figure 4.1. The LAMP system ofprograms will be discussed more fully below.PRELAMP(Preprocessor)LAMP 1,2,42 LAMPRESStructural Finite ElementModel Interface)3 LMPOST(General Post-Processorof Motions and Loads)4 LMPOUND(Slamming and WhippingComputation)Figure 4.1 LAMP Based Load Analysis SystemAll of the above computer programs are available within ABS for spectral analysis ofloading. In general, a linear analysis using ABS/SHIPMOTION is used except where nonlinearresponse is anticipated.During the development of the SafeHull criteria, ship motions and loads were calculatedby using the ABS/SHIPMOTION program. Linear response is computed in regular waves asFrequency Response Functions (FRF), which are also called transfer functions or ResponseAmplitude Operators (RAO). Motion and load RAOs are calculated for a number of waveheadings and wave frequencies. These RAOs are used with a variety of sea states to determinethe long-term extreme values of load components and for computing the phase angles betweenvarious load components that are applied to the finite element model in Phase B of a SafeHullanalysis.The paper by Shin et al. (1997) provides some of the background theory behind theLAMP suite of programs, and compares the results that were computed for a typicalcontainership. In the comparisons, it is shown that the nonlinear effects are important inassessing the vertical and horizontal bending moments for the ships analyzed.The nonlinear programs described above, QLSLAM, DYNRES, and LAMP, are useful infatigue analysis for defining nonlinear response, such as response to maximum lifetime waveevents and for response to slamming. Because of the computational effort involved, none exceptQSLAM are suitable for generating a fatigue-loading spectrum, and even that program has itslimitations and can be effectively used only in simulation of a fraction of a ship’s lifetime. The4-3

Ship Lifetime Bending and Torsional Momentsprimary basis for developing a lifetime loading spectrum remains linear computations usingRAOs to compute the response to a variety of sea states at multiple headings and speeds.The ABS process for developing a fatigue-loading spectrum is similar in principle to theU.S. Navy approach shown in Figure 4.2. Principal differences are:• RAOs are determined analytically for the hull form• Slam induced whipping is determined with an algorithm that includes a factor basedon the form of the forebody above the waterline• The ABS H-Family of sea spectra are used, assuming operation in the North Atlantic• Ship operation is assumed for 90 percent of the time over 20 years.• Response is computed in 15 degree increments of heading• Operation at all headings is assumed to be equally probable• Speed is taken as 75 percent of maximum ship speed4.3.2. U.S. Navy Hull Response MethodsThe principal U.S. Navy method for developing a fatigue loading spectrum (andmaximum lifetime moments) is the computer program SPECTRA (Sikora, 1998), describedpreviously in Chapters 2 and 3. The structure of the program is shown in Figure 4.2.The Ship Motions Program (SMP) is the linear strip-theory ship motions programdeveloped by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division. It was developed in thelate 1970s by Salvesen and others (Salvesen et al., 1970), and has received several updates sincethat time. The emphasis in the development of the program was in predicting ship motions andpowering. Structural loads were a secondary consideration. Therefore, the program onlycomputes vertical bending moments and shears. Lateral and torsional bending and pressureloads are not calculated.SMP is commercially available as the suite of tools, VisualSMP. Included in VisualSMPis the SMP95 strip theory based frequency domain seakeeping program, the SEP96 seakeepinganalysis program, the STH97 time history program, and the SWMP96 SWATH seakeepingprogram, all developed by the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy has selected Proteus Engineering todistribute these tools commercially, and Proteus has used its experience in seakeeping analysisand software development to integrate and extend them, resulting in VisualSMP. VisualSMPadds a graphical pre- and post-processor, together with tools to simulate and visualize the motionof the ship in a seaway.The U.S. Navy uses a number of codes for seakeeping and wave load analyses, especiallyto support its reliability initiative. The relationship of the programs is shown in Figure 4.3. Thecombination of these codes can result in a capable multi-level computation and simulationsystem for naval ship design. A brief description of each of these codes is given in the followingparagraphs.4-4

Ship Lifetime Bending and Torsional MomentsOperational ProfileArea of OperationWave Height Probabilities ofOccurrenceSpeed & HeadingProbabilities for a GivenWave HeightShip CharacteristicsLBP, Beam, Bow FormShip Lifetime at SeaDays of OperationWave Spectra S w (w)Ochi 6 Parameter• Wave Height• Natural FrequencyResponseAmplitudeOperator(RAO)Response SpectraS R (ω e )=|RAO| 2 S W (ω)Maximum LifetimeResponse for a ParticularOperating ModeBM max =(2m 0i ln(n i ) 0.5Sum for each ofthe 11 spectraSum for eachoperational modeWhippingOccurs?NoBending MomentHistogram (Fatigue)Maximum Lifetime Response for AllOperating Modes (Wave Induced)Σ I exp(BM 2 max/2m 0I )n i =1.0YesAdd Whipping ComponentSeaway LoadingMaximum LifetimeBending MomentFigure 4.2 Organization of SPECTRA Program for Computing Lifetime Bending Moments4-6

Ship Lifetime Bending and Torsional MomentsFigure 4.3. Prediction System for Ship Motions, Wave Loads, and Structural Responses.(Engle et al., 1997)SMP, described above, is used as a base level code for exploring the entire designdomain.QLSLAM, described above, is used as a post processor to the SCORES 11 strip theoryprogram. SCORES 11 is used to predict the relative motions between the ship and the waves aswell as immersion-dependent added mass and hydrostatic corrections for use in QLSLAM.QLSLAM uses this information to predict impact loads, which in turn are used to excite auniform beam model (Kaplan and Dalzell, 1993).DYNRES is a 2-D large amplitude strip theory program. The program calculatesfrequency and independent hydrodynamic coefficients as a function of instantaneous immersionof a section. The resulting coefficients are then used to compute hydrodynamic loads in the timedomain (DYNRES, 1994).LAMP-1, -2, and -4 are part of the LAMP (Large Amplitude Motion Program) codesystem described above. The LAMP nonlinear seakeeping program has also been used for theanalysis of the loads on a naval combatant ship (Engle et al., 1997). In the comparison of results,experimental data were compared to the results of computations using LAMP. In the head seacondition, the linear program LAMP-1 accurately predicted both pitch and heave response. The4-7

Ship Lifetime Bending and Torsional Momentsvertical bending moments, however, were significantly underpredicted, especially the saggingresponse, which was less than half of the maximum experimental value. The LAMP-2 nonlinearprogram computed the vertical response in head seas far more accurately, even computing slaminduced whipping moments. In the case of LAMP-4, the more sophisticated program failed topredict accurately slamming response because the current developmental version of the programcan not model cases of bow emergence.In oblique seas, the LAMP-2 program accurately predicted pitch motions and verticalbending moments. However, the comparison was not good between experimental and predictedheave motions, even worse for roll motions, and inadequate for horizontal bending moments.The inaccuracy of the computed horizontal bending is partially due to the lack of a capability forcomputing lateral whipping response in the current version of LAMP-2. This situation is beingcorrected as the LAMP suite of programs is developed.The U.S. Navy, recognizing the extensive resources needed to develop and validatenonlinear ship motions and loads programs, is now participating in several internationalcooperative programs for the development of such computer programs. One such program isPRECAL, which is a 3-dimensional linear ship motion program that includes the computation ofpressures on the side and bottom shell, and is also used by ABS and the Canadian Navy.4.3.3 Canadian Navy Hull Response MethodsThe primary loads program used by the Defence Research Establishment, Atlantic(DREA) is the program SHIPMO (McTaggart, 1997). This is a linear strip-theory programdeveloped by DREA. It has been licensed to Fleet Technology, Ltd. for marketing, and Fleet hasadded a Windows shell for running the code. One unusual feature of SHIPMO is the linking withthe computer program VSHIP, which has the capability of visualization of the ship in regular anddirectionally irregular seas, including the finite element model on which the loads are imposed.DREA is also a member of the international group that is sponsoring the development ofPRECAL, which can also be linked to VSHIP.4.3.4. Other programsA comparison of six different nonlinear time-domain strip-theory ship motion programswas made by the Loads Committee of the International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress(ISSC, 1997). The subject was discussed in further detail by Watanabe and Guedes Soares(1999). The organizations participating that used their own programs were:• University of Newcastle• Instituto Superior Técnico• Det norske Veritas• China Ship Scientific Research Center• Kanazawa Institute of Technology• Ship Research Institute4-8

Ship Lifetime Bending and Torsional MomentsThe S-178 containership was selected as a model for this comparative study becauseinformation on the hull form and experimental data were available from an earlier study by theInternational Towing Tank Conference (ITTC). The ship design has 175 meters length, 25.4meters beam, 9.5 meters draft, and 28,000 metric tonnes displacement. The response of this shipwas computed in regular head seas. Figure 4.4 compares the vertical bending moments atmidships as computed by four of the programs, with the identities of the contributingorganizations made anonymous by using only letters to identify the program used. The results ofthese nonlinear programs are also compared to the results from a linear strip-theory ship motionsprogram. The abscissa is the wave height in meters. At low wave heights, all of the programsagree fairly well, but there is a considerable difference in the results at the higher wave heightsbecause of the treatment of slam-induced whipping, which significantly increases the calculatedbending moments in most of the programs. Note that the response is computed at different waveheights, and so the results can not be directly compared to design moments such as those of ABSor the U.S. Navy. The ABS design moments are based on the maximum response over a varietyof sea spectra, and the U.S. Navy design moment is based on static response to a wave withheight equal to 1.1 √L.Moment(meter-tonnes)Figure 4.4. Comparison of Computed Bending Moments Midships(ISSC, 1997)4.4 Longitudinal Distribution of MomentsABS uses a standard distribution of the rule bending moments. The maximum verticalbending moment is carried to a point 0.45 of the length of the ship from the forwardperpendicular, varying linearly from that point forward to zero at the forward perpendicular.Similarly, the midship moment is carried aft to a point 0.4 L from the after perpendicular,varying linearly from that point aft to zero at the after perpendicular. For containerships, thelateral bending moment is carried to points 0.1 L forward and after midships, tapering linearly to4-9

Ship Lifetime Bending and Torsional Momentszero at the ends. The vertical whipping moment, as computed in section 5/3A.3.6.1c of the ABSRules (Bulk Carriers) has the profile shown in Table 4.1.Table 4.1 ABS Longitudinal Distribution of Slam Induced Vertical Bending Moments(ABS Rules 5.3A.3.61c)Distance from F.P. .2 .3 .35 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8Factor 2.05 2.510 2.35 2.21 1.84 1.84 2.16 1.56The U.S. Navy approach for the distribution of bending moments is to use a 1 minuscosine distribution of moments for both wave bending and slam-induced whipping moments.This distribution was determined by evaluation of model and full scale data.The longitudinal distribution of the maximum hogging and sagging moments computedby the different programs compared by the ISSC Loads Committee varies significantly. Figure4.5 shows the maximum computed moments during one wave encounter cycle. There issignificant variation not only in the amplitude, as was shown in Figure 4.4, but the shape of thedistribution of the moments also varies significantly. The response in Figure 4.5 was computedfor comparative purposes on a wave with length equal to the length of the ship and height 1/30the length. Therefore the magnitude of the response should not be compared to standard bendingmoments, such as the IACS standard moment or the NAVSEA 1.1 √L design moment.The ISSC comparison of the results from different nonlinear programs did not comparethe results with experimental data. Therefore, it is difficult to determine which is the correctresponse. The conclusion that can be drawn is that the current state-of-the-art for nonlinearseakeeping programs computing hull girder bending moments is not advanced to the point thatrepeatability of results can be shown. The significance of this for fatigue analysis is that reliancecannot be placed on computed slam-induced whipping moments unless the program used hasbeen validated by comparison with experimental data for the ship type being analyzed.4-10

Ship Lifetime Bending and Torsional MomentsFigure 4.5. Comparison of the Longitudinal Distribution of the Maximum ComputedBending Vertical Moments (Station 10 is the FP) (ISSC, 1997)4.5 Ship Speed and Heading ProbabilitiesAn essential difference in the ABS and U.S. Navy approach to determination of loads isthe use of speed-heading probabilities in the program SPECTRA used by the U.S. Navy todevelop both maximum lifetime bending moments and lifetime fatigue load spectra (Sikora,1998). The subject of speed and headings was discussed in Chapter 3, considering their effectson the ship operating environment. Instead of using different probabilities of speed and headingin various sea states as the U.S. Navy does, ABS assumes all headings to be equally probable,and that the speed will be 75 percent of maximum speed. For computation of a fatigue spectrum,assumptions on speed will affect the magnitude of the linear response amplitude operators(RAOs) and the wave encounter frequency. Figure 4.6 shows the measured RAOs for verticalbending midships from full-scale trials of a military ship. The dependence of response on speedis not apparent, or at least is overshadowed by other variability in the trials, such as smallchanges in sea state from the beginning of the time of measurement to the end. The peak RAO isat 10 knots, and the 25 knot data does not appear to be significantly greater than the data at anyother speeds, including 5 knots.Ship speed does have an effect on slam occurrence and the subsequent slam-inducedwhipping moments. However, none of the methods in use today for predicting whippingmoments make direct calculations on which speed would have an effect. Rather, data on theprobability of slam occurrence in particular sea states is used, and the effect of speed (andheading) is inherent in those assumptions.4-11

Ship Lifetime Bending and Torsional MomentsFigure 4.6. Vertical Bending Moment Square Root RAO of Military Ship in Head Seas4.6 Wave CellsBoth the ABS and the U.S. Navy approach to development of maximum lifetime loadsand fatigue spectra use the concept of “cells,” where the response is computed at a variety of seastates, headings and speeds. The principal difference is that the ABS approach is to use only onespeed, and to assume equal probability of headings. However, ABS computes the response inheadings of 15-degree increments from head to following seas, while the U.S. Navy usually onlyuses 45-degree increments. In contrast to this, SSCP23 used by Canada does not use “cells” butprovides a “fixed” fatigue spectra scaled by the design bending moment. This spectrum is basedon long term strain measurements on Royal Navy warships.4.7 Response Amplitude OperatorsA significant difference in the approach to load determination between ABS and the U.S.Navy is the use of computed RAOs by ABS, and experimental RAOs by the U.S. Navy. Theapproaches also differ in the sea spectra used, as discussed in section 4.8. However, bothapproaches determine the RAOs in the encounter frequency domain. This is important to note,as significant errors can be made if the sea spectrum is not converted to an encounter spectrum4-12

Ship Lifetime Bending and Torsional Momentsfor each ship heading and speed. As shown above, analytically determined RAOs arequestionable in higher sea states because of nonlinear effects. On the other hand, experimentalRAOs can have both bias and randomness from observational methods. Figure 4.7 shows typicalexperimental data on which loads are determined in the U.S. Navy computer program SPECTRA(Sikora, 1998).The vertical RAOs have considerable scatter in their values, especially compared to themean value that is used by the RAO algorithm in SPECTRA. Even for one ship, the data for thebending moments shows considerable experimental variability.Whether experimental or measured RAOs are used for computing loads, both bias andvariability will occur. Neither the approach used by ABS nor by the U.S. Navy implicitlyincludes these probabilistic factors in the computations, especially for fatigue life predictions.Such consideration should be made whatever method is used. If proper usage of the randomnessin the prediction methods is used, then the benefits of efforts to make more exactingmeasurements or calculations will be easier to estimate. For example, a greater coefficient ofvariation in loads should be taken if the standard RAO in SPECTRA is used instead of measureddata from a model of the ship being designed. If the greater confidence that comes from use of amodel can reduce the variability in predicted fatigue life, then higher design stresses can bepermitted with the associated decrease in weight of structure.4.8 Wave SpectraA variety of sea states are available for development of maximum lifetime loads andfatigue spectra. These sea states define the probability of occurrence of the wave height in aparticular geographical domain and season. The sea state defined by NATO (1983) is used bythe U.S. Navy. ABS uses the SNAME H-Family of sea states (SNAME, 1982) for maximumlifetime load predictions, as was discussed in Chapter 3. This family of sea states was developedon North Atlantic data, and although it represents that area well, does not model developing seasthat are more typical of coastal areas.4-13

Ship Lifetime Bending and Torsional MomentsFigure 4.7. Vertical and Lateral RAOs from Experimental Data (Sikora, 1998)4-14

Ship Lifetime Bending and Torsional MomentsThe U.S. Navy uses the Ochi 6-parameter sea spectra (Ochi, 1978) for developing thefatigue load spectrum. The 6-parameters describe the low-frequency and high frequency of thesignificant wave height, modal frequency, and a shape parameter. This approach reflects thedifference between developing and fully-developed seas, and thus can accurately describe wavespectra in both open ocean and coastal waters. Because the sea spectrum is described in the wavefrequency domain for use with a moving ship, it must be transformed into the encounterfrequency domain in order to reflect the frequency and phasing of bending moment RAOs,which are computed in the encounter frequency domain.The assumptions on spectra generally have little influence on maximum responses, as theprobability of exceedance of the largest response will not change significantly after about anhour’s exposure to a particular sea condition. However, there is a more significant effect onfatigue life, as shown by Chen and Thayamballi (1991). The important issue is whether or notfatigue spectra should be developed for the specific operations intended for a ship design, or if ageneral approach should be taken, with only more severe conditions used if they are anticipated.4.9 SummaryThe principal issue in the prediction of lifetime bending and torsional moments is theimportance of nonlinearities. They are extremely important in predicting the maximum lifetimeresponse, but are generally not important for predicting a fatigue loading spectrum, with theexception of slam-induced whipping. In the commercial approach used by ABS, vertical, lateral,and torsional hull girder moments are generally computed using a linear seakeeping program,and therefore do not include nonlinear wave response or slam-induced whipping moments. TheU.S. Navy uses experimental means to obtain these same moments, thereby including nonlineareffects in the determination of the response. However, the fatigue loading spectra developed bythe U.S. Navy using the SPECTRA program is based on linear response amplitude operators, andtherefore does not include nonlinear wave response, only whipping moments.In comparing different approaches to determining ship response to a sea environment,either computational or experimental approaches are used. To be able to place values on therelative merits of alternative approaches, a probabilistic approach to fatigue life predictionshould be used.Fatigue life predictions are extremely dependent on assumed operating conditions. Adecision needs to be made as to whether on not a standardized operating environment should beused as a basis for design.4-15

5. Fatigue Data for Ship Structural Details5.1 PurposeThis chapter identifies and lists the commercial structural details and the S-N curves usedto define fatigue strength of the details. It addresses U.S. Navy and the Canadian Navy DesignPractices, and American Bureau of Shipping classification practices for fatigue analysis. It alsoaddresses the applicability of linear and bilinear S-N curves in fatigue analysis of ship structure.5.2 IntroductionAmong the many items of required information for the fatigue analysis of ship structureis knowledge of the fatigue characteristics of structural details. Structural details are the mostimportant areas of ship structure for fatigue analysis because they will always involve a stressconcentration and include welds, both of which lower the fatigue strength compared tohomogeneous base metal.Fatigue strength is generally characterized by the S-N curve, which is a plot of thenumber of cycles to failure (N) of the detail when alternating stress (S) is applied. A typical S-Ncurve was shown as Figure 2.1. When S-N curves are plotted on a log-log scale, they tend to belinear. Sometimes there is a break point in the curves, making the curves bilinear. The S-Nrelationship is taken as:N = A S B (5.1)whereA is a coefficient, sometimes expressed as the base 10 logarithm.B is the slope of the curve. The slope is sometimes expressed as m, in which case m isthe negative value of the slope.The S-N curves for structural details are in three different formats:• Either test data for the structural detail exists, or an experimental program isundertaken to produce an S-N curve for the detail.• Standard S-N curves for a variety of details are referred to, using the standard curvefor details with geometry close to the geometry of the detail in question• Finite element analysis is used to develop stress concentrations, which are used inconjunction with “hot-spot” S-N curves.S-N curves for a number of structural details used on commercial and military ships existto enable use of the test data approach, and are described below. Because of the variety ofdetails for which the data exists, data from details that are close in geometry to most details usedin ship construction can generally be used for the fatigue analysis of most structural details.Special test data will generally not be required unless the detail in question is identified as havinga marginal fatigue life and cannot be easily modified to improve that life. Extensive testing is5-1

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural Detailsalso justified if a sufficient number of the same detail is repeatedly used in construction and hasmarginal fatigue life. This approach is desirable if special weld procedures are used that have apossible effect on fatigue life.In a sense, the other means of gathering S-N data is a subset of the test data approach,because S-N curves cannot be developed analytically, but rely on some fatigue data base. Animportant difference is in the amount of data available. S-N curves typically show as much as afull order of magnitude of scatter in the test results for the fatigue life of a detail at a particularstress range. A large number of test points are necessary to describe fully the fatiguecharacteristics of a particular detail. This can be very time consuming and expensive, especiallyas testing is required at 10 6 to 10 7 cycles and greater. Often, testing at these higher cycles isomitted, and sufficient data is obtained to describe only the mean value of the fatigue strength.Assumptions may be necessary to estimate the probability distribution function and thecoefficient of variation of the data. The tendency in limited data is to overestimate the slope ofthe S-N curve.To overcome the need for extensive testing, the data on a variety of test specimens hasbeen collected by various agencies into several different standard S-N curves. Studies have beenconducted to show their applicability to a number of typical ship structural details, both militaryand commercial, and are described below. This approach simplifies the process of obtaining S-Ndata, and overcomes some of the limitations of using test data, which will be discussed below.This approach has the disadvantage of not addressing the specific geometry or weld procedureused for a specific detail.When designing structure, it is often necessary to use an unusual structural detail forwhich no data exists, and finite element analysis is used to determine the stress concentrationsassociated with the detail. In addition, detailed finite element analyses are frequently conductedto develop design modifications to improve the fatigue life of structural details that have a lowpredicted fatigue life. In the conduct of a linear elastic finite element analysis, computed stressgradients become extremely high at changes in geometry at a structural detail, such as anintersection of two members. Using a finer finite element mesh does not resolve the problem. Ingeneral, the calculated stress concentration continues to rise as the finite element mesh size isreduced. To resolve this dilemma, the stress is determined at some standard point distant fromthe stress concentration, such as one-half the thickness of the intersecting member. The stress atthis point is used in the fatigue analysis in conjunction with S-N data from specimens with whichthe stress is similarly defined. This method is known as the hot-spot stress approach.5.3 Commercial Structural DetailsSeveral reports by the Ship Structure Committee list a number of the structural detailsused in ship construction. Report SSC-266, Review of Ship Structural Details (Glasfeld et al;,1977), catalogues common structural ship details, lists some of their damage history, andsuggests some detail improvements. This document also lists some existing guidelines for givendetails from American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Bureau Veritas (BV), Det norske Veritas(DnV), Germanisher Lloyd (GL), Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (LR), and Nippon Kaiji Kyokai5-2

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural Details(NKK). Report SSC-272, In-Service Performance of Structural Details (Jordan and Cochran,1978), records the performance of specific families of details from different ship types.However, this report does not relate the service performance of the details to the servicecondition of the detail. For example, the service performance of openings with square cornersand with rounded corners is reported in a manner that could suggest that square corners have afatigue life similar to rounded corners.Report SSC-318, Fatigue Characterization of Fabricated Ship Details for Design (Munseet al., 1982), documents a simple design procedure for fatigue referred to as the Munse FatigueDesign Procedure (MFDP). This report also contains some fatigue data (S-N curves) for typicaldetails and the mean fatigue data from the AISC fatigue provisions. The MFDP includesadjustment factors for the loading distribution (Weibull shape), random loading, and reliability.Report SSC-346, Fatigue Characterization of Fabricated Ship Details—Phase 2 (Park andLawrence, 1990), was Phase II for SSC 318. This task generated five additional constantamplitudeS-N diagrams. This report also provides some additional factors to account forthickness and mean stress in the Munse Fatigue Design Procedure (MFDP).An example of the use of finite element analysis to improve fatigue performance ofstructural details is contained in SSC-374, Effect of High Strength Steels on StrengthConsiderations of Design and Construction Details of Ships (Heyburn and Riker, 1994.) In thisreport developed by Gibbs & Cox, Inc., several structural details used in a naval combatant and asingle hull tanker were analyzed to determine the probability of fatigue cracking. These detailswere redesigned to reduce the probability of cracking, which would increase with the use ofhigher stress levels for design with high strength steel.Report SSC-395, Classification of Critical Structural Details in Tankers (Bea andSchulte-Strathaus, 1997), involved developing an expert system for the selection of the S-Ncurves for a given detail. The report also details the development of finite element models forstructural details to calibrate S-N curves.Report SSC-400, Weld Detail Fatigue Life Improvement Techniques (Kirkhope et. al.,1997), makes recommendations to improve the fatigue strength of welds, including post-weldimprovement techniques.The Tanker Structure Cooperative Forum (TSCF), which was discussed more fully inChapter 2, is an international organization of owners and operators of commercial tankers and ofclassification societies. Reports of the TSCF provide information on the service performance ofstructural details used in the structure of commercial tankers. The Guidance Manual forInspection and Condition Assessment of Tanker Structures (TSCF, 1986) provides informationon many commercial structural details, including those that have had poor fatigue performance.The report Condition Evaluation and Maintenance of Tanker Structures, (TSCF, 1992) providesinformation on more commercial structural details, including those that have had poor fatigueperformance.5-3

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsABS has provided information on commercial structural details in several reports as wellas in their Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels. The information from two of thesereports, ABS Guide 75, Improvement for Structural Connections and Sample StructuralDetails−Service Experience and Modifications for Tankers, and ABS Guide 77, Improvement forStructural Connections and Sample Structural Details−Service Experience and Modifications forBulk Carriers has been included in the rules. The fatigue data provided in the ABS rules is basedon S-N curves from the UK Department of Energy, Offshore Installation: Guidance on Design,Construction, and Certification. ABS, in the Guide for Dynamic Based Design and Evaluationof Container Carrier Structures, 1996, allows the use of “widely recognized design data, such asthose recommended by AWS, API, and U.K. DEN.” It also requires that if other fatigue data areused, the background and supporting data are to be submitted for review. The ABS fatigueanalysis assumes 20-year design life with linear accumulative damage, ignores mean stressaffects, uses nominal stresses (P/A, M/SM), and uses the Weibull probability distributionparameter.5.4 Structural Details on Military ShipsThe U.S. Navy fatigue analysis procedure is documented in the report “DDG-51 WholeShip Fatigue Analysis” (Kihl, 1991). The approach uses the SPECTRA program, which wasdescribed previously in Chapters 2, 3, and 4, to develop the fatigue loading spectrum usingstandard response amplitude operators (RAO). The SUMDAM program (Kihl et al., 1988) isused to compute the time to failure using linear cumulative damage. The fatigue analyses arebased on the use of mean data S-N curves that were generated from specific test data. A morecomprehensive study on fatigue of structural details used in military ships was made by Kihl(1999). This report provides data for the assessment of fatigue life. Mean minus two sigma S-Ncurves for a variety of ship details are compiled in this report. This report also compares the S-Ncurves from the following codes: AASHTO, BS 5400, DnV, and Eurocode. Both the mean andmean minus two sigma strength ratios for each of these codes can be found in Appendix J of thatreport. It is worth noting that (Kihl, 1991- Appendix A) and (Kihl, 1999) reports fatigue lifepredictions based on linear (vice bi-linear) S-N curves, which correspond more closely to (moreship-like) random and variable amplitude test results.In recent U.S. Navy design for the LPD 17 Class, the AASHTO curves were used (Sieveet al., 1997). The LPD 17 fatigue design was based on linear, mean minus 2 sigma S-N curves.The design allowable stress range was computed using the ASSHTO curve for a Class E detail,which is described as a non-load carrying attachment longer than 100 mm and less than 25 mmthick, as well as load carrying attachments less than 25 mm thick (ASSHTO, 1990). This classof detail was viewed for the LPD 17 Class design as being typical of deck to transverse bulkheadconnections, and was selected as the critical structural detail for design. An ASSHTO Class Edetail is comparable to a BS 5400 Class F2 detail. Information on the development of theAASHTO fatigue curves is given in a report of the National Cooperative Highway ResearchProgram (NCHRP), report 299.The Canadian Navy uses the design documentation of the Royal Navy for ship design andanalysis. The U.K. Sea Systems Controllerate Publication No. 23 (SSCP23), Design of Surface5-4

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsShip Structures, covers fatigue in Chapter 13. Mean minus two sigma fatigue data is tabulatedfor the different classes of details using S-N curves from BS 5400. The fatigue data has a stressratio of zero. The guide uses linear cumulative fatigue damage for fatigue design. Itrecommends a 5 percent stress reduction for frigates and destroyers to account for slam inducedwhipping. SSCP23 ignores the endurance limits in BS 5400 and uses linear S-N curves.Information on the development of the UK DoE BS 5400 curves is given by Maddox (1991),who describes some of the testing database used to develop the curves.5.5 Other Fatigue DataAppendix B, Table B3 of the AISC steel manual contains fatigue allowable stress rangesfor specific detail categories (AISC, 1980). This information can be used for comparison withship structural details.The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)provides fatigue data for stress ranges in section 10.3 of the standard specifications. The data isdivided into two categories: redundant load path structure and non-redundant load path structure.It also includes a reduction for unpainted weathering steel. These curves are the basis for manyother standardized approaches to fatigue data. The AASHTO curves are based on full scale testdata documented in National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) reports 102,147, 188, 206, 227, 267, and 286.5.6 EvaluationThe above reports provide S-N curves for specific details. These curves may representsome the same structural detail but the bases for these S-N curves are not consistent such as:• Stress: nominal vs. hot-spot,• Stress ratio (stress_minimum/stress_maximum): R=0 vs. R=-1,• Slope: linear vs. bi-linear.• Deviation: mean versus. mean minus two sigmaABS rules use a nominal stress approach for standard details, but uses the hot-spot stressapproach when linear elastic finite element analysis is used to determine stress concentrations.ABS defines the hot spot stress at one-half the thickness of the intersecting member from theweld toe, and uses fatigue curve E with that stress.SSCP23 also uses the hot-spot stress approach. For a SSCP23 (BS 5400) Class F detail,the stress used in fatigue computations is that determined at a distance of ten plate thicknessesfrom the stress concentration. For a SSCP23 (BS 5400) Class D detail, the stress is to be taken ata distance of two-thirds to one plate thickness from the stress concentration. To help clarify thedifferences of the various design codes for fatigue, a comparison of several such codes is shownin Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1 through Figure 5.4 (NSWCCD, 1998).5-5

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsTable 5.1 Design Code S-N Curves (NSWCCD, 1998)U.S. Navy 2DetailDesign CodeCategory ECCS BS 5400 1 AASHTO DnV 1 (mean – 2 σ)Benign Designation 90 E C D Non-Load CarryingFillet WeldLog(A), ksi 9.648 9.500 9.653 9.667 10.1561B, slope -3 -3 -3 -3.5 -3.2096Moderate Designation 71 F D F As-WeldedComponentLog(A), ksi 9.342 9.287 9.336 9.286 9.6830B, slope -3 -3 -3 -3 -3.2238Severe Designation 56 F2 E F2Log(A), ksi 9.031 9.120 9.031 9.120B, slope -3 -3 -3 -3Notes:1. BS 5400 and DnV are the same curves except for benign details.2. From Kihl (1991)By way of comparison with the design codes, Table 5.1 includes experimental data thatthe U.S. Navy has used for evaluation of existing ship structures. The data points indicatedrepresent the lower bound fatigue strength, mean minus two standard deviations, which iscomparable with the design codes. The non-load carrying fillet welds are from welded cruciformspecimens, and the as-welded components are from details of the intersection of a longitudinalstiffener with a transverse bulkhead stiffener. These data have longer fatigue lives thancomparable data in the design codes.In the curves shown in Figure 5.4, only the linear portions are shown. There is adifference between the curves as to where the break point is taken. For the BS 5400, the break isat 10 7 cycles. Use of a bi-linear curve is unconservative compared to a linear curve, resulting ina slightly longer lifetime prediction with a bi-linear curve. However, the difference is not great,because spectral fatigue analyses of ship structure usually show the greatest fatigue damage fromstress levels that occur between 10 5 and 10 7 cycles. The stress levels that occur more than 10 7times during the life of a ship are generally low enough that little computed fatigue damage willoccur from them, even if a linear S-N curve is used.All of these guides for fatigue analysis during structural design are consistent inrecommending the use of mean minus 2 sigma S-N curves. Others, such as Munse (1982),recommend the use of the mean S-N curves, and use the statistical distributions of the S-N dataand other variables, including the loads, to compute the probability of fatigue failure. Others,such as Kihl (1991), use the mean S-N data for analysis. In most design codes, the mean stresslevel (stress ratio) is ignored for fatigue analysis of welded details.5-6

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsBenign detail severity is that associated with details such as as-welded transversely loaded butt welds orlongitudinally loaded fillet welds. Although there is some degree of overlap in detail classification within and betweendesign codes, the following are felt to be representative. Parentheses indicate detail category used in analysis.Figure 5.1. Benign Structural Detail Categories (NSWCCD, 1998) (Continued)5-7

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsFigure 5.1. Benign Structural Detail Categories (NSWCCD, 1998) (Concluded)5-8

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsModerate detail severity is that associated with details such as welded attachments to load carrying members, full penetration welded members,intermittent welds, and welds around cope holes. Although there is some degree of overlap in detail classification within and between design codes, thefollowing are felt to be representative. Parentheses indicate detail category used in analyses.Figure 5.2. Moderate Structural Detail Categories (NSWCCD, 1998) (Continued)5-9

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsFigure 5.2. Moderate Structural Detail Categories (NSWCCD, 1998) (Concluded)5-10

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsSevere detail severity is that associated with details such as partial penetration load carrying welds, one-sided welds made without backingbars, and welded load carrying lap joints. Although there is some degree of overlap in detail classification within and between design codes, thefollowing are felt to be representative. Parentheses indicate detail category used in analyses.Figure 5.3. Severe Structural Detail Categories (NSWCCD, 1998) (Continued)5-11

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsFigure 5.3. Severe Structural Detail Categories (NSWCCD, 1998) (Concluded)5-12

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsFigure 5.4. Design Code S/N Curves (2.3% Probability of Failure) (NSWCCD, 1998)5-13

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural Details5.7 Nonlinear Analysis and Fracture Mechanics AnalysisThe discussion of fatigue data has focused on the S-N approach to crack initiation and onlinear analysis of stress and stress concentration. There are other methods of fatigue analysis,including the use of fracture mechanics to predict crack growth rates. This approach can also beused to predict crack initiation, especially in welded structures. Welds will always have flawsassociated with them, although sometimes microscopic in size. Cracks in welded structure beginat these initial flaws, and grow under repeated loading until they are of a detectable size.Fracture mechanics analysis can be used to evaluate observable cracks and determine their rateof growth until they reach a size where complete failure will occur. Such analyses are useful indetermining maintenance schedules and doing damage assessments.The analysis of stress concentrations at welds can be done through nonlinear analysisrather than through the empirical hot-spot approach. In an analysis that accounts for materialyielding, the high computed stresses, which are an anomaly of linear analysis, do not occur.Such analysis can be used to predict fatigue crack initiation if the fatigue data are developed interms of strain cycles instead of stress cycles.5.8 SummaryThere exists a considerable fatigue database on the fatigue of welded ship structuraldetails, both commercial and military. There are three distinct approaches towards the use of thisinformation. One is to use test data for a structural detail that is as close in geometry to theactual detail as possible. With this approach, testing may be required to evaluate an unusualdetail. The other approach is to use standard fatigue curves published by several differentorganizations. A particular structural detail being analyzed is placed in one of several categories,depending on its similarity to the details tested to develop the standard curves. The thirdapproach is the hot-spot approach, which relies on a detailed finite element analysis of the detail.All of the approaches have their advantages and disadvantages in design. A simplified approachmay be expedient to determine if a particular detail requires further analysis. Rigorousapproaches must be validated, however, so that the unusual circumstance can be handled indesign with confidence.5-14

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural Details6.1 Purpose6. The Nominal Strength of the Hull GirderThis chapter identifies and lists the commercial approaches for determining the nominalstrength of the hull girder. It addresses U.S. Navy and Canadian Navy Design Practices, andAmerican Bureau of Shipping classification practices for determining the nominal strength of thehull girder. It also addresses the various approaches used by different organizations fordetermining structure that are effective and ineffective in longitudinal strength.6.2 IntroductionAssessment of hull girder strength for commercial ships is an integral part ofclassification society rules. In past practice, it was provided only by an overall section modulusapproach to hull girder strength, using a standard rule for minimum section modulus. Suchmethods are still contained in the rules of classification societies, particularly those that aremembers of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), althoughcomputation of the ultimate strength of the hull girder is now becoming a part of thesecommercial design practices. A variety of methods for computation of ultimate strength areavailable and documented in the rules, including those of ABS, Lloyds, and Det norske Veritas.A major item of interpretation is the effect that openings and other discontinuities have on hullgirder strength. There are different rules for evaluating ineffective areas, including the use ofdetailed finite element analysis for strength determination. All of these methods of the majorclassification societies for evaluating both nominal and ultimate hull girder strength have beenidentified, listed, and compared, especially those contained within commercial design proceduressuch as SafeHull.Two of the critical items that affect the fatigue strength of the structure are the nominalstress range and stress concentrations. The wave encounter spectrum that a ship sees over itslifetime will result in a bending moment spectrum that is dependent on design and operationalfactors such as hull form and the speed and heading taken in various sea states. Given a bendingmoment loading spectrum, the stress spectrum for a detail is determined by the nominal stressrange and global and local stress concentration factors. The nominal stress range for hullstructure is determined using simple beam theory with the hull girder bending moment rangedivided by the section modulus.Large openings and major discontinuities such as deckhouses cause global stressconcentration factors. These factors cause the overall stress distribution to depart from the stressdistribution given by simple beam theory. The design of structural details, such as the radius ofcorners, local reinforcement, and local discontinuities of structure cause local stressconcentration factors. Of course, fabrication factors such as weld quality will also affect fatiguelife. For the same fatigue life, a ship with a higher section modulus can have greater global andlocal stress concentrations, and conversely, a ship with a lower section modulus will be lesstolerant of global and local stress concentrations and of poor weld quality. It is thereforexv

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural Detailsimportant to understand how various standards for hull girder nominal strength affect the actualsection modulus of the ship.A comparison is shown below of the actual as-built section modulus of the naval shipsthat have been investigated in this study compared to the section modulus that would have beenrequired had they been built to the IACS standard. As will be seen, many of the the naval shipshave greater section moduli than the rule requirement, and should, therefore, have a lessernominal stress range in a particular sea condition than a commercial counterpart.6.3 ABS Methods for Determining Hull Girder Nominal StrengthFor ships classed by ABS, there are minimum standards for hull girder strength, andenhancements to those standards for certain types of ships and to suit owners’ specialrequirements.6.3.1 Primary ABS StandardThe primary standard for longitudinal strength of ships classified by ABS is the standardestablished by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS). The wavesagging moment, M WS , and the wave hogging moment, M WH , are given by the equationsM WS = k 1 C 1 L 2 B (C b + 0.7) x 10 -3M WH = k 2 C 1 L 2 B (C b + 0.7) x 10 -3where:k 1 = 110 (SI units), 1.026 (feet, long tons)k 2 = 190 (SI units), 1.772 (feet, long tons)C 1 = 10.75 – [(300 – L)/100] 1.5 (SI units), = 10.75 – [(984 – L)/328] 1.5 (feet, long tons)L = the rule length of the ship, generally 0.97 of the length on the waterlineB = beam of the ship at the waterlineC b = block coefficient, defined using the rule length, but not to be taken as less than 0.60.The total hull girder bending moment is the sum of these wave bending moments and thestill water bending moments computed from a variety of loading conditions. The requiredsection modulus is obtained by dividing the maximum hull girder bending moment by theallowable stress, which is 17.5 kN/cm 2 (11.33 tsi) for mild steel, and 24.3 kN/cm 2 (15.74 tsi) forhigher strength steelThe section modulus must be equal to or greater than the minimum section modulus SM MSM M = C 1 C 2 L 2 B (C b + 0.7) m-cm 2 (in 2 – ft)where:C 1 , L, B, and C b are as defined above, andxvi

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsC 2 = 0.01 (SI units), 1.44 x 10 -4 (U.S. units)For ships with longitudinally continuous deckhouses, the deckhouse is to be included inthe section modulus calculation, with the top of the deckhouse designated as the strength deck.In computing the cross sectional area of material effective in longitudinal strength, openings maybe ignored as long as the openings and the shadow area of other openings across the beam of theship do not reduce the section modulus by more than 3 percent. Shadow areas are determined bytangential lines from the openings intersecting at an included angle of 30 degrees, as shown inFigure 6.1.ABS Shadow AreaU.S. Navy Shadow Area30 0 41Figure 6.1 Ineffective Area in Longitudinal Strength Calculation6.3.2 ABS Dynamic Loading Analysis (DLA) ApproachThe above methods provide for the minimum ABS scantlings. If an owner desires, a shipmay be classed using the Dynamic Loading Analysis (DLA) approach, as was discussed inChapter 2. DLA usually results in an increase of scantlings above the rule minima, providinggreater buckling strength of members, and assurance that unusual loading conditions or hull formparameters are considered in determination of design bending moments. DLA does not require afatigue analysis, but an owner may request the ABS Spectral Fatigue Analysis as part of ABSclassification, which can result in better structural details and improved fatigue life for thestructure.The DLA approach is implicit in the SafeHull procedure, which is mandatory for alldouble-hull tankers, bulk carriers, and containerships. Strength assessment is an integral part ofthe DLA design process. The assessment consists of analyses that are pursued to verify thesuitability of the initial design established using the principles described in the previous sectionsagainst the specified failure criteria. The probable failure modes of the hull structure, relevant tothe vessel type considered, are yielding, buckling, fatigue, and ultimate hull-girder strength in theintact and assumed damaged condition. These identified failure modes encompass a widespectrum of failure scenarios spanning from global failure to local failures, and local failures thatmay develop into catastrophic global failure. Structural assessment uses the “net-ship” concept,which explicitly accounts for deterioration in structural strength due to corrosion. Whenassessing structural strength with the net-ship concept, all scantlings are reduced by the corrosionxvii

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural Detailsallowance, which is different for various structural members. The allowance is sometimes anabsolute reduction, such as 1 mm, or is taken as a percentage deduction, such as 10 percent. Thisapproach is also used by the Canadian and U.K. navies, but is not generally used by the U.S.Navy for design.Yielding Criterion — This failure criterion is expressed on the basis of the von Misesstress obtained from a finite element analysis of the entire ship structure. The von Mises stress isnot to exceed the material yield strength, f y , multiplied by a strength reduction factor, S m (≤ 1).The factor S m is a measure of the modeling uncertainty, accounting for the possibleincompatibility between the designed structural details and the expected stress field for structuresconstructed of higher strength steels such as HS-32 and HS-36. The specified value of S m isobtained from service experience and is expressed as a function of the material grade.Consideration is also given to the least-plastic behavior of plating in local bending, withthe formation of the first plastic hinge adopted as the plate's bending limit.Buckling and Ultimate Strength Criteria — The problem of structural instability istreated at both the level of classical, bifurcation type buckling and the level of ultimate strength.Elastic buckling of plates, when treated with the classical bifurcation buckling analysis, is nevera catastrophic phenomenon because of the post-buckling rise of strength in plates. For thisreason, plate buckling (between stiffeners) in the elastic range is considered acceptable in theproposed formulation. It may, however, be relevant in the context of serviceability.The ABS DLA approach requires checking that stresses do not exceed the minimumultimate strengths of plate panels (between stiffeners), stiffeners themselves, and the stiffenedpanel. The stiffener can be modeled as a beam-column having the whole of the stiffener pluscertain portion of the plating that is effective. Such requirements have been calibrated withexperimental data.In assessing the compressive strength of plate and stiffened panels, an interaction unitycheckequation is given for the combined effect of the interacting biaxial loads and shear.Torsional instability (tripping) of stiffeners is included in the assessment of buckling strength.This mode of instability often turns out to be, with high degree of realism, the weakest for somenon-symmetric longitudinal stiffener designs.Fatigue Criteria — The ABS approach to fatigue assessment is described in Chapter 2.6.4 U.S. Navy Methods for Determining Hull Girder Nominal StrengthThe standard approach for determining the hull girder design bending moment is toperform a static balance on a trochoidal wave of height in meters equal to 0.607 L 1/2 (1.1 L 1/2 infeet). The hull material determines the required section modulus, which is obtained by dividingthe design bending moment by the allowable hull girder stress, which is given in Table 6.1.xviii

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsTable 6.1 U.S. Navy Design Hull Girder StressMaterialYield Strength Design Allowable StressMPa Ksi MPa tsiMedium Steel 230 33 116 7.5Higher Strength Steel 350 51 131 8.5HY-80/HSLA-80 550 80 147 9.5The standard hull girder design bending moment computed by the above means isconsiderably less than the maximum hull girder moment. Sikora et al. (1982) estimated that thestandard moment is on the average about 72 percent of the maximum lifetime moment, althoughthe percentage for different ships was as little as 40 percent and as great as 90 percent. Thefactors of safety inherent in the U.S. Navy design practices preclude failure from bendingmoments that are higher than the bending moments calculated by static balance on a wave ofstandard height. The methodology used by Sikora et al. in 1982 to determine the maximumlifetime bending moments and fatigue loading spectrum has been refined since then, and isincorporated in a computer program SPECTRA8 (Sikora, 1998). This program was used tocompute the maximum lifetime bending moments of the ten ships evaluated in this project.In the SPECTRA8 computations, operations were assumed for 3,285 days, whichrepresents 45 percent operability over 20 years. However, the maximum lifetime momentspredicted are relatively insensitive to time of operation. NATO North Atlantic Sea Stateprobabilities were used with the Ochi 6-Parameter sea spectrum to determine the wavesencountered. The probabilities of heading and speed in various sea conditions were taken as thedefault values from SPECTRA, which are the same as were given in Tables 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 inChapter 3. The 20-year operational period is consistent with the ABS assumptions, although thepercentage of operating time is less. ABS also uses North Atlantic sea state probabilities, andthat is consistent. Table 6.2 compares the moments predicted by SPECTRA8 to the ABS designbending moments. It would have been interesting to also compare other design moments, suchas the results from static balance on various standard wave heights, such as the U.S. Navy 1.1√Lor U.K. 8-meter wave. However, those are design moments, not predicted lifetime maxima, asare shown in Table 6.2. The purpose of Table 6.2 is to show that the two methods comparedgive significantly different results for the maximum lifetime bending moments.xix

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsTable 6.2 Comparison of Maximum Bending Moments Computed bySPECTRA8 and ABS RulesShipABS Bending MomentSPECTRA8 Bending MomentSag (ft-tons) Hog (ft-tons) Sag (ft-tons) Hog (ft-tons)A 72,894 73,863 106,640 118,745B 279,122 242,734 553,485 451,777C 68,517 70,133 105,892 128,484D 71,071 70,508 99,886 108,801E 37,662 48,837 56,438 75,692F 125,716 164,610 197,914 250,973G 120,387 169,721 192,665 256,222H 111,894 176,152 184,928 263,959I 533,415 413,268 1,098,000 1 872,400 1J 151,221 116,175 257,701 209,4991 SPECTRA4 values used in design were 1,012,000 ft-tons sag and 771,100 ft-tons hog.Given that the ABS moments are based on 80 percent operability and 20 years (5,840days) in the North Atlantic and the Navy moments are based on 35 percent operability and 40years (5,110 days) in the North Atlantic, the commercial operability is slightly more severe thanthe Navy operability. However, the U.S. Navy moments are 1.5 to 2 times the ABS moments.Clearly, there is a large difference between commercial and U.S. Navy approaches to maximumlifetime hull girder bending moment predictions.The use of SPECTRA8 for computing maximum lifetime bending moments has onlyoccurred in the design of one ship to date, the LPD 17 Class, for which an earlier version,SPECTRA 4 was used (Sieve et al., 1997). If this procedure becomes the standard for futurenaval ship designs, those ships will have significantly greater strength than equivalentcommercial ships if the design stresses shown in Table 6.1 are used.The U.S. Navy design procedure provides compressive strength to the hull girder byensuring that individual structural members have adequate strength to resist compressive hullgirder bending stress. The design procedure for longitudinal stiffeners includes the interactionequation:fcFc+fFbb≤1.0where:f c = is the calculated hull girder bending stress incremented by 15.4 MPa (1.0 tsi)F c = the plastic buckling strength of the stiffener in axial compressionf b = the bending stress in the stiffener caused by local transverse loads, including waterpressure and deck loadsxx

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsF b = The design allowable bending stress, equal to the yield strength reduced by a factorof safety= 186 MPa (27 ksi) for OSS275 MPa (40 ksi) for HSSThe hull girder section modulus is determined by adding the contribution of alllongitudinally continuous structural members in the hull. No contribution to the calculatedsection modulus is generally made by the superstructure, except for several classes of shipswhere the superstructure extends from the bow over more than three-fourths the length of theship and extends to the side of the ship for that length. In these cases, only the first deck of thesuperstructure is included in the determination of the section modulus, and that deck and the sideshell below are designed to the same structural criteria as hull structure. Where there areopenings in the deck, structure forward and aft of the openings is not included in the sectionmodulus if it is within a shadow area determined by a four-to-one slope from the opening, asillustrated in Figure 6.1. As was mentioned above, ABS uses a 30-degree shadow area, whichrepresents a slope of 3.84-to one, nearly the same as the slope used by the U.S. Navy.Reinforcement for openings is not considered unless it is longitudinally continuous.With recent U.S. Navy designs, the nominal strength of the hull girder has been increasedabove conventional requirements to provide additional resistance to whipping moments causedby underwater explosions. Additionally, the design of these ships included a fatigue analysis ofcritical structural details. Consequently, these ships should have even better fatigue resistancethan previous naval ships.6.5 Canadian Navy Methods for Determining Hull Girder Nominal StrengthThe design methods of the Canadian Navy are chiefly based on the U.K. Ministry ofDefense Design Manual for Surface Ships (SSCP23, 1989). Because the design procedure usesestimates of the extreme bending moments, assessment for the ultimate strength of the hull girderin bending is an inherent part of the design process. Compressive failure modes of grillages areassessed using the procedure developed by Faulkner and presented in Evans (1975). Threemodes of failure are investigated: buckling of plating between stiffeners, buckling of longitudinalstiffeners, and overall buckling of the grillage between stiff supports such as transversebulkheads, decks, and the side shell.In computing the buckling of stiffeners, the amount of effective plate is determined usingload shortening curves developed by Smith et al. (1988). These load-shortening curves weredeveloped using nonlinear finite element analysis, confirming the results by experimental testing.These curves are presented as a series of curves in SSCP 23 as a function of the plate slendernesscoefficient β, defined by:β = b/t (σ y /E) 1/2where:b = stiffener spacingt = plate thicknessσ y = yield strengthxxi

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsE = elastic modulusThe load shortening calculations can be made using the U.K. computer programFABSTRAN (Dow and Smith, 1986), and the ultimate strength calculations can be computedusing the computer program NS94 (Smith and Dow, 1986). However, these programs areneither commercially available nor easy to use without advice from ARE Dunfirmline andconsiderable user experience (SSCP23).The computation of design hull girder bending moments on a standard wave height ofeight meters was discussed in Chapter 2. The design allowable stress if the plating thickness-tobreadthratio is less than 60 is 10.1 tsi (172 MPa) to the strength deck and 8.4 tsi (144 MPa) tothe bottom. The result of this design standard is ships with section moduli approximately equalto the section moduli required by ABS for equivalent commercial ships.As discussed in Chapter 2, the Canadian standard for fatigue analysis (which is based onthe UK standard) is to use an exponential distribution for the fatigue load spectrum. The BS5400 S-N curves are used with linear cumulative damage analysis to determine fatigue lives.Because the exponential distribution is a Weibull distribution with a shape parameter of 1.0, andthe BS 5400 S-N curves are similar to the UK DEN curves, the Canadian Navy practice forfatigue analysis is similar to the ABS practice. For the ships analyzed, the ABS Weibullparameter tended to be less than 1.0, so the exponential distribution would result in higherbending moments in the range of 10 3 to 10 7 cycles. One would therefore anticipate lower fatiguelives computed by the Canadian method compared to the ABS method.6.6 Comparison of Naval Ship Section Moduli with Commercial RequirementsTen different naval ships have been evaluated. They are identified as Ship A throughShip J. Their principal characteristics, midship section modulus, and section modulus requiredby ABS rules are given in Table 6.3. The ABS required section moduli, which are discussedbelow, would be required by all classification societies that are members of the InternationalAssociation of Classification Societies (IACS). The rules have a required moment that is thesum of a rule-determined wave moment and the maximum still water bending moment computedfor a number of different loading conditions. The required section modulus is determined bydividing the maximum bending moment by the design allowable stress. The allowable stress formild steel is 175 MPa (11.33 tsi). There are several ABS grades of Higher Strength Steel (HSS),but the grade used for U.S. Navy ships is grade HS-36, which has a yield strength of 350 MPa(51 tsi). The allowable stress for HS-36 is 243 MPa (15.74 tsi). In addition, the rules have aminimum required section modulus. Both requirements are listed in Table 6.3.In assessing scantlings, ABS defines the length of the ship as being the distance from theintersection of the waterline with the stem to the center of the rudderpost. The length so definedmay be no shorter than 96 percent of the length on the water line, but need not be any greaterthan 97 percent of the length on the waterline. In Table 6.3, the length is taken as 97 percent ofthe length between perpendiculars, which for naval combatant ships is approximately equal tothe length on the waterline.xxii

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural DetailsTable 6.3 Actual Section Modulus Compared to ABS Requirement for Naval ShipsShip Length 1(meters)(feet)Beam(meters)(feet)Draft(meters)(feet)Displacement(m. tons)(l tonsBlockCoefficientAs-Built SM(cm 2 -m)(in 2 ft)ABSRequired 3 SM(cm 2 m)(in 2 ft)Deck Keel Rule Min.A 5 128.02420.00B 5 167.03548.00C 4 124.50408.56D 4 121.30397.96E 4 108.51356.00F 5 161.24529.00G 5 161.24529.00H 6 161.24529.00I 5 200.00656.16J 5 155.45510.0014.4247.3125.6784.1714.848.5615.2450.0012.74141.816.7655.0016.7655.0016.7655.0031.9104.6616.3153.504.5915.086.5521.54.99216.384.9416.204.18313.7235.5018.066.8022.316.6521.827.022.975.0316.504,5284,45716,81816,5534,7704,6955,1085,0272,9642,9177,9437,8189,8009,6469,4849,33525,29424,8967,1116,9980.537 21,57010,9690.602 110,01055,9420.521 21,36010,8620.563 21,37010,8670.515 11,2105,7000.537 48,02224,4200.536 49,90225,3760.531 44,84622,8050.569 220,300112,0300.561 40,01820,35021,12610,743126,23264,19122,63011,50822,54011,46211,6005,90052,27026,58054,5882775950,47425,667297,290151,18044,40422,58010,1575,16538,88117,73813,7156,97412,9466,5839,5184,84022,40111,39123,05711,72522,02211,19968,26234,71319,4849,90817,5238,91157,65329,31823,44811,92422,73311,56014,7407,49534,66117,62534,66117,62531,77216,157108,54955,19930,98315,7551 Length is nominal length between perpendiculars (LBP), approximately equal to length on waterline.2 Block coefficient given is based on ABS rule length, which is no more than 0.97 LBP. A minimum value of 0.60is used to determine required section modulus.3 Rule section modulus is for a ship with the hull of the same yield strength as the naval ship.4 Hull of mild steel5 Hull of higher strength steel6 Hull of HSLA -80In two related surveys of 86 ships, 9 of which were naval ships, 607,584 details wereobserved during the overall survey period with a total of 6,856 failures (Jordan and Cochran,1978) and (Jordan and Knight, 1980). This survey indicated a significantly lower percentage offailures in naval ships, compared to commercial ships. For example, in one of the twelvecategories of details surveyed, beam brackets, there were 2,253 failures in 64,950 detailsobserved, but only 3 of these were in naval ships. In the more than 20 years since these surveyswere conducted, there is evidence that the quality of commercial shipbuilding has increased.Nonetheless, more recent studies, such as (Bea et al., 1997) indicate that a significant amount ofcracking is continuing to occur on commercial ships. Future surveys will show if inclusion offatigue analysis during design is having a significant effect in reducing fatigue fractures incommercial ships.Although the naval ships have section moduli greater than IACS requirements, it does notnecessarily follow that they should have greater fatigue lives than commercial ships of the samexxiii

Fatigue Data for Ship Structural Detailsoverall dimensions as the above surveys indicate. Naval ships tend to have more structuraldiscontinuities than some types of commercial ships, particularly tankers, which have only smallopenings in the deck in the cargo area, and otherwise have continuous structure that tends tomake overall structural response agree well with beam theory. Other commercial ships, such asbulk carriers and containerships, have large deck openings that lead to higher global stressconcentrations such as occur on naval ships.Naval ships tend to have better structural details than do most commercial ships. This ispartially because of implicit requirements to withstand weapons effects. It is also a reflectionthat the cost of the fabrication of structure is a significantly lower percentage of the overall costfor the ship, and so with high-valued naval ships, additional care in construction to reduce localstress concentrations is cost effective.6.7 SummaryThe different methods for determining hull girder nominal strength result in differentlevels of strength for commercial and naval vessels.For U.S. Navy ships, the actual section moduli are 25 percent to 90 percent greater thanwould be required for a commercial ship of the same dimensions. Consequently, U.S. Navyships should exhibit superior fatigue performance compared to commercial ships.For Canadian Navy ships, the section moduli very closely match the values required byABS rules. Thus these ships should exhibit fatigue performance equivalent to that for whichcommercial ships are designed.xxiv

7. Lifetime Secondary Loads PredictionTechnology Base for Commercial Ships7.1 PurposeThe purpose of this chapter is to identify and list the technology base that supportscommercial lifetime secondary load predictions. It covers external hydrodynamic pressure andinternal tank loads.7.2 BackgroundThe computation of secondary loads, such as hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads onshell plating, has not received the same degree of emphasis in the literature as has primary hullgirder bending. However, estimates of this loading are essential for structural design. In manycases, standard hydrostatic heads are retained in classification society rules. Likewise, for cargoholds, design is based on standard design loads that have not been treated in a stochastic manner.McAffe and Nappi (1990) pointed out the importance of secondary loads on the design ofship structure. The cost to the U.S. Navy to repair damage from wave loads on superstructure,deck-mounted equipment, hull, and appendages was more than $10M in the decade from 1980 to1990. Because of the manner in which costs were characterized, not all of this damage was toship structure, but the results are nevertheless significant, especially as the costs of secondaryeffects, such as the loss of mission capability, were not included. The effect of secondary loadson ship design was shown, on a weight comparison basis, to be one-half to one-third as importantas primary hull girder loads in typical combatant ships, although for larger ships, secondary loadshave a greater effect on ship weight. The secondary loads used by the U.S. Navy for design arebased on historical empirical methods, and could be improved if methods such as ship motionprograms were used to predict them.This report describes only those secondary loads that are important for fatigue analysis:external hydrodynamic pressure, hydrodynamic impact loads, and tank sloshing loads. There aremany other secondary loads that are important for structural design that are not addressed. Theseloads include tire loads from vehicles or helicopters, hydrostatic loads on bulkheads fromflooding, typical deck live and dead loads, bow bulb or sonar dome slamming loads, anddynamic loads such as air blast, gun blast, or missile blast. In cases where these loadspredominate, local scantlings will be designed to accommodate them, and the cyclic fatigueloads will become of less importance in such areas of the structure.7.3 External Hydrodynamic PressureAccurate predictions of pressure distribution on the hull have received attention for thecomputation of fatigue loads on longitudinal stiffeners and transverse framing. Two differentinvestigators used linear strip theory to predict loads in the midship region in oblique seas7-1

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatigue(Watanabe, 1994) (Ito et al., 1994). This method is accurate in waves of short wave length,which is the predominant loading for fatigue analysis.The estimation of secondary loads is an integral part of the ABS Dynamic Load Analysisprocedure, and has been included in the SafeHull loads computations. The pressure load on theside shell is not a linear function of the wave height, as indicated by Chen and Shin (1997).They suggest that the pressure is a linear function of wave height up to a wave height equal totwice the distance from the point in question on the hull to the waterline. For waves of greaterheight, the pressure increment is one-half the increment in wave height. The pressure reductionfactors shown in Figure 7.1 were derived using this assumption in conjunction with a Rayleighprobability density function for wave height.Figure 7.1 Pressure Reduction Factor Applicable to Significant Wave Height(Chen and Shin, 1997)This reduction in pressure is used for fatigue analysis as a correction to the factor C y inthe Rules for Building Steel Vessels, Part 5, Section2AA.3.3.5a as C y = 0.656 z 4 , where z is thedistance to the waterline (ABS, 1999). Part 5, Section 2 of the ABS rules pertains to doublehulled tankers, but the same correction is applied in Part 5, Section 3AA.3.3.5a (bulk carriers)and in Section Part 5 Section 6.AA.3.3.5a (containerships). It is worthy of note that thosesections also contain a correction to the calculated fatigue stress at the end of a longitudinalstiffener with an asymmetric section, such as a bulb flat or an angle section. This correction isbased on torsional bending in the stiffener due to lateral pressure loading.The technology base for predicting the secondary loads on the side and bottom shell haslittle experimental data with which predictions can be compared. The loads used in the ABSrules and in SafeHull are based on analysis with the linear ABS/SHIPMOTION program (ABS,7-2

Secondary Loads Prediction1999). Further documentation on the procedure given by Chen and Shin (1997) relates toanalytic studies including a linear analysis by Ogilvie and Tuck (1969) and a nonlinear analysisby Salvesen and Lin (1994).In their report for 1994, the Loads Committee of the ISSC criticized procedures ofcalculation of the pressure loads on the side and bottom shell using strip theory. The reportstated that the strip methods do not readily predict these loads because these methods do notprovide a proper treatment of the interaction between the steady and unsteady fluid flow fields.That report also showed a significant difference between the design pressures used by severalclassification societies, which were typically far smaller than predicted using linear strip theory.However, a large part of the difference was attributed to the probability levels combined with theallowable design stresses. The committee pointed out that design loads should not be consideredin isolation, but that loads, structural analysis methods, and permissible stresses have to beconsidered in conjunction with each other. This discussion of pressure loads was based oncomputational analysis, and no experimental data were cited for comparison of computationswith analytic predictions. Furthermore, the emphasis of the discussion was on prediction ofmaximum loads, where nonlinearities are important, and not on fatigue loads, which aregenerally in the domain of linear response.Analytic and experimental pressures were compared by DREA for the research vesselCFAV Quest (2,400 m. tonne displacement, 71.6 m length, 12.8 m beam, 4.9 m draft)(Stredulinsky et al., 1997). The vessel was instrumented with 38 pressure transducers below thewaterline along the length of the hull. The ship was operated at 5 and 11 knots in head, bow,beam, quartering, and following seas with significant wave heights ranging from 0.9 m to 4.2 m.The pressures on the hull at the same locations as the pressure transducers were computed usingthe linear 3-D ship motion program PRECAL, which was developed by the NSMB CooperativeResearch Ships Organization (NSMB, 1995). The results of the comparison at the bow,midships, and stern are shown in Figure 7.2. Although there was fair agreement at the bow(Location 03, Frame 5.25), the experimental results amidships (Location 26, Frame 50.75) weretwice as great as the predicted pressures for bow seas. The predicted pressures at the stern(Location 38, Frame 91.75) were somewhat better than amidships.7-3

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueHead Bow Beam · Quartering + FollowingFigure 7.2 Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Hull Pressures on CFAV Quest(Stredulinski et al., 1997)7-4

Secondary Loads Prediction7.4 Hydrodynamic Impact LoadsA recent Ship Structure Committee report reviewed methods for analysis ofhydrodynamic impact loading (Daidola and Mishkevich, 1995). A large number of analysistechniques were discussed in three different categories: slamming (14 methods), wave slap (3methods), and frontal loading (5 methods). For many of these analysis methods, good agreementwith experimental data was cited. The report described the types of ships to which method isapplicable, the assumptions made in the analysis, and whether pressure or force is determinedusing the method.For the computation of slamming loads, Daidola and Mishkevich recommend either the Stavovy-Chuang method (Stavovy and Chuang, 1976) or the Ochi-Motter method (Ochi and Motter,1973). Both methods are semi-empirical in nature, and thus are correlated with experimentaldata, although the Ochi-Motter method has not been compared with full scale or modelexperiments.For the computation of frontal loading, Daidola and Mishkevich recommend the Kaplan-Sargent method (Kaplan and Sargent, 1972), which estimates bow flare impact by computingchanges in momentum and buoyancy using 2-D seakeeping theory. The method is applicable tocomputation of hull girder whipping, and has shown good correlation with experimental data.Any method of analysis of loading must be considered in the context of its application,including the type of structure to which it is applied, structural analysis methods used, andstructural design factors of safety. In this context, Daidola and Mishkevich recommend the useof the U.S. Navy specified design loads for wave slap, cautioning that they must be used inconjunction with U.S. Navy structural design methods.7.5 Tank Sloshing LoadsA major effort has been made to determine other secondary loads, such as liquid sloshingloads in tanks, and to take them into account in the design process. For procedures such asSafeHull, consideration of sloshing loads make the scantlings of items such as longitudinalbulkheads in tankers vary as a function of their transverse location.The loading on large cargo tanks due to ship motions and the resulting motion of theliquid is called the sloshing load. This subject has been discussed heavily in the literature andhas been dealt with by classification societies for the design of cargo tanks in tankers, bulkcarriers, or wherever large tanks exist on ships. The effect of sloshing on combatant ships is farless, as shown by Richardson (1991). He investigated ships that had interconnectedcompensated fuel tanks, which are always filled and never slack, and found that the smallamount of entrapped air at the top of those tanks is significant. The entrapped air permits oilflow between the interconnected tanks during ship motions and accelerations, which causes adifferent type of dynamic effect. Richardson developed a computer program for computing thedynamic loads due to flow of the fluid through the pipes that connect several tanks in a bank.Richardson’s method has not been verified by experimentation.7-5

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueChen and Shin (1997) considered the dynamic effect of ship motions, includingaccelerations in computing cargo loads. However, they did not include the impact load fromsloshing effects in determining fatigue loads. The total instantaneous internal tank pressure, Pt,is computed by:where:t0122( g + A ) + ( g + A ) + ( gz A ) 2P = P + ?h+P 0 is the vapor pressure (relief valve setting)ρ is the density of the liquidh 1 is the head to the surface of the liquidxFor fatigue loads, the dynamic portion of the load, P d is determined by the equation:xyy( P ?gh )Pd= Pt−0+0where h 0 is the internal pressure when the ship is in an upright position.In the ABS Rules, Part 5, Section 2, specific means are given to compute sloshing loadsin tanks. The loads are a function of the size of the tank, the density of the liquid in the tank, thenatural frequency of the motion of the liquid in the tank, the period of pitch and of roll of theship, and the percentage of the tank that is full. The shape of the tank also influences the periodof the tank and the sloshing load. If necessary, sloshing loads are to be determined by modelexperiments.There is considerable experimental and analytic background for prediction of sloshingloads, as these are viewed to be significant loads in large tankers and bulk carriers. The LoadsCommittee of the ISSC compared the predictions made by 11 different computer programs of theloads in a tank. The computer programs all used time domain simulation in either 2-D or 3-Danalysis. The programs all varied in their ability to treat effects such as viscous flow, boundarylayers, laminar flow, and free surface conditions. The results were in good agreement if therewas no impact, as shown in Figure 7.3. In the cases involving impulsive loads, as shown inFigure 7.4, the agreement between the different predictions was not good at all. Unfortunately,there was no experimental data for comparison with the numerical results, so no judgment couldbe made as to which was correct.zz7-6

Secondary Loads PredictionFigure 7.3 Comparison of Swash Tank Pressures without ImpulseFigure 7.4 Comparison of Slosh Tank Pressures with ImpulseThe ISSC also noted that for fatigue loading, sloshing pressure responses are nonlinear,and, therefore, the probability density function of their occurrence is not Gausian. A solution isprovided by Casella et al. (1996) of linearizing the response around a selected ship motionspressureresponse couple, which results in a so-called pseudo-RAO. Use of this method requirescareful selection of calculation conditions and structural elements to keep the computational anddata analysis effort within reasonable limits.7.6 SummaryThe technical base for computation of secondary loads appears to be stronger incommercial practice than in military practice. This is particularly true of external hydrodynamicpressure on the side and bottom shell. This emphasis has included fatigue loads on side shellstiffeners, which have been a problem on some commercial ships, particularly tankers.However, the methods used in commercial practice appear to lack experimental verification.7-7

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueWhere computations of loads on the side shell have been compared with experimental data, theresults were not encouraging, pointing out the need for additional work in this area.There is better correlation between analysis and experimental data at low amplitudes,which are more important than maximum loads for fatigue analysis of ship structure. Fatigueloading spectra may be more accurate id developed from linear response at low amplitudes thanif a distribution such as a Weibull distribution is applied to the estimated maximum loads.Bow slam forces have been treated extensively in both commercial and military practice,although the emphasis has been on predicting the maximum loads, and not the spectrum ofresponse for use in fatigue analysis. It may be possible that the distribution of loads in thisregion is such that design for the extreme events results in structure capable of providing manyyears of satisfactory service without fatigue damage. This appears to be the case, but should befurther explored.7-8

8.1 Purpose8. In-service Hull Girder Inspection Requirementsof Commercial and Naval Ship OperatorsThis chapter addresses ship maintenance and inspection policies that apply to bothcommercial ship operators and military services. The instructions that document the policies donot all directly specify the frequency and detail of in-service hull girder inspections, but doestablish the requirements to make the inspections and assign the responsibilities foraccomplishing them. The requirements for commercial ships are established by U.S. CoastGuard regulations. Military ships operated by the Military Sealift Command, most of which aremanned by civilian crews, generally follow practices and policies of commercial ships. Therequirements for U.S. and Canadian Navy ships are considerably different than the commercialship requirements, reflecting the difference in original design requirements as well as the muchlarger and organized industrial support facilities and organizations that serve these navies.8.2 Commercial Ship RequirementsIn-service inspections of the hulls of commercial ships are regulated by Coast Guard orother national regulatory bodies. Insight into current U.S. Coast Guard inspection procedures iscontained in the SSC report Guide for Ship Structural Inspections (Basar and Jovino, 1990). Thereport prescribes methods and requirements of inspections for all stages of a ship’s life from theonset of the design process through construction to the final operational years in service. Thisreport is used as a guide by U.S. Coast Guard inspectors. U.S. Coast Guard inspectionprocedures, especially as relevant to fatigue analysis, are described in a paper by Williams andSharpe presented at the March 1995 Symposium and Workshop for the Prevention of Fracture inShip Structure (Williams and Sharpe, 1995). In this paper, the authors described the difficultiesencountered in conducting effective inspections of commercial ship structures, particularly insingle hull tankers. Difficulties cited include the large size of tankers, which makes inspection ofthe upper portions of tanks difficult without staging. Lighting conditions are generally poor; lackof cleanliness makes defects difficult to see; tanks are often extremely hot, and the extent of thestructure to be inspected leads to fatigue.U.S. Coast Guard Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular NVIC 2-99 describes theStreamlined Inspection Program (SIP), which is an alternative to traditional U.S. Coast Guardinspections and was developed in response to the Maritime Regulatory Reform Initiative. Theinitiative challenged the Coast Guard to re-evaluate its regulatory programs and to developalternatives that would ensure the same level of safety. The significant difference between SIPand the traditional annual inspection program is in the process of how compliance is ensured.SIP is primarily an "overlay" of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requirements thatregulate vessel safety. It identifies an alternative process for ensuring compliance with the CFR,where company personnel conduct frequent, periodic examinations of the various vessel systems,document their findings, and take the necessary corrective actions specified in the U.S. CoastGuard approved plans when discrepancies are discovered. The Coast Guard will still conductrequired inspections of the vessel(s); however, the manner of conducting the inspection will beconsiderably different.8-1

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueNVIC 15-91 of 16 Oct 1991 describes the U.S. Coast Guard’s Critical Areas InspectionPlans (CAIP's). These plans are required for certain types of ships, such as tankers or shipscarrying hazardous cargoes. A CAIP is a management tool that serves to track the historicalperformance of a vessel, identify problem areas, and provide greater focus to periodic structuralexaminations. The use of a CAIP is an application of the philosophy in International MaritimeOrganization (IMO) Resolution A.647 (16), “IMO Guidelines on Management for the SafeOperation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention.” Since the CAIP is a management tool, itspreparation is the primary responsibility of the vessel owner or operator. Once developed, itbecomes part of an integrated management plan for achieving an adequate level of structuralmonitoring, maintenance, and repair. Owners and operators of vessels are required to maintainCAIPs as a management tool to document and track structural failures, and to monitor theperformance of various repair methodologies. The purpose of CAIPs is to provide owners,operators, surveyors, and marine inspectors with detailed information on the vessel's fracturehistory, corrosion control systems, and repair experience so that structural examinations can befocused upon existing or potential problem areas. The CAIP is intended to record the variousrepair methodologies employed, in order to ascertain which repairs or modifications have beeneffective over time.The aim of the CAIP program is to promote a proactive approach to structural repair thatemphasizes identification and remediation of the underlying causes of the structural failure,rather than merely treating the symptoms. The scope and frequency of CAIP examinations ispredicated upon the gravity of the structural failures being experienced, and the vigor andsuccess with which the underlying causes of the failures are being addressed. The scope andexamination intervals initially established in a CAIP may be modified if successful remedialefforts that address the cause of a structural failure, such as a detail modification, justify such achange in the CAIP.An important link between U.S. Coast Guard inspections and commercial inspections isprovided in NVIC 15-91. Some examinations are conducted by an International Association ofClassification Societies (IACS) member classification society pursuant to the enhanced surveyrequirements for oil tankers, as required by the 1992 Amendments to Annex I of Regulations forthe Prevention of Pollution by Oil 73/78, Regulation 13G. Such examinations may besubstituted for CAIP exams if they are shown to be substantially equivalent in scope, intent, andeffect to the examinations conducted pursuant to CAIP requirements. Examinations conductedby an IACS member classification society pursuant to the enhanced survey requirements for bulkcarriers established by IACS in response to the International Maritime Organization, Resolution713(17) of 6 November 1991, may also be substituted for CAIP exams. They must be shown tobe substantially equivalent in scope, intent, and effect to the examinations conducted pursuant toCAIP requirements.Commercial inspection requirements are established in the rules of the classificationsocieties. For ABS, surveys after construction are conducted during an ABS classed vessel'sservice life. ABS surveyors conduct periodic surveys to determine that the structure is beingmaintained in accordance with the ABS Rules. ABS surveyors also attend repairs andmodifications to make recommendations as appropriate and to determine that the work conformsto the ABS Rules.There are also statutory guidelines that affect commercial inspections of ships. Throughthe International Maritime Organization, the governments of the world's maritime nations have8-2

In-Service Hull Girder Inspection Requirementsestablished international maritime conventions containing regulations for protecting life,property and the environment. The governments of individual nations must enact theserequirements. Over 100 governments have authorized ABS, signatory to these conventions, toact on their behalf in conducting surveys and issuing certificates. The four major conventionsare:International Convention on LoadlineInternational Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)International Tonnage ConventionInternational Convention on Marine Pollution Prevention (MARPOL)Ships classed by ABS have specific requirements for inspections, called surveys. Therequirements for surveys are contained in the ABS Rules (ABS, 2001).• Annual Classification Surveys are required for hull, machinery, automation, andcargo refrigeration. Structure inspected includes openings, such as hatches,structural areas particularly susceptible to corrosion, and verification that nostructural modifications have been made.• Intermediate Surveys are to be carried out at either the second or third AnnualSurvey, or between these surveys. Additional areas included in these inspectionsinclude ballast tanks.• Special Periodical Surveys are to be conducted at 5-year intervals. All areas of thehull are to be inspected, and thickness measurements made in particular areas.• Drydocking Surveys are to be carried out two times in any 5-year period. Anunderwater inspection may be made by qualified divers at alternate DrydockingSurvey dates (ABS, 1996b).When an underwater survey is made in lieu of a drydocking survey, thickness gauging ofsuspect areas may be required along with non-destructive testing for fracture detection.Underwater inspection is subject to special consideration in ships older than 15 years, and maynot be accepted in lieu of drydocking if there are outstanding recommendations for repairs to thehull structure or if damage affecting the fitness of the vessel is found during the underwatersurvey.In addition to these requirements, there are special inspection requirements for tankersand bulk carriers. To provide a database of inspection results, ABS has developed the SafeShipsystem. This system provides SafeHull engineering analysis techniques, constructionmonitoring, hull maintenance, survey status, maintenance and repair, marine information, andvessel drawing storage.8.3 Military Sealift Command Maintenance PhilosophyThe Military Sealift Command (MSC) maintenance philosophy consists of six majorelements:8-3

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatiguea. The people: Skilled, career, licensed marine engineers to operate the ships andmaintain trained, motivated, and forward thinking shore side managementb. The tools: Providing technology and tools to analyze existing conditions and enhancemaintenance planning and execution.c. The management options: Integration of continuous ships force maintenancesupplemented by industrial assistance.d. The responsibility and authority: Coordination and alignment of life cyclemanagement responsibilities with fiscal oversight.e. The bottom line: Maximizing ship availability for customer use at the lowestpossible cost.f. The future: Consolidation of inspections, pursuit of extended regulatory bodycertifications and self-inspections, and compliance with international shippingstandards.This philosophy follows commercial merchant service practices and has been updated tobe proactive, quantitatively based, and adapted to MSC ships’ missions. Commercial practiceemphasizes maximizing cost effectiveness and ship availability. MSC ship design, construction,manning levels, maintenance, repair, and alterations are governed by commercial standards andpractices. Military standards are employed only where interoperability applies, such as UNREPequipment, fleet communications and weapons handling systems and equipment. In the mid-1980s, MSC began implementing a maintenance management system based on preventive andpredictive tools and technologies. This approach is proactive, flexible, and directed towardsproviding the Chief Engineer the information and tools necessary to make informed, prudent,and cost effective maintenance decisions. These decisions can only be made with accurate anddocumented information as to system and equipment conditions. The Shipboard AutomatedMaintenance Management (SAMM) system and its associated components; vibrationmonitoring, lube oil supply and analysis, chemical treatment, performance analysis, and dieselengine performance monitoring constitute the family of MSC condition based predictivemaintenance systems. These systems shift efforts from corrective to preventive maintenance,from casualty correction to proactive intervention, and result in fewer days out of service andreduced catastrophic failures.The policy of MSC of having its ships ABS classed and USCG certificated influencesship design, operation and maintenance practices. Regulatory body approval of the MSCcondition based maintenance approach translates into cost avoidance by reducing open andinspect requirements. If preventive maintenance has been performed and documented, andcondition based data indicates no deterioration, then survey credit can be issued.MSC employs a single line of responsibility from the Program Manager down to theindividual ship’s port engineer. The port engineer concept closely integrates technical andfinancial management of maintenance and provides a single point of contact for accountabilityand responsibility of the life cycle management of material condition and regulatory body(ABS/TJSCG) interface. This allows flexibility in planning a continuous integrated maintenanceapproach coordinated with ships' schedules. All available opportunities to perform normal andcorrective maintenance are utilized while limiting scheduled repair availabilities and time out ofservice. When planning for periodic maintenance and voyage repairs, the most efficient meansof performing maintenance and repair must be evaluated considering cost and schedule impact ofusing either ship's force labor or industrial assistance. The high skill level of the career merchant8-4

In-Service Hull Girder Inspection Requirementsmariners employed by MSC provides a level of technical expertise equivalent to a Navyintermediate maintenance. This means that MSC ships must be spared at the “O” and “I” levels,and only “D” level maintenance is accomplished with industrial assistance.The new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with President of the Board ofInspection and Survey (PRESINSURV) provides for the coordination of different inspectionrequirements and synchronization of ship inspections with maintenance cycles. MSC willcontinue to consolidate all required inspections in an effort to minimize impacts on shipschedules. MSC will pursue self-inspection initiatives available from ABS and USCG andcontinue ISM certification.In summary, the goal of MSC is to employ efficient and cost effective maintenanceapproaches that strive to correctly identify work that must be accomplished, determine the mostcost effective and schedule efficient way to perform that work and maximize availability to thecustomer.8.4 Canadian Statement of Structural Integrity (SSI) OverviewThe Statement of Structural Integrity (SSI) provides confirmation that the ship hullstructure is materially fit. The SSI formally communicates a recommendation to the ship that thehull is structurally safe to withstand the rigors of all operations consistent with the as-designedcapability. Refusal to issue an SSI by the Design Authority does not indicate that a ship is inimminent danger but that material fitness is known to be substandard, and, thus, ship deploymentis not recommended prior to repair of outstanding significant defects.The SSI is issued by the Design Authority for individual Canadian Forces Ships. Thisstandard outlines policies associated with the SSI program in sufficient detail that CommandTechnical Authorities and Design Agents can develop specific procedures to enable compliancewith this standard.For initial issue at construction, the SSI provides assurance to operators and maintainersthat the hull has been constructed in accordance with the approved design. Subsequent issuesduring the ship’s in-service life confirm that the ship has been returned to its’ baseline conditionin accordance with all relevant maintenance standards, specifications, preventive maintenanceroutines. As the final formal quality assurance document concerning platform, the SSI confirmsthat the material fitness of the ship is, in all respects concerning structural integrity, satisfactorysuch that the vessel can undergo all normal operations consistent with her original designassumptions and subject to changes to capability as a result of any post constructionmodifications. Any outstanding deficiencies in material fitness of hull structures have beenrecorded and the impact on considerations such as safety or operations has been fully consideredby the Design Authority.Specific information on Canadian Ships is documented in a series of Design DisclosureDocuments (DDD) that are developed for each class of ship. Specific information in thesedocuments includes:• Design requirements8-5

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatigue• Ship description, including major dimensions• Intended operating conditions• Structural materials• Primary hull strength• Secondary loads• Fatigue strength• Special structure and structural details, Structural maintenance, includingmaintenance philosophy and preventive maintenance requirements• Structural drawings to be managed• Structural history, such as major modifications or upgrades to ships of the classFor each class of ships, a Naval Preventive Maintenance Schedule is prepared. Theseinspections are in several categories.Ship’s Staff Structural rounds are performed at 6-month intervals by formally trainedmembers of the crew. These inspections address areas most prone to defects. Examinations areintended for the early identification of potentially serious structural defects where theconsequences of failure are significant. Figures are provided identifying areas to be inspected.Typical areas of inspection include:• Feet of the mast structure• Foundations of radar and weapons• Intersection of the superstructure with the hull• Shear strake at the quarterdeck cut down• Specific door openings in longitudinal bulkheadsThe Hull Structures Progressive Survey provides for a 5-year inspection cycle. Thissurvey ensures that all ship’s structure is surveyed at least once during that time. The surveys areconducted by the Fleet Maintenance Facility, Engineering Division, Naval Architecture Officer.The survey document includes a list showing every compartment of the ship with an associatedschedule for maintaining a record on spaces inspected and planned for future inspections.Associated with the document are specific procedures for designated areas. These areas are:• Hull (Shell and Appendages) — These inspections must be performed when the shipis in drydock.• Decks — Specific areas are identified for inspection at 24 month and 48 monthintervals, such as specific deck openings and major butt welds in the strength deck• Masts• Hull Structure (Structural Tanks and Voids)• Bilge areasA review of structural and corrosion problems on Canadian destroyers was provided byHussey, 1982. Specific areas of the different classes of ships were described along withsuccessful and unsuccessful repair methods that were used. Areas of the hull that wereparticularly prone to corrosion were described, and suggestions made for design improvements8-6

In-Service Hull Girder Inspection Requirementsthat would prevent or minimise such problems. Inaccessibility of structure for inspection andmaintenance was listed as particularly important. A detailed description was given of the workrequired to perform structural repairs. The work required for dealing with interferences, such asremoval and replacement of insulation, electrical cables, furniture, equipment, deck tiles, andpiping will cost more than the structural repairs themselves. The author recommended that thesame persons conduct successive structural inspections so that the experiences from oneinspection on a particular ship of a class and inspections on other ships of the same class can beused to identify problem areas.8.5 Design and Maintenance of Canadian Coast Guard ShipsAll Canadian Coast Guard ships of substantial size are built to a classification societyclass. In the past, this society has often been Lloyds', but this is not a general CCG requirement.Once delivered and in service the CCG ships are not kept in class. Surveys and repairs are donein accordance with the requirements of the Canada Shipping Act regulations.Vessels for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) of about 30 m (100 ft) arealso built to classification society requirements, and traditionally, these were maintained in class.Since the merger of the two fleets about 3 years ago, several of the DFO vessels have beenwithdrawn from class and others may follow as surveys become due. At this time the followingships are still in class:• Hudson• Matthew,• Alfred Needier,• Cygnus,• Leonard J. Cowley,• Tolcost,• Gordon Reid• John Jacobson.There are no specific fatigue requirements over and above class rules that are specified byCCG/DFO.8.6 U.S. Navy Maintenance PolicyInspection and repair of the structure of naval ships is not always easy to perform.Difficulties include:a. Most interior structure is inaccessible due to clutter and insulation.b. The large number and relatively small size of inner bottom tanks, which must beemptied, cleaned, gas freed prior to entry. Inspection of these tanks requirescrawling through a series of small access openings to reach all areas of tanks andsimilar void spaces.8-7

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatiguec. Cracks are costly to repair because structural backfit repairs and modificationsinclude temporary removal, reinstallation, and retesting of nearby system runs,equipment, and machinery, which are extensive in naval ships.d. Class problems are applicable to multiple ships (30+), which increases the need forcareful analysis of repair alternatives.8.6.1 Maintenance AuthorityThe principal authority in the United States Navy for the integrity of a ship is itsCommanding Officer. The Commanding Officer is given guidance and direction for inspectionand maintenance through a series of directives established from the Chief of Naval Operations(CNO). These are further detailed by directives from subordinate Commands, resultingultimately in a system of inspection and maintenance actions which are specifically directed atthe type of ship and, as necessary, to a specific hull. The requirements for inspections of shipsare given through the U.S. Navy Planned Maintenance System (PMS) and documented in theMaintenance Data System (MDS), which are established by OPNAV Instruction 4700.7.J,Maintenance Policy for Naval Ships, Appendix A. Requirements for the performance ofrequired inspections and for the maintenance and repair of ships are provided by the Naval SeaSystems Command through the Naval Ships’ Technical Manual. Further requirements forinspection and repair are provided by Fleet Commanders, including Commander, Surface ForcesAtlantic (SURFLANT) and Commander, Surface Forces Pacific (SURFPAC). However,notwithstanding all other directives, U.S. Navy Regulations require that the Commanding Officercause inspections to be made to ensure the proper preservation, repair and maintenance of theship.A U.S. Navy Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) is separately established as theultimate authority for determining whether a ship of the U.S. Navy is fit for service. INSURV isrequired by both U.S. law and by U.S. Navy Regulations to examine every ship at least onceevery three years and determine if it is fit for continued service. This responsibility has beenextended into the examination of newly constructed ships as well as existing fleet assets.Whenever the Commanding Officer believes that the ship is in such condition as to require aninspection by INSURV, a request to do so is to be forwarded to the Chief of Naval Operationsvia the official chain of command.8.6.2. Maintenance Material ManagementThe Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) establishes the maintenance policy for ships of theU.S. Navy. OPNAV Instruction 4700.7J/N433, dated December 4, 1999, defines the ShipMaintenance Program (SMP), which is designed to keep ships at the highest level of materialcondition practicable, and to provide reasonable assurance of their availability. Extracts fromthat instruction are contained in Appendix K. The program encompasses three echelons ofmaintenance: organizational, intermediate, and depot level. Maintenance is intended to be basedon reliability centered maintenance principles where it can be determined that the expectedresults will be commensurate with associated costs. Condition based maintenance diagnostics,inspections, and tests are also to be used to determine performance and material condition of, and8-8

In-Service Hull Girder Inspection Requirementsto schedule corrective maintenance actions for ships. Condition directed maintenance is to bebased on objective evidence of actual or potential failure or valid condition trend data. Conditionbased maintenance principles are to be used to adjust time-directed preventive maintenance.OPNAV Instruction 4700.7J requires that the fleet commanders be responsible for thematerial conditions of their assigned ships. The commanders are to identify and authorizerequired maintenance actions, and ensure that required maintenance actions are performed byship’s force and by intermediate and depot level maintenance organizations.An example of maintenance requirements established by fleet commanders is that of theSurface Forces, Atlantic (SURFLANT). Inspections by SURFLANT are the same for all shipclasses except for the wooden hulled MCMs, the composite hulled MHCs, and other ships withunusual requirements. They are driven by a desired 10-year docking strategy and theinterdeployment training cycle. The interdeployment training cycle is an 18–24 month cycle thatcalls for a ship inspection prior to deployment and another inspection after deployment and priorto an availability. These inspections will include looking at foundations for main engines,condensers, or other locations that are prone to corrosion. Qualified inspectors from the FleetTechnical Support Center carry out the inspections. Progressive tank inspections to support the10-year docking cycle are performed whenever a tank is open, such as for maintenance within atank, or when one tank must be opened and cleaned because of maintenance in an adjacent tank.Tank inspections are also performed as part of repair availabilities funded by the CNO, whichoccur on a 3- to 5-year time frame. In addition, Level 1 underwater hull inspections are requiredby the NAVSEA Office of Diving and Salvage (NAVSEA 00C) prior to deployment. Theseinclude a complete underwater inspection of the hull. Level 2 underwater inspections areperformed more frequently, but these are only for cleaning of propellers and other appendages.Preventive maintenance, which includes periodic inspections, is detailed on MaintenanceRequirements Cards (MRCs) for organizational level accomplishment, and on Master JobCatalog (MJC) items for intermediate and depot level accomplishment. These requirements areknown as the Planned Maintenance System (PMS). The MRCs and MJC items describe themaintenance requirement, the frequency with which it is performed, the qualifications requiredof those performing the maintenance, the estimated labor hours, and related maintenance actions.A specific MRC related to structural integrity is Maintenance Identification Page (MIP)1102/001-C3, Hull Structure. This MIP calls for pre-overhaul inspection and inspectionwhenever damage or deterioration is suspected. The inspection is to be supervised by theCommanding Officer, the Engineering Officer, or their designated representative, who is usuallythe Damage Control Officer. The inspection may be performed by ship’s force, but outsideassistance may be and often is used.When a need is identified for more frequent inspections or maintenance of problem areas,special MRCs are developed. MIP 1501/Z01-17, for example, was developed for inspection ofthe hull structure at the forward end of the superstructure of a class of ships. This area hasexperienced cracking on many ships of the class, and structural modifications have been made toreduce the probability of future cracking. The special inspections are made to be certain thatthere is no cracking or other failures of structure in that area.8-9

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatigue8.6.3 Naval Ship’s Technical ManualFor new construction, standards for fabrication and inspection of structure, includingwelding and tolerances for alignment of members and flatness of plate are provided by MilitaryStandard 1689 (MIL-STD 1689). Technical requirements for inspection, maintenance, andrepair of ship structure is provided by the Naval Ship’s Technical Manual (NSTM), which is theresponsibility of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). Extracts of Chapter 100, HullStructure, of NSTM are contained in Appendix L. This document provides guidance oninspection of structure, including rules-of-thumb for determining minimum scantlings. It alsorefers to checklists and tabulations of minimum scantlings that have been developed for someclasses of ships. However, the document has not been revised since 1979 and therefore doesn'trepresent the current practice in inspection. In particular, it does not refer to the OPNAV ShipMaintenance Plan for the inspection of ship structure. However, other chapters of NSTM aremore up-to-date, particularly:• Chapter 074, Volume 2, Nondestructive Testing of Metals—Qualification andCertification Requirements for Naval Personnel (Non-Nuclear)• Chapter 079, Damage Control, Volume 4, Compartment Testing and Inspection• Chapter 081, Waterborne Underwater Hull Cleaning of Navy Ships• Chapter 90, Materiel Inspections of Active and Inactive Ships and Service Craft• Chapter 631, Preservation of Ships in ServiceNSTM Chapter 074 provides the required qualifications of personnel who will performnondestructive test and evaluation. The standards pertain largely to the inspection of weldsassociated with fabrication and repair of structure and other welded systems, such as piping.However, ultrasonic inspection is used for surveys of hull structure, and the qualifications of theindividuals who will perform such inspections are contained in Chapter 074. The chapter alsoprovides useful tables of reference to other documents that pertain to nondestructive testing.NSTM Chapter 079, Volume 4 provides the technical requirements for the requiredtesting of compartments for watertight integrity. The watertight compartments of ships inservice receive periodic tests under air pressure to determine the presence of leaks. Most leakscome at the gaskets of hatches and doors, as well as stuffing tubes for electrical cable, but suchair testing will also reveal advanced corrosion that has penetrated the structure. The chapter alsocontains a useful table for reference to the compartment inspection and test requirements of otherchapters of NSTM as well as in the Planned Maintenance System.NSTM Chapter 081 provides the requirements for cleaning of the underwater hullwithout drydocking. No specific intervals are given for the frequency of cleaning, because therate of fouling of the bottom by marine growth varies with factors that include geographicallocation and ship operations. However, the cleaning is done frequently to prevent the loss ofspeed and increase in fuel consumption that is caused by marine fouling of the hull. The hull isinspected by divers before and after cleaning and any deterioration of the coating or corrosion isnoted.8-10

In-Service Hull Girder Inspection RequirementsNSTM Chapter 090 provides general requirements for all tests and inspections. Thechapter provides guidance for inspection of coating systems and for the detection of corrosion ofstructure. Guidance is provided for the inspection of critical areas that will require specialattention, such as tanks and voids.NSTM Chapter 631 provides requirements for the preservation of ships in service. It alsocontains information on the preparation of surfaces for coating, which includes inspection forcorrosion of structure.8.6.4. Underwater InspectionsVisual inspections of the interior of the ship are complemented by underwater hullinspections. The requirements for underwater hull inspections are contained in chapter 17 of theUnderwater Ship Husbandry (UWSH) manual. Extracts from that manual are contained inAppendix M. These procedures detail inspectors’ qualifications, process, criteria and recordkeeping but they do not address inspection intervals or analysis. There are three levels ofunderwater inspections. The level one inspection is a cursory inspection of the entire hull,whereby the diver is typically looking for damage to a specific system. For hull plating, theywould be looking at the coating condition, biofouling, and damage such as dents, corrosion, andcracks, on the shell plating. The intent of a level two inspection is to perform more detaileddocumentation of damage detected during level one inspections. The level three inspections aresystem-specific, invasive procedures requiring some amount of disassembly of the system orcomponent to complete the inspection.In addition to the inspection by divers, underwater ultrasonic gauging (UT) of the hull isoften performed when requested by the ship’s commanding officer or type commander.Requirements for underwater UT gauging are not contained in the NSTM, UWSH, or PMSMRCs, but are conducted by several commercial organizations for the requesting authority. Theintention is that this UT gauging of plate thickness replaces the drydocking that would benecessary to inspect the hull plating for deterioration. In addition to inspection of the externalsurface, the gauging provides an indication of deterioration within tanks. Although the surfaceof tanks, including tank tops, can be gauged to provide an indication of internal conditions, thecondition of internal stiffening members can not be determined without entering the tanks.Tanks can not be accessed without pumping out the fuel and gas freeing, a time-consuming andcostly process.8.6.5. Thin Hull Check ListsChapter 100 of NSTM provides a general rule of thumb that structure must be replaced ifcorrosion in excess of 25 percent of the original thickness occurs. Guidance that is more specifichas been developed by NAVSEA for a number of combatant ships in the form of checklists forhull inspection of deteriorated structure. These documents identify areas of the structure that aremore prone to corrosion, the original thickness of plating and the webs and flanges of stiffeners,and the allowable minimum thickness. The checklists call for the thickness of the members to be8-11

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatiguemeasured and recorded on the checklists so that the information will be available for futureexaminations of the structure.8.6.6. Corrosion Control Information Management System (CCIMS)For aircraft carriers, specific guidance for inspections of ship structure and recording theresults of the inspections is contained in the Corrosion Control Information Management System(CCIMS) Inspection Manual. Extracts from that manual are contained in Appendix N. Thesystem provides a uniform set of inspection attributes and inspection criteria for coating systems,using standard descriptions and pictures of corrosion for reference. The standard used is theAmerican Society of Testing and Materials standards ASTM D610 “Method for EvaluatingDegree of Rusting on Painted Steel Surfaces,” and ASTM D714 “Method for Evaluating Degreeof Blistering of Paints.” The management system is aimed primarily at the inspection andmaintenance of coating systems, but there are also requirements for inspecting the structure forcorrosion or of cracking, and reporting such damage to the structure.8.6.7 Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV)The Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) is required by Title 10 U.S. Code 7304and Article 0321, U.S. Navy Regulations to:• Examine each naval ship at least once every 3 years, if practicable, to determine itsmateriel condition.• Report any ship found unfit for continued service to higher authority.• Perform other inspections and trials of naval ships and service craft as directed bythe Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). Surveys are directed by CNO on anindividual basis.Extracts of Title 10, U.S. Code are provided in Appendix O.In practice, INSURV performs these inspections as a combination of physical andadministrative inspections. Selected items of ship systems are inspected, such as turbines andreduction gears, and the physical condition of the ship is accomplished by a walk-throughinspection of all compartments. For many other areas, particularly ship structure, the ship’smaintenance records are reviewed to be certain that the required inspection and maintenancehave been carried out. In particular, drydocking of the ship to assess the condition of theunderwater hull, or cleaning and gas-freeing of tanks for inspection are not routinely done.Because U.S. Navy ships seldom have structural problems in service, the membership of theINSURV board does not include individuals with expertise in ship structures. If a ship is to beinspected and possible structural problems are known in advance, outside expertise is obtainedby including an engineer from NAVSEA or other organization who has the required backgroundand expertise.8-12

In-Service Hull Girder Inspection Requirements8.6.8 Example – SURFLANT PoliciesInspections by SURFLANT are the same for all ship classes except for wooden-hulledMCMs, composite-hulled MHCs, and other ships with unusual requirements. They are driven bythe desired 10-year docking strategy and the interdeployment training cycle. Theinterdeployment training cycle is an 18–24 month cycle that calls for a ship inspection prior todeployment and another inspection after deployment and prior to an availability. Theseinspections will include looking at foundations for main engines, condensers, or other locationsthat are prone to corrosion. Qualified inspectors from the Fleet Technical Support Center carryout the inspections.Progressive tank inspections to support the 10-year docking cycle are performedwhenever a tank is open, such as for maintenance within a tank, or when one tank must beopened and cleaned because of maintenance in an adjacent tank. Tank inspections are alsoperformed as part of CNO availabilities, which occur on a 3-year to 5- year time frame.In addition, Level 1 underwater hull inspections are required by NAVSEA 00C prior todeployment. These include a complete underwater inspection of the hull. Level 2 underwaterinspections are performed more frequently, but these are only for cleaning of propellers andother appendages.8.7 SummaryAll ships, both commercial and military, have well documented inspection policies andprocedures. The U.S. Navy maintenance policy is anchored by a required 3-year inspection byan independent board. In general, the current design practices combined with an aggressivepolicy towards preservation of structure result in a low incidence of structural deterioration fromcracking or corrosion. Inspection requirements are to some extent condition based, so that whenproblem areas become known, the intensity of inspection is increased in those areas.Commercial ships are assured of having regular inspections by both the classificationsocieties and by state authorities such as the U.S. Coast Guard and the Canadian Coast Guard.The principal difficulty with commercial ships concern those that are registered in countries thatdo not require inspections, are classed by societies that are not members of IACS, and haveirresponsible owners who are not concerned with the condition of the ships as long as theycontinue to earn revenue. Such ships are and their conditions are outside the scope of this studybecause it is assumed that the Navy that wishes to use commercial means for ship inspection, aspart of a fatigue damage prevention program will consult with a responsible classificationsociety. Table 8.1 compares the inspection policies of these different authorities.8-13

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueTable 8.1 Comparison of Hull Girder Inspection PoliciesInspection Requirement U.S. Coast Guard ABS U.S. Navy Canadian NavyApplicabilityAll ships calling atU.S. Ports. AllU.S. flag ships.All ships classifiedby ABS.All combatantships. Auxiliariesinspected by ABS.All ships inCanadian NavySpecial RequirementsInspection IntervalInspector QualificationStructure required to beregularly inspected (i.e.all, tanks, shell, decks,bilge, foundations, etc.Inspector is looking for(i.e. cracks, coatingbreakdown, corrosion,etc.)Inspection results databasemaintainedCritical AreaInspection Plans(CIAP)for tankersAnnual. Inspectforeign-flag ifappears necessaryU.S. Coast Guardofficers andqualified pettyofficersDiscretion ofinspectoraugmented byCIAPCracks, corrosionNoEnhanced surveysfor tankers andbulk carriersShips with knowndefects1, 2.5, and 5-year 3-year INSURV2--yearoperational, 10-year fleetcommanderQualified ABSsurveyors.Annual—openings,problem areasIntermediate—ballast tanksPeriodical—entirehullCracks, corrosion,coatingSafeShip system ifrequested byownerShip’s force, repairactivity.18—24-month• Machineryfoundations• CorrosionpronelocationsPre-deployment• Underwaterhull10-year• TanksCorrosion, coatingNoProblem areasdocumented inrequirements forinspection5-yearShip’s force, FleetMaintenanceFacility6-Month• Mast feet• Foundations ofradar andweapons• hullsuperstructureintersection• Shear strake atcut down• Specific dooropenings5-year• Hull• Decks• Masts• Tanks andvoidsCracks, corrosion,coatingYes8-14

9. Application of Commercial Methodsfor Fatigue Analysis of Existing Ships9.1 PurposeThe purpose of this chapter is to present the application of ABS fatigue design practicesand approaches to assess the hull structure of 10 current and past U.S. and Canadian navalvessels and compare the results between commercial and naval practice. The Project TechnicalCommittee (PTC) agreed upon the hulls to be evaluated, and these ten ships are discussed inChapter 6. These analyses were performed using the ABS SafeHull Phase A approach. Due tothe time required to develop a finite element model for the SafeHull Phase B approach, only oneof the ships was analyzed using the Phase B approach, as approved by the PTC.9.2 IntroductionThere are three versions of the SafeHull program available: containerships, bulk carriers,and tankers. In terms of hull form and speed, combatant naval ships bear the closest similarity tocontainerships. Therefore, the hull girder loading developed by ABS for containerships is themost applicable to the naval vessels. Furthermore, these similarities allow the midship sectiongeometry of the naval vessels to be input into the program-loading feature. Therefore, thecontainership version of the SafeHull program was used to analyze all ten ships. It is noted thatinternal structural differences between naval vessels and containerships, i.e. complete upper andlower decks in the naval vessels and containerships having open structure required someinnovative application of the SafeHull software. The version of the containership program that isdistributed by ABS for commercial use is limited to ships that have a length of 130 meters ormore. However, a special version of the program for shorter ships was made available by ABSfor this task.Limitations of the software for SafeHull Phase A in analyzing these ships werediscovered during the analysis process. Those limitations will be discussed fully in Chapter 10,but the modifications to the input that were required to successfully run of the program will bebriefly described in this chapter. Chapter 11 will provide a guide for conducting a Phase ASafeHull analysis of a naval vessel, including suggested modifications to the standard inputfound necessary by the investigator.9.3 Phase A Analysis9.3.1 Input DataThe Phase A analysis was limited to analysis of the longitudinal structure at the midshipsection. The Phase A fatigue analysis is for the intersection of longitudinal stiffeners withtransverse frames, and for the fatigue of flat bar stiffeners on transverse frames that help supportthe longitudinal stiffeners. To perform this analysis, SafeHull does not require the scantlings oftransverse members to be input. The program requires only a description of the type of cutout9-1

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatiguefor the longitudinal, size of flat bar, and thickness of the web of the transverse frame, and sizeand thickness of lugs at the cutouts to support the longitudinals. Scantlings of transversebulkheads are not needed for the analysis, and were not input.Figure 9.1 shows the typical hull input for the ships analyzed. The midship section wasextended fore and aft as parallel middle body in order to develop the “tanks” that are used todefine local loads on the structure. The hull form for the forebody above the waterline is used todetermine bow flare loading, and is also input as shown.Figure 9.1 Phase A Hull Input for a Typical ShipThere are five different types of tanks that can be defined in Phase A:• Cargo Hold• Ballast Tank• Void Space/ Underway Passage• Duct Keel• Fuel Oil TankOf these, the ballast tank and the fuel oil tank include air pipes that are part of the developmentof a hydrostatic head. The other types do not produce such loads.The tanks for the ship are shown in Figure 9.2. The space between the upper deck andthe deck below was defined as a void space. The space between the second and third decks was9-2

Fatigue Analysis of Existing Shipsdefined as a cargo hold, between the innerbottom and the third deck as a void space, and thedoublebottom as a ballast tank. These definitions were determined largely on a trial and errorbasis, with other combinations resulting in failure of the program to properly execute. Thesedefinitions resulted in loads placed on the side shell to represent external wave action. Loadswere placed on the innerbottom and bottom shell plating to represent pressure from fuel orballast. These tank definitions resulted in no loads being placed on the decks. This is reasonablebecause in naval vessels most decks have little load fluctuation that would contribute to fatigue.In general, this type of loading would be unacceptable for a general cargo ship, where there canbe a considerable range of loading due to the effect of ship motion on cargo.Figure 9.2 SafeHull Tanks for Development of Local LoadingA view of the midship section in the Phase A input is shown in Figure 9.3. Structure isdefined as stiffener “plates.” A typical plate would start and end at either the intersection withother plates, such as longitudinal girders in the innerbottom, or at changes in plating thickness.The scantlings of each longitudinal stiffener on each plate are described individually, but a platecan have only one thickness of plating. Plates are considered as straight lines, so that additionalplates are entered as necessary to describe curvature. The decks have the fewest numbers ofplates, with changes only at the change in plating thickness.9-3

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueFigure 9.3 Section of SafeHull Model of a Typical Naval VesselIn contrast with the typical naval vessel shown in Figure 9.3, Figure 9.4 shows a typicalcontainership, the type of ship for which the SafeHull software was developed. Note the absenceof decks and the presence of an inner skin in the containership. The ship in Figure 9.3 has aninnerbottom, but many naval vessels do not have that feature, whereas containerships do. Thesedifferences in geometry present a challenge for the adaptation of the SafeHull software.Figure 9.4 Section of SafeHull Model of a Typical Containership9-4

Fatigue Analysis of Existing ShipsThe variables that are used to define end connections are shown in Figure 9.5. The depthof the flat bar stiffener and size of bracket can be input. Note that there are no other choices,such as a tee-stiffener as is frequently used on naval ships.Figure 9.5 SafeHull End Connection InputFigure 9.6 shows the types of cutouts and collar details that can be input for longitudinalstiffeners. Four of the six types are for tee stiffeners and the other two are for angles.Alternative shapes such as bulb flats or flat bar stiffeners are not included, and there is novariation where the top of the flange of the longitudinal is welded directly to the web of thetransverse.9-5

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueFigure 9.6 Details of Cutouts for Stiffeners9.3.2 Results of AnalysisThe results of the fatigue analysis of typical longitudinal stiffeners for Ship G are givenin Table 9.1. The results of the fatigue analysis of typical flat bars for Ship G are given in Table9.2. The complete results for all locations analyzed for all ten ships are given in Appendices Athrough J. The following definitions apply to the column entries on Table 9.1 and in theappendices:TOEIDDist. from BLSMSpanCtCyLP#Load Case #Either the forward “F” or aft “A” end of the stiffener. Different details canbe described for either end. (Unless otherwise identified, all ships had a flatbar at the forward end of each stiffener, but no flat bar at the after end.)Identification of the type of detail for flat bar stiffener usedDistance of stiffener from the baseline of the shipSection Modulus of the stiffener with effective plateLength of stiffener between transverse framesFactor for combined bending and torsionFactor for side longitudinals based on ratio of draft to distance from baselineof the stiffener.One of the ten different loading conditions that produces the maximumstress.9-6

Fatigue Analysis of Existing ShipsLocal LoadRangef RGf RLf Rc fc mFatigue ClassLong TermDistributionFactorPerm. StressRatio f R /PSThe difference in equivalent hydrostatic head between the two load cases forthe stiffener.The alternating stress range from global hull girder bending loads.The alternating stress range from local loads.The combined stress range, computed by the equationf R = c f c m (f RG + f RL )Coefficient equal to 0.95 to reduce stress from the fully wasted condition.SafeHull reduces scantlings by an average corrosion factor of (NDCVapplied with the approximate impact to the hull girder strength) 0.90 timesoriginal scantlings to analyze the strength of the structure at the end of thelifetime of the ship. This factor adjusts the stress level to approximate themid-life level.Factor of 0.85 applied to connections of longitudinals to transverse webs orfloors in the bottom.The assigned fatigue classification for the intersection of the longitudinalwith the transverse frame. (These were discussed in Chapter 5.)The Weibull distribution factor defining the shape of lifetime fatigue loadingspectrum.The permissible stress range for the fatigue classification and the Weibulldistribution factor.The ratio of the computed stress range to the permissible stress range. Avalue of 1.0 or less represents an acceptable fatigue life.The following additional definitions apply for the fatigue analysis of flat bars in Table 9.2and in Appendices A through J:ForceSupport Area A sA cSFCf sf Lf Ric wThe range in shear force at the end of the longitudinal.Sectional area of the flat barSectional area of the collar platesStress Concentration Factor for the detailNominal stress range in the flat bar stiffenerStress range in the longitudinal as computed for the fatigue analysis of thelongitudinal as shown in Table 9.6Stress range for assessing fatigue life of the flat bar stiffenerf Ri = [(SFC f s ) 2 + f 2 L ] 1/2coefficient for the weighted effect of two paired loading conditions9-7

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueSTF#StiffenerTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)Table 9.1 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Longitudinals for Ship GSM(cm3)Span(m)C t C y LP#LoadCase#FatigueLocal Stress Range(m) f RG f RL f RLoad (kg/cm2) ClassRngLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)Ratiof R /PSSCANTLINGS1 Bottom Long'l 1 A/ 1 0 268 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.23 2249 470 2196 F2 0.889 2611 0.84 12 X 4 X 16# I/TF/ 2 0 268 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.23 2249 470 2196 F2 0.889 2611 0.8412 Side Long'l 18 A/ 1 6.61 156 2.34 1 .73 1 F1&F2 12.95 1472 1473 2798 F2 0.928 2443 1.15 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 2 6.61 156 2.34 1 .73 1 F1&F2 12.95 1472 1473 2798 F2 0.928 2443 1.1519 01 Lvl Long'l 12 A/ 1 12.8 101 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 2 12.8 101 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.7632 I.B. Long'l 1 A/ 1 1.4 156 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.48 1938 75 1912 F2 0.889 2611 0.73 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 1.4 156 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.48 1938 75 1912 F2 0.889 2611 0.7347 1st Plat Long'l 9 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1499 0 1424 F2 0.889 2611 0.55 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1499 0 1424 F2 0.889 2611 0.5558 2nd Plat Long'l 10 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1600 0 1520 F2 0.889 2611 0.58 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 2 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1600 0 1520 F2 0.889 2611 0.5859 I.B. Girder 2 A/ 1 0.8 62 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2067 0 1963 F2 0.889 2611 0.75 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 0.8 62 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2067 0 1963 F2 0.889 2611 0.7564 Mn. Dk Long'l 12 A/ 1 10.06 70 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1766 0 1678 F2 0.909 2514 0.67 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 10.06 70 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1766 0 1678 F2 0.909 2514 0.67CutoutDist.fromBL(m)Table 9.2 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Flat Bars for Ship GLong`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead(m)Force(tf)SupportAreasA s(cm 2 )A cSCFCf=0.95 Cw=0.75Stress Range(kg/cm 2 )FATIGUECLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm 2 )PSLABEL ID LOCf s f L f RiBTM10604 2 1 0.84 0.696 2.34 5.12 8.54 7.1 51.8 1.5 138 1953 1964 F2 0.889 2611 0.752 0.84 0.696 2.34 5.12 8.54 7.1 51.8 1.25 138 1953 1961 F2 0.889 2611 0.75[Weld Throat] 0.84 0.696 2.34 5.12 8.54 [Asw]= 4.5 1.25 138 0 273 W 0.889 1883 0.14SHL10908 1 1 6.61 0.69 2.34 12.95 21.44 0 27.4 1.5 546 2798 2915 F2 0.928 2443 1.192 6.61 0.69 2.34 12.95 21.44 0 27.4 1 546 2798 2851 F2 0.928 2443 1.17[Weld Throat] 6.61 0.69 2.34 12.95 21.44 [Asw]= 0 1.25 546 0 ***** W 0.928 1760 NaNfR/PS9-8 8

Fatigue Analysis of Existing ShipsFigures 9.7 through 9.16 show the ratio of the computed stress range to the allowablestress range for all of the locations analyzed by SafeHull in Phase A for the subject ships. Avalue of 1.0 or less indicates satisfactory service life, and a value greater than 1.0 is a predictionof fatigue failure during service.In Figures 9.7 through 9.16, the following abbreviations (which were generated by SafeHull) areused to designate areas of the hull:KPL Flat Plate KeelBTM1 Bottom ShellBLG Bilge StrakeSHL Side ShellSHS Sheer StrakeDEC1 Main Deck (Strength Deck)SDK Second Deck (Deck below Strength Deck)WTF1 Watertight Flat 1 (deck below Second Deck)WTF2 Watertight Flat 2 (deck below WTF1)NTF Non-Tight Flat (Platform)INS1 Longitudinal Bulkhead No. 1INS2 Longitudinal Bulkhead No. 2INB Inner BottomNBG Non-Tight Inner Bottom GirderBGR Watertight Bottom GirderOnce familiarity with the program was gained, the input was altered so that designationsthat were more descriptive to the particular ship could be input. For example, Ship C has labelssuch as “A Strake” (Bottom Shell), “No 1 D” (Deck Number 1), and “No 2 L” (LongitudinalGirder Number 2). For other ships, such as Ship G, even more descriptive designations such as“Bottom Long’l 1” or “IB Margin Plate” were used.9-9

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueFigure 9.7 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship AFatigue Analysis of Class F2 Detailsfor Ship AStress Range /Permissible Range21.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20KPL10101BTM10101BTM10202BTM10303BTM10404BTM10505BLG10101SHL10101SHL10202SHL10303SHL10404SHS10101SHS10202SHS10303DEC10201DEC10302DEC10403DEC10504DEC10605DEC10706DEC10807DEC10908DEC10909SDK10101SDK10202SDK10203SDK10204SDK10205SDK10206SDK10207SDK10208SDK10209LocationFatigue Analysis of Class F Detailsfor Ship A21.8Stress Range /Permissible Range1.61.41.210.80.60.40.20KPL10101BTM10101BTM10202BTM10303BTM10404BTM10505BLG10101SHL10101SHL10202SHL10303SHL10404SHS10101SHS10202SHS10303DEC10201DEC10302DEC10403DEC10504LocationDEC10605DEC10706DEC10807DEC10908DEC10909SDK10101SDK10202SDK10203SDK10204SDK10205SDK10206SDK10207SDK10208SDK102099-10 10

Fatigue Analysis of Existing ShipsFigure 9.7 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship A (Continued)Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Barsfor Ship AStress Range /Permissible Range21.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BLG10101[Weld Throat]SHS10303[Weld Throat]DEC10201[Weld Throat]DEC10403[Weld Throat]DEC10605[Weld Throat]DEC10807[Weld Throat]DEC10909[Weld Throat]LocationFatigue Analysis of Class F Flat Barsfor Ship AStress Range /Permissible Range21.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BLG10101[Weld Throat]SHS10303[Weld Throat]DEC10201[Weld Throat]DEC10403[Weld Throat]DEC10605[Weld Throat]DEC10807[Weld Throat]DEC10909[Weld Throat]Location9-11

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueFigure 9.8 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship BFatigue Analysis of Class F2 Detailsfor Ship B21.8Stress Range /Permissible Range1.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BTM10801BLG10302SHL10101SHL10204SHL10507SHL11010DEC10101DEC10104DEC10107DEC10210DEC10213DEC10216DEC10319WTF10101WTF10104WTF10107WTF20202WTF20205WTF30501LocationWTF30504WTF30607WTF30610WTF30613INS10202INS10305INS10308INS10311INS10514INS10617INS10720INS20803INS20906SDK10101SDK10104SDK10107Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Barsfor Ship BStress Range /Permissible Range21.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BTM10801[Weld Throat]BTM10802[Weld Throat]BLG10201[Weld Throat]BLG10302[Weld Throat]BLG10303[Weld TBLG10304PositionSHL10101[Weld TSHL10202SHL10203[Weld Throat]SHL10204[Weld Throat]SHL10305[Weld Throat]9-12 12

Fatigue Analysis of Existing ShipsFigure 9.9 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship CFatigue Analysis of Class F2 Detailsfor Ship CStress Range /Permissible Range21.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20A Stra01B Stra04B Stra07C1 Str10C2 Str13D Stra02D Stra05E Stra03G1 Str06G1 Str09J Stra01No 1 D02No 1 D05No 1 D08No1 In11No 3 I01No 3 I04No 3 D07No 3 D10No 3 D13No 2 D03No 2 D06No 2 I09No 2 I12LocationFatigue Analysis of Class F Detailsfor Ship C21.8Stress Range /Permissible Range1.61.41.210.80.60.40.20A Stra01A Stra03B Stra05B Stra07C1 Str09C1 Str11C2 Str13D Stra01D Stra03D Stra05E Stra02F1 Str04G1 Str06G1 Str08H Stra10J Stra01No 1 D01No 1 D03No 1 D05No 1 D07No1 In09No1 In11No1 In13No 3 I02No 3 I04No 3 D06No 3 D08No 3 D10No 3 D12No 2 D01No 2 D03No 2 D05No 2 D07No 2 I09No 2 I11No 2 I13Location9-13

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueFigure 9.9 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship C (Continued)Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Barsfor Ship C2Stress Range /Permissible Range1.510.50BTM10101BTM10103BTM10204BTM10206BTM10308BTM10309BTM10311BTM10412BTM10413LocationFatigue Analysis of Class F Flat Barsfor Ship CStress Range /Permissible Range21.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BTM10101BTM10103BTM10204BTM10206BTM10308BTM10309BTM10311BTM10412BTM10413Location9-14 14

Fatigue Analysis of Existing ShipsFigure 9.10 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship DFatigue Analysis of Class F2 Longitudinalsfor Ship D21.8Stress Range /Permissible Range1.61.41.210.80.60.40.20A Stra01A Stra02B Stra04B Stra05C2 Str07D Stra01D Stra03E Stra01E Stra03F Stra04G1 Str06G1 Str07H Stra09H Stra10J Stra12J Stra13No 1 D02No 1 D03No 1 D05No 3 D01No 3 D03No 3 D04No 2 D01No 2 D02No 2 D04LocationFatigue Analysis of Class F Longitudinalsfor Ship DStress Range /Permissible Range21.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20A Stra01A Stra02B Stra04B Stra05C2 Str07D Stra01D Stra03E Stra01E Stra03F Stra04G1 Str06G1 Str07H Stra09H Stra10J Stra12J Stra13No 1 D02No 1 D03No 1 D05No 3 D01No 3 D03No 3 D04No 2 D01No 2 D02No 2 D04Location9-15

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueFigure 9.10 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship D (Continued)Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Barsfor Ship DStress Range /Permissible Range21.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BLG10102 [Weld Throat] BLG10103 [Weld Throat] SHL10204 [Weld Throat]LocationFatigue Analysis of Class F Flat Barsfor Ship DStress Range /Permissible Range21.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BLG10102 [Weld Throat] BLG10103 [Weld Throat] SHL10204 [Weld Throat]Location9-16 16

Fatigue Analysis of Existing ShipsFigure 9.11 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship EFatigue Analysis of Class F2 Longitudinalsfor Ship E2.001.80Stress Range /Permissible Range1.601.401.201.000.800.600.400.200.00FPK 01FPK 02A Stra01A Stra02A Stra03B Stra04B Stra05B Stra06BlgStr01BlgStr02BlgStr03DStrak01DStrak02DStrak03EStrak04EStrak05EStrak06FStrak07FStrak08GStrak09Gunl 01Dk1 02Dk1 03Dk1 04Dk1 05Dk1 06Dk1 07Dk1 08Dk1 09Dk3 01Dk3 02Dk3 03Dk3 04Dk3 05Dk3 06Dk3 07LocationFatigue Analysis of Class F Longitudinalsfor Ship E2.001.80Stress Range /Permissible Range1.601.401.201.000.800.600.400.200.00FPK 01FPK 02A Stra01A Stra02A Stra03B Stra04B Stra05B Stra06BlgStr01BlgStr02BlgStr03DStrak01DStrak02DStrak03EStrak04EStrak05EStrak06FStrak07FStrak08GStrak09Gunl 01Dk1 02Dk1 03Dk1 04Dk1 05Dk1 06Dk1 07Dk1 08Dk1 09Dk3 01Dk3 02Dk3 03Dk3 04Dk3 05Dk3 06Dk3 07Location9-17

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueFigure 9.12 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship FFatigue Analysis of Class F2 Longitudinalsfor Ship F21.8Stress Range /Permissible Range1.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BTM10101SHL10102SHL10807SHL11212DEC10203DEC10308DEC10413INB11105WTF10205WTF10310NTF10102NTF10107NTF10212NBG40401SDK10103SDK10208SDK10213LocationFatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Barsfor Ship F21.8Stress Range /Permissible Range1.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BTM10101[WeldThroat]BTM10302[WeldThroat]BTM10503[WeldThroat]BTM10604[WeldThroat]Location9-18 18

Fatigue Analysis of Existing ShipsFigure 9.13 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship GFatigue Analysis of Class F2 Longitudinalsfor Ship G2.001.80Stress Range /Permissible Range1.601.401.201.000.800.600.400.200.00Bottom Long'l 1Bottom Long'l 7Bottom Long'l 11Side Long'l 16Side Long'l 21Side Long'l 2601 Lvl Long'l 1201 Lvl Long'l 901 Lvl Long'l 601 Lvl Long'l 301 Lvl Long'l ClI.B. Long'l 5IB Margin Plate1st Plat Long'l 21st Plat Long'l 51st Plat Long'l 82nd Plat Long'l 12nd Plat Long'l 42nd Plat Long'l 72nd Plat Long'l 10I.B. Girder 6Main Dk Long'l 12Main Dk Long'l 9Main Dk Long'l 6Main Dk Long'l 3Main Dk Long'l ClLocationFatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Barsfor Ship GStress Range /Permissible Range21.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BTM10604 2 1[Weld Throat]2SHL10102 2 1[Weld Throat]2SHL10404 2 1[Weld Throat]2SHL10706 2 1[Weld Throat]2SHL10908 1 1[Weld Throat]2SHL11010 1 1[Weld Throat]2SHL11212 1 1[Weld Throat]2SHS10102 1 1[Weld Throat]Location9-19

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueFigure 9.14 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship HFatigue Analysis of Class F2 Longitudinalsfor Ship H21.8Stress Range /Permissible Range1.61.41.210.80.60.40.20Bottom Long'l 1Bottom Long'l 7Bottom Long'l 11Side Long'l 16Side Long'l 21Side Long'l 2601 Lvl Long'l 1201 Lvl Long'l 901 Lvl Long'l 601 Lvl Long'l 301 Lvl Long'l ClI.B. Long'l 51st Plat Long'l 11st Plat Long'l 41st Plat Long'l 71st Plat Long'l 10Location2nd Plat Long'l 32nd Plat Long'l 62nd Plat Long'l 9I.B. Girder 2I.B. Girder 8Main Dk Long'l 12Main Dk Long'l 9Main Dk Long'l 6Main Dk Long'l 3Main Dk Long'l ClFatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Barsfor Ship H21.8Stress Range /Permissible Range1.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BTM10101[Weld Throat]BTM10503[Weld Throat]BTM10604[Weld Throat]DEC10207[Weld Throat]INB10301[Weld ThINB10502Location[Weld Throat]INB10703[Weld Throat]INB10904[Weld Throat]SDK10307[Weld Throat]9-20 20

Fatigue Analysis of Existing ShipsFigure 9.15 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship I2.001.80Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Longitudinalsfor Ship IStress Range /Permissible RangeStress Range /Permissible Range2.001.801.601.401.201.000.800.600.400.201.601.401.201.000.800.600.400.200.00IB Bhd01Bilge 033P-2P 042P-1P 093D-2D 142D-She19String02String0701 Inb1201 Inb1701Inef223DOtbd042DInef012DInef062DInef112DInbd16LocationFatigue Analysis of Class F Longitudinalsfor Ship I2DOtbd05IBS-IB01Ib3P2P06Ib2P1P11Ib1P3D16Ib2DMD21IbMD0102Ob Bhd04OB3P2P09MD Otb01MD Otb06MD Inb11MD Inb16MD Inb210.00IB Bhd01Bilge 02Blg-3P023P-2P 062P-1P 103D-2D 142D-She18MD-01 03String04String0801 Inb1201 Inb1601Inef203DInef013DOtbd052DInef012DInef052DInef092DInbd132DInne012DOtbd052DOtbd09IbIB-304Ib3P2P08Ib2P1P12Ib1P3D16Ib2D2D20Ib2DMD24Ob Bhd01Ob Bhd05OB3P2P09OB2P1P13MD Otb04MD Otb08MD Inb12MD Inb16MD Inb20MD Inb24Location9-21

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueFigure 9.15 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship I (Continued)Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Barsfor Ship I21.8Stress Range /Permissible Range1.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BTM10801[Weld Throat]BTM10803[Weld Throat]BLG10102[Weld Throat]DEC10105[Weld Throat]DEC10414[Weld Throat]SDK10204[Weld Throat]SDK10519[Weld Throat]LocationFatigue Analysis of Class F Flat Barsfor Ship I2.001.80Stress Range /Permissible Range1.601.401.201.000.800.600.400.200.00BTM10801[Weld Throat]BTM10803[Weld Throat]BLG10102[Weld Throat]DEC10105[Weld Throat]DEC10414[Weld Throat]SDK10204[Weld Throat]SDK10519[Weld Throat]Location9-22 22

Fatigue Analysis of Existing ShipsFigure 9.16 SafeHull Analysis Results for Ship JFatigue Analysis of Class F2 Longitudinalsfor Ship J2Stress Range /Permissable Range1.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BTM10101BTM10403BLG10202SHL10202SHL10404SHL10506SHL10508SHS10202DEC10102DEC10204DEC10306DEC10308DEC10410INB10101INB10403INB10705INB10807NBG20201SDK10101SDK10203SDK10305SDK10307SDK10409SDK10411LocationFatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Barsfor Ship J21.8Stress Range /Permissable Range1.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BTM10101BTM10202BTM10403BLG10101BLG10202SHL10201SHL10202SHL10403SHL10404SHL10505SHL10506SHL10507SHL10508SHS10201SHS10202DEC10101DEC10102DEC10203DEC10204DEC10205DEC10306DEC10307DEC10308DEC10309DEC10410DEC10411INB10101INB10302INB10403INB10504INB10705INB10806INB10807SDK10101SDK10203SDK10305SDK10307SDK10409SDK10411Location9-23

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueThe above results appear to be overly conservative for most of the ships analyzed in thearea of the side shell near the waterline. Most of the ships analyzed have had 20 or more yearsof service. Those ships that have seen such service have not experienced fatigue failures in thelocations indicated by the SafeHull Phase A analysis. However, there are several reasons whythe SafeHull analysis is conservative.The secondary loads are based on estimated lifetime maximum loads. It was shown inChapter 7 that the analytic basis for predicting these loads is deficient, particularly for highamplitudeloadings. In spite of the reduction factors applied by ABS for these loads, they maystill be higher than actual load magnitudes. Experimental validation of prediction techniques isneeded for both maximum loads and for the routinely occurring loads that contribute to fatiguedamage.In the SafeHull analysis, the default classification for the structural details is Class F2.This classification was determined by ABS through comparison of typical details to the detailstested to form the fatigue database. This classification was further confirmed through calibrationby analysis of many ships.The standards for fabrication and structural detailing of naval vessels may be higher thanfor typical commercial vessels. As a test of this hypothesis, some of the ships were reanalyzedconsidering the details to be Class F, which has a greater fatigue life than Class F2. The aboveresults show the predictions of failure to be reduced with this assumption, although not entirelyeliminated for all classes of ships analyzed.On the other hand, many U.S. Navy ships are historically prone to corrosion in areasalong the interior of the side shell in way of the exterior waterline. This corrosion may indicatecoating failure due to high strains in the structure, providing some validation of the results of theSafeHull analysis. It is also possible that the ABS Phase A secondary loads are overlyconservative in the region of the side shell near the waterline.The analyses themselves may also be somewhat conservative because the effect oflongitudinally continuous deckhouses on longitudinal strength was not included. The effect ofthe deckhouses is to reduce hull girder stress, reducing a portion of the fatigue loading.However, this will have little effect on the structure near the waterline, because this is near thehull girder neutral axis, and therefore has little primary stress from hull girder vertical bending.Lateral bending in this area may be significant, but the effect of the deckhouse on lateral strengthis much less than its effect on vertical strength.The greatest reason for lack of failures that were predicted by the SafeHull analysis is inthe actual operating conditions that the ships encounter compared to the operating conditionsassumed by SafeHull. As discussed in Chapter 3, the development of the ABS allowable stressranges for fatigue assumed that containerships operate in the North Atlantic for 80 percent of thetime over a 20-year period. Ship speed is assumed to be 75 percent of full speed at all times, andall headings relative to the waves encountered are assumed to be equally probable. However,U.S. Navy combatant ships are at sea for about 35 percent of the time, operate over a wide rangeof speeds, and tend to take preferred headings in relation to heavier seas. Because of the9-24 24

Fatigue Analysis of Existing Shipsdifference in percentage of operability, 20 years of service life for a containership is equivalentto 48 years of service life for a typical naval vessel. Furthermore, U.S. Navy combatant shipstypical operate in a more benign environment than the North Atlantic. The analysis of thischange in operational environment was shown in Chapter 3 to extend the fatigue life of structuraldetails by a factor of two. The combination of percentage of time at sea and change in operatingconditions make the 20 years of service life inherent in the SafeHull analysis equivalent to about96 years of operations for a typical naval vessel.These differences in assumptions of operations reduces the apparent conservatism in theSafeHull analysis, because none of the naval vessels analyzed saw more than 35 years of service,some are just beginning their service life, and one is still in the construction phase. In Chapter11, means of modifying the results of the SafeHull analysis to adjust for changes in operabilityand service conditions will be discussed.Because none of the ships analyzed have seen failures in service at the locations analyzedby SafeHull, full calibration of the method may not be possible. Calibration is the criticalelement in the SafeHull development for the three ship types. Efforts to compare a design whereoperations are different, with limited failure data, and no other method of fatigue analysis for thedesign, permit only limited ability to demonstrate the utility of SafeHull.For most areas of the hull structure, SafeHull predicts adequate fatigue life, a result thatcorrelates with experience of the ships in service. This correlation does not necessarily meanthat the SafeHull approach is conservative. For example, if SafeHull is underpredicting hullgirder bending moments, it may predict adequate fatigue life of deck longitudinals. However, itis possible the actual hull girder bending moments the ship is seeing are higher the SafeHullmoments, but not high enough to cause fatigue failures.9.4 Phase B AnalysisThe Phase B analysis consists of an expansion on the Phase A analysis by using a finiteelement analysis of the ship to determine stresses. The requirement is for a “3-bay” model thatencompasses three cargo holds in the middle of a typical containership. For a naval vessel, thecorresponding section would be the space between the transverse bulkheads forward and aft ofmidships, and the additional spaces defined by the transverse bulkheads immediately forwardand aft of these bulkheads.For development of the finite element model, SafeHull Phase B takes the definition oflongitudinally continuous structure defined in Phase A and extends it along the length of thefinite element model. This development of the finite element model is done in the programModeler, which is part of SafeHull. The location of transverse frames and other transversesections that define the length of individual plate and stiffener elements are defined by the user.Two options exist, coarse mesh and fine mesh analysis. Coarse mesh analysis generally makesplate elements as wide as the strakes that were defined in Phase A. Fine mesh analysis breaksthe model at each longitudinal stiffener as defined in Phase A.9-25

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueIn this analysis of Ship G, the coarse mesh option was chosen so that the length ofelements would be one transverse frame spacing, and the width of elements would beapproximately within a factor of two of the length. This led to a somewhat unusual finiteelement mesh because the Phase A strake definition was not made considering its effect on thePhase B finite element model. Where there was a change of shell plating thickness close to deckor other intersecting member, a separate strake was defined. Therefore, some of the elementshave a very high aspect ratio.The ABS Modeler program does not develop transverse frames or transverse bulkheadsfor containerships. There is a program that does this called Model Builder, which is available fortankers and for bulk carriers, but the containership version is still under development. Therefore,the transverse frames and scantlings of transverse bulkheads must be individually entered in theABS Modeler program. With the coarse mesh definition of decks, the arrangement of finiteelement grid points at each deck is sparse, and insufficient to input all of the vertical stiffeners onthe bulkheads. To provide the necessary in-plane stiffness, membrane plate elements were usedin a coarse mesh at each bulkhead, with a few auxiliary points manually added to define theelements. The somewhat irregular resulting finite element mesh was considered sufficient forthis analysis because the stress in the bulkhead does not enter into the fatigue analysis ofstiffeners. The resulting finite element model is shown in Figures 9.17 and 9.18.ZYXFwdFigure 9.17 SafeHull Phase B Finite Element Model of Ship G9-26 26

Fatigue Analysis of Existing ShipsYFwdXZFigure 9.18 Interior of SafeHull Phase B Finite Element Model of Ship GThe containership version of the SafeHull Phase B program was not able to develop theloads for the finite element model. The difficulty arose from lack of longitudinal bulkheads orinner skin on the naval ship modeled. The containership version uses that internal structure forthe application of torsional loads on the hull girder, and their absence resulted in failure of theprogram to develop loading. Because of the structure of the program, failure in this one arearesulted the program aborting, and leaving no loads defined on the model.After conferring with the staff of the ABS SafeHull section, it was determined that theonly way that loading could be developed for the model in SafeHull would be to use the tankerversion of the program. This was done, and a full NASTRAN model, including loads andboundary constraints was developed. Table 9.3 compares the loading between the tanker andcontainership versions of SafeHull. The comparison is made based on the data for the analysis ofShip G.Table 9.3 Comparison of Tanker and Containership SafeHull LoadingsBased on SafeHull Version 6.0 (Rules 2000)SafeHullTanker Containership NotesPhase B LoadingShip Motion 5-1-3/5.7.1(a) Pitch(1997)5-5-3/5.5.1(a) (1998) identical5-1-3/5.7.1(b) Roll 5-5-3/5.5.1(b) (1998) Small difference(1995)k 0 0.86 +0.048V - 0.47C b 1.09 + 0.029V - 0.47C b -13%k s 11/2k o +24%9-27

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueSafeHullPhase B LoadingCombined LoadCasesTanker Containership Notes5-1-3/Table 1L.C. 1 to L.C. 85-5-3/Table 1L.C. 1 to L.C. 8Tanker Version1) No ContainerCargo Load2) No TorsionEffects3) No SloshingLoadsHull Girder Loads Boundary forces areapplied at both end ofthe 3-tank-length modelto produce the specifiedhull girder bendingmoment of each loadcase as in Table 1 at themiddle of the structuralmodelExternal Pressure 5-1-3/5.3.1k = 1Internal TankPressureSame as in Tanker.However, the waveinduced (dynamic)bending moment isabout 24% higher thanby using Tanker version.5-5-3/5.3.1k = k sdynamic load is alsoabout 24% higher thanby using Tanker version5-1-3/5.7.2 5-5-3/5.5.3inertia load is about13% lower than byusing Tanker versionK C factors are thesame for Tankerand ContainershipK C and k f0 factorsare the same forTanker andContainershipKc, wv, wl, wt,pitch and rollfactors are thesame for Tankerand ContainershipThe NASTRAN model was run successfully, and the results evaluated using the postprocessorFEMAP. A typical view of hull stresses is shown in Figures 9.19 and 9.20.9-28 28

Fatigue Analysis of Existing Ships1500.1300.1100.900.700.500.300.100.-100.-300.-500.-700.-900.Y-1100.ZX-1300.Output Set: LCG 47 Case 1Contour: Plate Top Y Normal Stress-1500.Figure 9.19 Typical Stress Plots from NASTRAN Analysis (kg/cm 2 )1500.1300.1100.900.700.500.300.100.-100.-300.-500.-700.-900.Y-1100.ZX-1300.Output Set: LCG 47 Case 2Contour: Plate Top Y Normal Stress-1500.Figure 9.20 Typical Stress Plots of Bottom from NASTRAN Analysis (kg/cm 2 )9-29

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueSafeHull Phase B does not have a program module for conduct of fatigue analysis as inPhase A. The intention of using the finite element model for fatigue analysis is to determinestress distributions that would be different from the hull girder beam bending analysis that isused in Phase A. Additionally, any irregularities in the structure that could cause stressconcentrations and possible fatigue problems can be modeled, and the resulting local stress rangeused to make a fatigue analysis of these areas.For fatigue analysis, the proper dynamic stress range should be determined according tothe ABS Rules (Part 5-5-A1/7.5 Resulting Stress Ranges) as follows:1. Dynamic stress range = global dynamic stress range + local dynamic stress range2. Global dynamic stress range is calculated by pairs of combined loading cases, such asL.C. 1 & 2, L.C. 3 & 4 for Zone A (deck and bottom structures) and L.C. 5 & 6, L.C.7 & 8, L.C. 9 & 10, and L.C. F1 & F2 for Zone B (side structures)3. Global dynamic stress = total stress (static + dynamic) - static stress4. Local dynamic stress = local bending stress due to dynamic pressure onlyThe objective of the 3-dimensional global finite element analysis is to1. Perform strength evaluation (yielding and bucking) and2. Obtain boundary displacements for the subsequent 2-dimensional fine-mesh finiteelement analysis for main supporting members’ strength evaluation (yielding andbuckling). This is the current procedure of the SafeHull Phase B system.However, the results of the global dynamic stress range should be very close in Phase Aand Phase B 3-dimensional finite element analysis for the fatigue analysis of longitudinals. Inthe current demonstration, details of the structure were not modeled, and the results were usedonly to modify the Phase A fatigue analysis. Because a fine mesh model was not generated forstiffeners and their associated structural details, the local stresses computed in phase A were usedwith the global hull girder bending stresses computed in Phase B. The stress at each longitudinalfor which fatigue analysis had been made in Phase A was determined for each of the ten loadconditions applied to the model. These stresses were taken in pairs, such as Case 1 with Case 2,Case 3 with Case 4, etc. to determine global stress ranges. The resulting stress ranges weresubstituted for the Phase A global stresses, and the resulting analysis for typical locations shownin Tables 9.4 and 9.5. The results for all locations are provided in Appendix G. Figure 9.21shows the ratio of maximum stress range to fatigue-permissible stress range for all locationsanalyzed.9-30 30

Fatigue Analysis of Existing ShipsTable 9.4 Comparison of SafeHull Phase A and Phase B Analyses for Ship GSTF#Stiffener TOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )UnsupSpan(m)LoadCase#C mLocalLoadRngStress Range(kg/cm 2 )PHASE A ANALYSISFATIGCLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm 2 )RatioofStressGlobalStressRangePHASE BANALYSISCombinedStressRangeRatioofStress(m) f RG f RL f R P S f R /PS f RG f R f R /PS1 Bottom Long'l 1 A/ 1 0 268 2.3 1&2 0.85 5.23 2249 470 2196 F2 0.889 2611 0.84 960 1155 0.44F/ 2 0 268 2.3 1&2 0.85 5.23 2249 470 2196 F2 0.889 2611 0.84 1155 0.4412 Side Long'l 18 A/ 1 6.61 156 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 13 1472 1473 2798 F2 0.928 2443 1.15 1185 2525 1.03F/ 2 6.61 156 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 13 1472 1473 2798 F2 0.928 2443 1.15 2525 1.0319 01 Lvl Long'l 12 A/ 1 12.8 101 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2580 2451 0.87F/ 2 12.8 101 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2451 0.8732 I.B. Long'l 1 A/ 1 1.4 156 2.3 1&2 1.00 0.48 1938 75 1912 F2 0.889 2611 0.73 209 270 0.10F/ 2 1.4 156 2.3 1&2 1.00 0.48 1938 75 1912 F2 0.889 2611 0.73 270 0.1047 1st Plat Long'l 9 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1499 0 1424 F2 0.889 2611 0.55 532 505 0.19F/ 2 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1499 0 1424 F2 0.889 2611 0.55 505 0.1958 2nd Plat Lg'l 10 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1600 0 1520 F2 0.889 2611 0.58 863.2 820 0.31F/ 2 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1600 0 1520 F2 0.889 2611 0.58 820 0.3159 I.B. Girder 2 A/ 1 0.8 62 2.4 1&2 1.00 0 2067 0 1963 F2 0.889 2611 0.75 786 746 0.29F/ 1 0.8 62 2.4 1&2 1.00 0 2067 0 1963 F2 0.889 2611 0.75 746 0.2964 Mn Dk Long'l 12 A/ 1 10.06 70 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1766 0 1678 F2 0.909 2514 0.67 1503 1429 0.57F/ 2 10.06 70 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1766 0 1678 F2 0.909 2514 0.67 1429 0.579-31

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueCutoutLABEL ID LOCFATIGCLASSTable 9.5 SafeHull Phase B Analysis of Fatigue of Flat Bars for Ship GLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)SCFPhase A AnalysisStress Range(kg/cm2)PS fs fL fRifR/PSPhase B AnalysisStress Range(kg/cm2)fs fL fRiBTM10604 2 1 F2 0.889 2611 1.5 138 1953 1964 0.75 138 1453 1468 0.562 F2 0.889 2611 1.25 138 1953 1961 0.75 138 1453 1463 0.56[Weld Throat] W 0.889 1883 1.25 138 0 273 0.14 138 0 173 0.09SHL10908 1 1 F2 0.928 2443 1.5 546 2798 2915 1.19 546 2525 2655 1.092 F2 0.928 2443 1 546 2798 2851 1.17 546 2525 2584 1.06[Weld Throat] W 0.928 1760 1.25 546 0 ***** NaN 546 0 ***** NaNfR/PS9-32

Fatigue Analysis of Existing ShipsFigure 9.21 Phase B Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Details for Ship GStress Range /Permissible Range2.001.801.601.401.201.000.800.600.400.200.00Phase B Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Detailsfor Ship GBottom Long'l 1Bottom Long'l 7Bottom Long'l 11Side Long'l 16Side Long'l 21Side Long'l 2601 Lvl Long'l 1201 Lvl Long'l 901 Lvl Long'l 601 Lvl Long'l 301 Lvl Long'l ClI.B. Long'l 5IB Margin Long'l1st Plat Long'l 21st Plat Long'l 51st Plat Long'l 8Location2nd Plat Long'l 12nd Plat Long'l 42nd Plat Long'l 72nd Plat Long'l 10I.B. Girder 6Main Dk Long'l 12Main Dk Long'l 9Main Dk Long'l 6Main Dk Long'l 3Main Dk Long'l ClPhase B Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Barsfor Ship G2Stress Range /Permissible Range1.81.61.41.210.80.60.40.20BTM10604[Weld Throat]SHL10102[Weld Throat]SHL10404[Weld Throat]SHL10706[Weld Throat]SHL10908[Weld Throat]LocationSHL11010[Weld Throat]SHL11212[Weld Throat]SHS10102[Weld Throat]Tables 9.4 and 9.5 include the results of the Phase A analysis for comparison with thePhase B analysis. As can be seen, the global hull girder bending stress for the Phase B analysisis less than from the Phase A analysis, resulting in fewer structural details failing the fatiguecriteria. This difference is due to two reasons; reduced loads from the tanker version and fromgreater section modulus in the Phase B model than in the Phase A model. It was noted in Table9.3 that the coefficient k s is 24 percent less for a tanker than for a containership. This coefficient9-33

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatigueis applied to the vertical wave bending moments and shears, so it directly affects the stresscomputed in the finite element model.The SafeHull program presents the hull girder section modulus in the file ShipName.OSCin Phase A, and in the file ShipName.LST in Phase B. Table 9.6 compares the section modulifor both cases. The Phase B model had significantly greater section moduli. This may a result ofthe model Phase B finite element model not being modified to include deck openings.Table 9.6 Comparison of Phase A and Phase B Section Moduli for Ship GPhase A Phase B DifferenceSection Modulus to Deck (cm 2 -m) 53,890 63,480 +18%Section Modulus to Keel (cm 2 -m) 54,100 66,100 +22%The effects of the difference in loads between the tanker and containership versions ofSafeHull have a marked difference in the results. Table 9.3 shows that the coefficient k s is 24percent greater for the containership than for the tanker. This coefficient is applied to thevertical hull girder bending moments and shears, which are therefore 24 percent greater for thesame ship if it is considered to be a containership, rather than a tanker. The effect of thedifference in global and local stresses is shown in Table 9.7. Therefore, had there been asuccessful Phase B analysis of Ship G as a containership, the results would have been moresevere than those shown in Tables 9.4 and 9.5, Figure 9.21, and Appendix G.Table 9.7 Difference between Tanker and ContainershipFatigue Analysis of Typical Stiffener of Ship GStiffener #11C f = 0.95 f R = C f x (f RG + f RL )f RG f RL f R PS f R /PSContainership 1517.0 1655.0 3013.4 2443 1.23Tanker 1152.9 1257.8 2410.7 2443 0.99There are still predicted fatigue failures for the Class F2 details analyzed. Although thisclass of ships has had numerous fatigue failures in service, those failures have not been at thelocations analyzed. To determine the likelihood of failures in locations other than thoseanalyzed, a detailed finite element analysis is required. Such is the intent of a Phase B analysis,and SafeHull Phase B provides the loads for such a detailed analysis as well as acceptancecriteria that are consistent with the loads and analysis procedure. However, because such loadsapparently cannot be applied to a ship with the geometry of the ship analyzed, such a proceduredoes not appear to be feasible for analysis of naval vessels. Furthermore, because the SafeHullprogram does not currently include the means of automatically retrieving key stresses for thefatigue analysis, a significant amount of manual review of finite element analysis results isrequired. Therefore, the use of SafeHull for a Phase B fatigue analysis of a naval vessel is of9-34 34

Fatigue Analysis of Existing Shipsquestionable value. However, if a full understanding of the loads applied in SafeHull is madeavailable, these can be applied to a finite element model produced by other means, and theresulting stresses compared with the ABS allowable fatigue stress ranges to determine if thestructure is adequate for fatigue. This failure to provide full information on all of the appliedloads is a shortcoming of the program, which will be addressed in Section 10.9.5 SummaryThe SafeHull Phase A program in the containership version can be rather easily appliedto the fatigue analysis of longitudinal stiffeners of typical naval vessels. However, ships lessthan 130 meters long require a special version of the program that is not distributed by ABS.The analysis of ten different ships showed that the only areas subject to fatigue failure arestiffeners on the side shell. However, none of the ships analyzed have reported any fatiguecracking in this area, although some have been susceptible to corrosion damage.Naval vessels typically operate for a smaller percentage of time and in a less severeenvironment than was assumed by ABS for development of allowable fatigue stress ranges forcontainerships. The difference between the assumed and actual operating conditions can helpexplain why the SafeHull fatigue analysis appears to be overly conservative when comparingpredicted failures to experience. Most of the ships analyzed have had 20 or more years ofservice without the occurrence of fatigue failures at the locations indicated by the SafeHullanalysis. During that time, they typically operated for about 35 percent of the time, and mostlyin benign sea states. Therefore, it can not be said that the SafeHull analysis is overlyconservative, as these ships have seen less fatigue loading than is assumed to occur over the 20-year life of a typical containership.The significant difference between predicted and actual failures can also be due todifferences in commercial and naval fabrication standards. Furthermore, the structural details ofthe naval vessels differ in some aspects from the details included in the SafeHull library ofdetails. Adjustment of the fatigue class from Class F2 to Class F in the analysis significantlyreduced the number of predicted fatigue failures. A detailed analysis of fatigue life of typicaldetails for naval vessels is required before firm conclusions can be made.The Phase A analysis is limited to analysis of sections of the ship that are longitudinallycontinuous. This study looked only at midships, but similar analyses could be made at differentsections of the ships analyzed. However, the Phase A program does not analyze largerdiscontinuities, such as breaks in superstructures, irregularly spaced large deck openings, andother irregularities in the structure of naval vessels that have been the cause of fatigue failures ofthe ships in service. Analysis of these discontinuities requires a detailed finite element analysis,such as is conducted in Phase B.The Phase B analysis procedure provides allowable stress ranges that are consistent witha standardized set of loads that is applied to a finite element model of the ship. This constitutes acalibrated methodology for detailed fatigue assessment of containerships and other ship types forwhich the SafeHull was intended. If that method could be applied to a detailed finite element9-35

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatiguemodel of a naval vessel, insight could be gained on the validity of that methodology for theanalysis of such ships. Unfortunately, the current version of the SafeHull containership programwill not apply Phase B loads to a ship that does not have an inner skin, a necessary feature thatprecludes most naval vessels. Therefore, the current Phase B containership version of theSafeHull program is not useful for the fatigue analysis of naval vessels. The tanker version canbe used, but the difference in loading for full-form, slow-speed tankers compared to fine-hulled,high-speed naval vessels reduces the viability of that approach.9-36 36

10. Shortcomings/Limitations of the SafeHull Approachfor Fatigue Analysis of Naval Vessels10.1 PurposeThe purpose of this chapter is to present the shortcomings and limitations of ABS fatiguedesign practices and approaches when applied to naval vessels. The basis for this assessment isthe analysis of the hull structure of 10 current and past U.S. and Canadian naval vessels, whichwas described in Chapter 9.10.2 IntroductionThere are a variety of commercial methods available for conduct of fatigue analysis ofship structures. In this project, only one of these programs, the SafeHull program developed byABS, was used to determine the fatigue life of typical naval vessels. There are many factors tobe considered in the development of a standardized methodology for fatigue analysis. TheSafeHull program represents a methodology that is sufficiently different from current practice innaval ships to be a useful demonstration. Furthermore, because of its commercial availabilitywith an existing staff to address users’ problems, the program is a good candidate for expandeduse if the shortcomings and limitations uncovered can be resolved.At the beginning of this project, SafeHull was available in three programs (identified as“Navigators”): one for Tankers, one for Bulk Carriers and one for Container Ships. The latterversion was selected for use on this Task. The Containership version of SafeHull was used forseveral reasons.1. Most modern containerships are high speed vessels with relatively fine hull forms.Operating speeds are generally in the 20–25 knot speed range, compared to about 30knots for a typical combatant ship. These similarities in hull form will result insimilar responses of the ships to the seas encountered. The SafeHull loadingspectrum was calibrated for containerships, but should be roughly equivalent forcombatant ships operating in the same sea conditions.2. Containerships generally have bulbous bows for increased speed. The shape of thesebulbs is different from the bow sonar domes that many modern combatant ships have,but would be expected to have a similar effect on bow slamming.3. Many containerships have large bow flare to help keep boarding seas from damagingdeck cargo and to increase the beam forward for greater cargo volume. Similarly,many combatant ships have large bow flare to reduce the effect of boarding seas. Thecontainership version of SafeHull has an algorithm for computing the effect of bowflare on slamming and hull girder whipping, and that is important for fatigue analysis.4. All three ship types, tankers, bulk carriers, and containerships are longitudinallyframed, and the SafeHull procedures reflect this structural arrangement. There aresome significant differences however. The tanker version of SafeHull only addresses10-1

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatiguedouble hulls, and although combatant ships generally have double bottoms, as docontainerships, they do not generally have double hull structure on the side, as dotankers. Bulk carriers have upper and lower wing tanks with sloping sides, and thisgeometry would be difficult to adapt to the structural configuration of a combatantship. With the varieties in structural arrangement of a containership capable of beinginput to SafeHull, a reasonable representation of a combatant ship could be made. Itwas recognized that the configuration of combatants is significantly different thanthat of any of the three types of commercial ships that the SafeHull programs address.Nevertheless, evaluation of this type of issue is the reason for this project.Most of the shortcomings and limitations uncovered relate to the loading of the structureand on the types of structural details that can be analyzed. The version of the containershipprogram that is distributed by ABS for commercial use is limited to ships that have a length of130 meters or more. However, a special version of the program for shorter ships of was madeavailable by ABS.There are basic differences in methods of fatigue analysis and factors that must beconsidered in the development of standardized methods for fatigue analysis, either commercialor military. These differences have been discussed in the previous chapters, and are outlinedbelow.I. Technical differences in fatigue analysisA. Approach,1. S-N fatigue crack initiation analysis2. da/dN fatigue crack growth analysisB. Loading Analysis1. Spectral Fatigue Analysis2. Weibull Distribution3. Standardized Loadsa. Hull Girder Bending momentsb. Side Loadsc. Generalized RAO’sC. Fatigue Detail Database1. Specialized database2. Standardized curvesD. Hot-Spot stress approachE. Inclusion of Hull Girder WhippingF. Acceptable Probability of FailureG. Standardized Operating ConditionsII.Commercial vs. MilitaryA. Calibration of Weibull Loading Spectra for Ship Types and Operating ConditionsB. Development of Standard Bending Moments for ship TypesC. Development of RAO’s and Whipping Moments for Ship TypesD. Differences in Assumed Operating Conditions10-2 2

Shortcomings/LimitationsIII.Standardization of MethodA. Selection of MethodologyB. Adaptation to Specific ConditionsThere are considerable differences between the historical approaches to the structuraldesign of military and commercial ships for environmental loads. These differences havediminished in recent years as the commercial procedures have evolved to include structuraldesign based on analytically developed loads and detailed stress analysis. Both the ABS DLAapproach and the current U.S. Navy approach use definition of loads made by analysis of typicalships, and generalize the results for future designs. The approaches, in general, provide fordirect computation of ship response and for differences in assumed operational profiles. Thedifferences between procedures may diminish in the future as the classification societies developrules for military ships and the military authorities adopt these rules. The degree of differencewill not be able to be ascertained until ships are designed using the new rules, and the scantlingsso developed are compared to equivalent ships designed under the old approach. An importantdifference as far as fatigue life of structure will be which approach will result in heavierscantlings, and thus have an inherently greater fatigue life. In either case, because fatigueassessment has now become standard practice for both commercial and military ship design,either approach should result in satisfactory fatigue lives.There is nothing inherent in either a commercial or military ship that should affect theoverall methodology. However, the current commercial and military fatigue philosophy isdifferent. The ABS approach is to prevent fatigue cracking in general to and assess details inhighly stressed areas important to safety. The U.S. Navy approach is to prevent fatigue cracking(safe life). These differences in approach come from historical development and preferences inthe organizations developing the methods. There are unique features associated with specificship types and operating environments that can affect a standardized method. The objective ofthis study is to determine if a standardized method developed from a set of assumptions on hullform, operating environment, and type of structural details can be used in conditions in whichthose assumptions have changed.If a methodology developed for commercial ships is applied to military ships, adetermination is needed to as to how much difference will there be in results. A broader questioncan be asked as to the degree of accuracy of any methodology. The paucity of real data points ofwell-documented service experience combined with the inherent variability in analyses makescalibration poor. Application of fatigue analysis to design and assessment of existing shipsseems to be pointing in the right direction for identification of bad actors in the structure thatshould be fixed, but there is still a lot of inconsistency in results between areas that have crackedand the fatigue predictions. However, comparison of analysis with service failures on operatingships is somewhat shaky, with both unpredicted failures and predictions that are not borne out byexperience.The question then is what would be the changes required to the commercial approach todevelop an approach acceptable for analysis of military ships. Guidance will be provided inChapter 11 to modify the ABS simplified method of analysis to account for time at sea. Note thatthe assumptions currently made by ABS on operability, such as tanker operation for 90 percent10-3

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatigueof the year, are not directly supported by accurate records of actual hours underway, but theassumptions are based on experience with ship operations.A method will also be provided in Chapter 11 to account for differences in the S-Ndatabase and assumptions of linearity vice bilinear S-N curves. This method will permit use ofspecific S-N data for a unique detail, although if such information is not available, the methodshould use the S-N curves used to do the benchmarking of the standardized method, and notother S-N curves, no matter how widely recognized they may be.Because of the inherent nature of assumptions of operating areas and operating conditionsin the development of fatigue spectra, a method has not been developed to account fordifferences in these areas. This limitation is not as important as others are because both the U.S.Navy and ABS are currently using North Atlantic operations as the standard for design, eventhough actual service conditions will vary.If the ABS SafeHull approach for fatigue analysis is to be made useable for analysis of abroader range of ship types, then more options in the parameters must be made available optionalso the user can select the option they prefer. The use of SafeHull as a tool for fatigue analysis ofnaval vessels is limited because each of the SafeHull program modules has been customized fora specific ship type. Naval ships are not one of these specific types. A broader approach todesign and analysis of ship structure is provided by the ABS Dynamic Loading Approach (DLA)and the ABS procedure for Spectral Fatigue analysis. The DLA approach for containerships isdocumented in the ABS Analysis Procedure Manual for the Dynamic Loading Approach forContainer Carriers (ABS, 1993). A more general description of the DLA procedure is providedin the ABS report Dynamic Loading Approach for Monohull Vessels (ABS 1999).Documentation for the Spectral Fatigue analysis is under development.Application of a standardized computer program that was developed for a particular typeof vessel to an entirely different type for which use was not contemplated is bound to be fraughtwith difficulties. It should not be surprising then that there were many problems encountered intrying to adapt the Phase A and Phase B modules of SafeHull to the fatigue analysis of navalships. The following shortcomings described for SafeHull are illustrative of the types ofdifficulties that can be encountered.10.3 Phase A ShortcomingsThe SafeHull program is under continuous development, including the correction ofprogram errors and clarification of the required data entry by users. Because the program wasnot being used in its intended way for this project, many difficulties were encountered whichwould not have occurred in the analysis of a containership. Other problems were encounteredbecause the analysts had neither used the program previously nor attended the training classesoffered by ABS. Information on all of these problems was provided to the ABS SafeHull staff,which will try to make the input requirements more general to minimize such problems in thefuture.There are several areas of analysis that have an effect on fatigue of the ship structure of atypical naval ship that are not addressed in SafeHull Phase A. Fatigue at deck openings,10-4 4

Shortcomings/Limitationsespecially large openings in way of machinery spaces and weapons systems can be a problem innaval ships. The SafeHull analysis routines for fatigue of hatch corners are not generalizedenough to be able to treat these areas. Discontinuities in the structure, such as the ends ofdeckhouses and superstructure are common areas of fatigue cracking in naval ships. There is noPhase A option for the treatment of these areas, even in a generic fashion. Stress from thegrillage behavior of the innerbottom structure is not as important an issue for naval ships as forships with large unsupported innerbottoms such as containerships. However, the analysis of theinnerbottom grillage that is performed in Phase A is not used for the fatigue analysis of thosemembers, and that can be a significant shortcoming. Likewise, transverse members canexperience fatigue damage, but the Phase A fatigue analysis does not address this aspect of thesemembers.In addition to the dimensional information such as length, depth, breadth, etc., therequired data includes the Block Coefficient (C b ) of the ship. A note highlights the fact that theC b must be 0.60 or greater. The value for Ship J is 0.48. Although the documentation does notso state, a default value of 0.60 is used for any values of C b that are less than 0.60.The material zone data entry screen’s list boxes include only the ABS grades ofcommercial steels, with no ability to add to the library of material types. For the analysis ofnaval ships, the nearest commercial equivalents to the naval steels used Ship J were selected.This shortcoming in the input data has no effect on fatigue analysis because it is assumed that thefatigue behavior of welded structural details is independent of the alloy used. The input forSafeHull is entirely in the metric system. Standard U.S. structural shapes are not included in theSafeHull stiffener library, even in their metric equivalents. Input to the program must be donemanually, with no direct way of addressing such data items as tables of offsets. The format usedby the SafeHull program does not lend itself to editors such as Word or Excel to perform thisfunction nor provide generalized offset tables to be electronically captured and directly used bythe program. Manual entry of the individual Y and Z offsets of various waterplanes for eachsection is required. These shortcomings can be overcome, but they make the use of the programmore difficult.By contrast with these shortcomings associated with use of SafeHull for fatigue analysisof naval ships, the ability to develop SafeHull input for commercial ships continues to improve.A direct interface has recently been developed between SafeHull and two systems used in shipdesign to develop a 3D-product model of a ship, the Tribon system and the FORAN system(ABS, 2000b). Translator programs generate interface files that are imported into SafeHull foranalysis, the results of which are then supplied back into the Tribon or FORAN system tocompare ABS Rule requirements directly with the design.10.4 Phase A LimitationsThere are limitations in assessment of fatigue in Phase A. Phase A only addressesstiffener end connections and hatch corner detail for large deck openings that approach thoseseen on container ships• Fatigue Analysis is performed only for longitudinals at their intersection with transverseframes and for flat bar stiffeners at those transverse frames.• A limited number of cutout details are available for the transverse frames.10-5

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatigue• Other types of stiffeners, such as tee stiffeners are not available for the transverseframes.• A fatigue analysis of the transverse frame at its intersection with the longitudinal is notmade if there is no flat bar at all.• The fatigue analysis of hatch corners for containerships is based on the stresses thatoccur at the corners of large hatch openings and are caused by hull torsion. However,for naval vessels, torsional stresses are not an issue. However, there are numerous deckopenings that are prone to fatigue failure from hull girder bending stresses. Theprogram does not address these openings.• A longitudinal stiffener can not be made ineffective in longitudinal strength unless theassociated plating is also made ineffective.• The loading on decks is limited for several reasons. Adjacent tanks may not be cargotanks, and so void tanks must be used, which generate no loads. The methodology ofgenerating loads on cargo decks is not clear, but should be modified so that live deckloads or dead loads can be defined by the user. Further limitations exist because only10 tanks can be defined within one structural cross-section. This is a limitation formore complex naval vessels that have many compartments.• The number of stiffeners to be used is limited. Within one cross-section of the hull, thelimit is 150, and on any plate panel there can be a maximum of 15.In addition, there are underlying differences in the methodology used in SafeHullcompared to the methodology currently used in fatigue analysis of naval vessels. For example,Chapter 6 identifies that U.S. Navy predictions of the maximum lifetime bending moments are 1½ to 2 times the ABS moments. This difference in maximum lifetime moments may not affectthe moments in the regime of 10 5 – 10 7 cycles where the maximum fatigue damage occurs, but itis difficult to determine this from the information available on loads.10.5 Phase B Shortcomings and LimitationsThe major shortcoming to the user of the SafeHull Phase B Containership program is thedifficulty of creating a finite element model from the Phase A data. For tankers and bulkcarriers, program modules called Model Builder for Tanker and Model Builder for Bulk Carrierhave been developed. A similar Model Builder for Container Carriers is currently beingdeveloped by ABS. Therefore, the difficulties that were encountered in creating a Phase Bmodel will not be discussed, as the procedure will be changed in future versions of the program.The major limitation in the application of the SafeHull Phase B program to naval vesselsis the requirement that ships analyzed have inner skins. This limitation precludes the analysis ofmost naval vessels. With this limitation, the containership version of the program could not beexercised for the fatigue analysis of a naval vessel.There are currently no features built into the Phase B software for the conduct of fatigueanalysis. The program does assess maximum stress and buckling strength through specialroutines that extract relevant information from the output of the finite element analysis and applythe resulting loads to the structure. Without such features for fatigue analysis, most of the work10-6 6

Shortcomings/Limitationsof Phase B fatigue analysis is a manual effort by the user, not an automated process of theprogram.The reason for this limitation is that the intention in Phase B is to apply the fatiguecriteria inherent in the ABS approach to specific structural details. These details must bedeveloped as separate fine-mesh finite element models, either 2-D or 3-D. The range of stress toapply is determined by taking the appropriate pair of conditions such as roll to port and roll tostarboard. Automating such a process would not seem to be feasible, because the assumption isthat the details to be analyzed are different from standardized details previously used. It wouldseem extremely difficult for a computer programmer to develop such a method that would becapable of addressing all possible and sometimes innovative variations in structural detailing.10.6 SummaryThere are many significant differences between the various approaches, both commercialand naval, for fatigue assessment of ship structures. These differences were summarized inChapter 2. This chapter has reviewed these differences from the perspective of modifying one ofthe commercial approaches, the ABS SafeHull program, so that it can be used for design andanalysis of naval ships.The ABS SafeHull program can provide a calibrated basis for assessment of fatiguestrength of naval vessels. However, the limitations in the program preclude its use for theanalysis of all areas of the structure. A more general commercial approach to fatigue analysis ofnaval vessels is available through the ABS Dynamic Loading Approach and the associatedSpectral Fatigue approach. This approach should be evaluated for application to typical navalvessels as SafeHull has been evaluated in this current project.A principal limitation associated with any standardized and calibrated approach is thatonly the methodology associated with the calibration process should be considered as valid forfuture use. If there are significant differences between the structure and operating environmentof the ship to be analyzed and the assumptions made in developing the standardized method, thenthat method loses validity. However, the differences between military ships and commercialships may be so significantly different that a recalibration of the methodology may be necessary.To facilitate this, the ABS SafeHull program would have to be modified to provide more optionsto the user. If this were done, the ABS methodology could be used with current U.S. Navy suchas the Ochi 6 parameter sea spectra, linear S-N curves, U.S. Navy operational profiles,operability, service life, and wave height probabilities. It may even be possible to include theinclusion of the U.S. Navy SPECTRA program into the SafeHull program.10-7

11. Suggested Modifications to the SafeHull Approachfor Fatigue Analysis of Naval Vessels11.1 PurposeThe purpose of this chapter is to present the modification that should be made to the ABSfatigue design practices and approaches when applied to naval vessels. The basis for thisassessment is the analysis of the hull structure of 10 current and past U.S. and Canadian navalvessels, which was described in Chapter 9.11.2 IntroductionThere are three different categories of modifications to be made: modifications of inputby the user, modifications to the SafeHull output by the user, and suggested changes in theSafeHull software that would make such analyses more applicable to naval vessels. Chapter 2discussed many of the considerations made in the development of SafeHull, which did notinclude creating a program sufficiently general to address any type of vessel. The followingrepresents a minimal list of modifications to be made using the current software. Because thefinal analysis must be more fully calibrated that has been done in this effort, it may be moreefficient in the long run to make basic changes to the software so that naval ships can beanalyzed without modification of input, and then perform the calibration exercise.11.3 Modifications of SafeHull Input by the UserThe SafeHull suite of programs was developed for the analysis of three very specifictypes of ships. This project used the containership version of SafeHull, which was not developedfor naval ships. The analysis of naval ships with SafeHull was not intended in its development.To be able to make the analysis at all, the user had to provide input that did not alwayscorrespond to the intended format. These changes are described in the draft “Guide for the useof Commercial Design Standards for Fatigue Analysis in Naval Ship Design” that is providedwith the final report of this project.11.4 Modifications of SafeHull Output by the UserThe fatigue analysis results from SafeHull must, in general, be modified when applied tonaval vessels for several reasons:• The number of days of operation over the lifetime of a typical naval vessel isdifferent than the 5,840 days that result from operating 80 percent of the time for 20years that was assumed in the development of SafeHull.• The typical operating environment for a naval vessel is less severe than the NorthAtlantic operations assumed in the SafeHull development. Designers may not wish11-1

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatigueto make this modification for new ship design, but it should be considered whenevaluating existing ships.• Structural details are generally different than in the standard catalogue of detailscontained in SafeHull. In particular, naval vessels typically have the cutouts intransverse webs welded to the upper flange of longitudinals, and tee stiffeners ratherthan the typical flat bar details which are used in commercial vessels to help carrythe shear load from the longitudinal to the transverse web and to stiffen the web.• Differences in fabrication standards may make similar structural details morefatigue-resistant for naval vessels as compared to standard commercial practices.11.4.1 Modification for OperabilityFatigue damage is assumed to be linear. Therefore, a simple modification can be madefor years of service and percent of operability. SafeHull development assumed thatcontainerships would operate for 80 percent of the time for 20 years, or 5,840 days. If aparticular naval vessel is to operate for 35 percent of the time for 40 years, or 5,110 days, asatisfactory fatigue life computed by SafeHull would be more that satisfactory for the navalvessel. However, it would be more meaningful if the permissible stress range computed bySafeHull would be modified. This can be done by using the Weibull parameter that SafeHullcomputes as the “Long Term Distribution Factor.”The ABS allowable fatigue stress range is based on reducing the lifetime fatigue loadingspectrum to a Weibull probability function, characterized by a parameter, γ. The parameter, γ iscomputed as a function of ship length and bow flare.According to Mansour (1990), the fatigue damage, D, which is caused to ship structurewhen the loading is assumed to be characterized by a Weibull distribution and the S-Nrelationship given in Chapter 5, can be computed by the equation:⎛ m ⎞−⎜⎟N⎜ ⎟T m⎛ ⎞⎝ ? m⎠D = S [ ln(N )] G⎜+ 1⎟0 TA⎝ ? ⎠where:A, m - the coefficient and slope of the linear S-N curve for the detailS 0 - the allowable stress range for the structural detailN T - the total number of loading cycles that a ship will experience in its lifetimeΓ - the Gamma function(11.1)Accordingly, the ratio between the allowable stress range, S 0 , and the ABS allowablestress range, S ABS , is given by:SS0ABS11−⎛ N ⎞ m ⎛?ABSln(NS)⎞= ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟(11.2)⎜⎝NS⎟⎠⎜⎝ ln(NABS) ⎟⎠11-2 2

Suggested Modifications to the SafeHull ApproachWhere:N ABS = number of cycles for ABS = 20 years x 0.80 x 5 x 10 7N S = number of cycles for actual service = years x percent operability x 5 x 10 7S ABS = Permissible stress range by ABSS 0 = Permissible stress range for actual serviceThe following result is shown in Appendix J for Ship J from the SafeHull Phase Acomputations:SafeHull stiffener #11, Side Longitudinal #17,Computed stress range — 3,013 kg/cm 2 (295 MPa)Weibull long-term distribution factor — 0.928Class F2 detail permissible stress range — 2,443 kg/cm 2 (239 MPa)Ratio of stress range to permissible stress — 1.23 (MPa/MPa)If the ship is to operate for 40 years at 35 percent operability, equation (11.2) gives theallowable stress range to be 2,572 kg/cm 2 (252 MPa) and the ratio of stress range to permissiblestress as 3,013/2,572 = 1.17. In this calculation, the slope, m, for a Class F2 detail is 3.0.Another method to account for years service and percent operability comes fromintegration of the Weibull function. A procedure given by Hughes (1995) divides a stress blockof 5 x 10 7 cycles into 25 blocks, with the stress range for each block, SR i , containing N i cycles,with a Weibull parameter, γ, as⎛ ⎛ ⎞ ⎞⎜ ⎜Niln ⎟ ⎟⎜ ⎜ 7 ⎟ ⎟⎜⎝ 5×10SR⎠⎟i= S0(11.3)7⎜ − ln ( 5×10 ) ⎟⎜⎟⎝⎠where S 0 is the maximum stress range. This procedure is shown in Table 11.1, which is anEXCEL spreadsheet for the computations. The following describes the computations performedin each column:Cycles Exceeded — The exceedance curve for 5 x 10 7 cyclesNumber of Cycles — The number of cycles for each blockStress Range Factor — The fraction of the maximum stress range allocated for the block,computed using equation (11.3)Stress Range — The average stress range for each block using the maximum stress rangemultiplied by the average of the factors from same row and the row above from theprevious columnCycles to Failure Upper — The number of cycles for a linear S-N curve based on thecoefficients A 1 and B 1Cycles to Failure Lower — The lower limit of a bilinear S-N curve based on thecoefficients A 2 and B 2Cycles to Failure (Bilinear) — The maximum of the previous two columns⎛ 1⎞⎜ ⎟⎝ ? ⎠11-3 3

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueFatigue Damage Per Year — The ratio of the number of cycles in column 2 to theproduct of the cycles to failure and the basis years serviced times the basisoperability.The electronic version of this report has the spreadsheet imbedded as Table 11.1 for thereader’s convenience. The user should enter the Weibull long-term distribution factor, thefatigue class for the detail, the percentage of service operability, and the desired years at serviceoperability. The spreadsheet will use the Tools-Solver function to iterate the maximum stressrange until the calculated years at service operability equal the desired years at serviceoperability. In using the Tools-Solver function, the desired years of service must be manuallyinput as shown in the following screen:For the above example for a Class F2 detail with a Weibull long-term distribution factorof 0.928, the permissible stress range for a life of 40 years at 35 percent operability is 2,690kg/cm 2 (264 MPa). If a life of 30 years at 35 percent operability were desired, the permissiblestress range would be 2,958 kg/cm 2 (290 MPa). This is shown in the results for StiffenerNumber 12 in Table 11.2.11-4 4

Suggested Modifications to the SafeHull ApproachTable 11.1 Computation of Permissible Stress RangeStress Range for Fatigue Life Based on Percentage of Operability, Years Service, and Weibull ParameterLong-term Distribution Factor (Weibull) = 0.928 (Linear) (Bilinear)Maximum Stress Range (kg/mm 2 ) 26.88022 Basis Years Service 20Basis Operability 0.80Basis Days Operation 5840FATIGUE CLASS DETAIL F2 Calculated Years Service at 100% 14.00 18.49LOG A 1 9.119 Service Operability 35% 35%B 1 -3 Calculated Years at Service Operability 40.00 52.82LOG A 2 10.53118 Desired Years at Service Operability 40B 2 = -5CYCLES NUMBER Stress Stress CYCLES CYCLES CYCLESEXCEEDED OF Range Range TO FAILURE TO FAILURE TO FAILURECYCLES Factor (kg/mm 2 ) UPPER LOWER (Bilinear)FATIGUEDAMAGEPER YEARFATIGUEDAMAGEPER YEAR1 1.000 SN CURVE SN CURVE(Linear) (Biinear)2 1 0.957 26.30 72,284 2,699 72,284 1.81E-06 1.81E-064 2 0.914 25.15 82,708 3,379 82,708 3.22E-06 3.22E-068 4 0.871 24.00 95,191 4,271 95,191 5.69E-06 5.69E-0617 9 0.829 22.85 110,261 5,456 110,261 9.98E-06 9.98E-0635 18 0.786 21.71 128,614 7,052 128,614 1.74E-05 1.74E-0570 36 0.744 20.57 151,181 9,233 151,181 3.01E-05 3.01E-05143 73 0.702 19.43 179,227 12,261 179,227 5.15E-05 5.15E-05291 148 0.660 18.30 214,495 16,540 214,495 8.75E-05 8.75E-05591 300 0.618 17.18 259,431 22,710 259,431 1.47E-04 1.47E-041,201 610 0.577 16.06 317,536 31,805 317,536 2.44E-04 2.44E-042,441 1,240 0.535 14.95 393,928 45,556 393,928 4.00E-04 4.00E-044,960 2,519 0.494 13.84 496,288 66,948 496,288 6.45E-04 6.45E-0410,080 5,120 0.453 12.74 636,461 101,344 636,461 1.02E-03 1.02E-0320,484 10,404 0.413 11.64 833,338 158,812 833,338 1.59E-03 1.59E-0341,628 21,143 0.373 10.56 1,118,207 259,249 1,118,207 2.40E-03 2.40E-0384,594 42,967 0.333 9.48 1,545,286 444,490 1,545,286 3.53E-03 3.53E-03171,909 87,315 0.293 8.41 2,213,751 809,210 2,213,751 5.01E-03 5.01E-03349,348 177,439 0.254 7.35 3,317,419 1,587,988 3,317,419 6.79E-03 6.79E-03709,933 360,585 0.215 6.30 5,267,798 3,432,116 5,267,798 8.69E-03 8.69E-031,442,700 732,767 0.177 5.26 9,037,324 8,438,135 9,037,324 1.03E-02 1.03E-022,931,803 1,489,103 0.139 4.24 17,280,348 24,856,167 24,856,167 1.09E-02 7.61E-035,957,905 3,026,102 0.102 3.23 38,899,966 96,108,552 96,108,552 9.88E-03 4.00E-0312,107,442 6,149,537 0.066 2.25 115,151,737 586,539,803 586,539,803 6.78E-03 1.33E-0324,604,310 12,496,868 0.031 1.30 594,980,628 9,057,702,301 9,057,702,301 2.67E-03 1.75E-0449,999,999 25,395,689 0.000 0.42 17,905,821,244 2,637,366,027,200 2,637,366,027,200 1.75E-04 1.18E-0649,999,998Total Damage/Year 0.0714 0.0541Years 14.00 18.49Using the above spreadsheet, the Phase A fatigue analysis of Class F2 details for ship Ghas been modified to reflect operation at 35 percent of the time in the North Atlantic for 30years. The results are shown in Table 11.211-5 5

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueTable 11.2 Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Longitudinals for Ship GModified to 30 Years in North Atlantic with 35 Percent OperabilitySTF#StiffenerStress Range(kg/cm 2 )fRG fRL fRFatigueClassLongTermDistr.FactorABS SafeHullPerm.Stress(kg/cm 2 )fR/PSModified SafeHullPerm.Stress(kg/cm 2 )1 Bottom Long'l 1 2249 470 2196 F2 0.889 2611 0.84 3180 0.6912 Side Long'l 18 1472 1473 2798 F2 0.928 2443 1.15 2959 0.9519 01 Lvl Long'l 12 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 3428 0.6332 I.B. Long'l 1 1938 75 1912 F2 0.889 2611 0.73 3180 0.6047 1st Plat Long'l 9 1499 0 1424 F2 0.889 2611 0.55 3180 0.4558 2nd Plat Long'l 10 1600 0 1520 F2 0.889 2611 0.58 3180 0.4859 I.B. Girder 2 2067 0 1963 F2 0.889 2611 0.75 3180 0.6264 Mn. Dk Long'l 12 1766 0 1678 F2 0.909 2514 0.67 3063 0.55fR/PSWith this modification for change in service life, the maximum stress range is less thanthe modified permissible stress range in all cases. This is consistent with the service experienceof these ships, which have not experienced fatigue damage in the locations indicated by theunmodified SafeHull analysis, even though these ships have actually operated for only 15 yearsor less.11.4.2 Modification for Service EnvironmentThe ABS permissible stress ranges inherent in the SafeHull program are dependent on theassumptions of sea conditions encountered over the lifetime of the ship, as well as the shipheadings and speeds in different sea conditions. In Chapter 3, it was demonstrated that changingfrom North Atlantic to General Atlantic conditions increased the fatigue lifetime of a typical shipby a factor of two. To consider any specific set of operational conditions or trade route, aspecific fatigue loading spectrum must be developed and computations of fatigue performed withthat loading spectrum.For design purposes, the North Atlantic conditions assumed by ABS are reasonable.Even though naval ships may operate in relatively benign conditions during peacetime, they maybe called upon to operate in severe conditions in time of war, and should therefore be designedfor the more severe conditions.For analysis purposes, such modifications to account for differences in operation areas oroperating conditions can not be easily made to the output. For U.S. Navy ships, the discussion ofChapter 2 indicated that a change from operation in the North Atlantic to operation in ageneralized Atlantic Ocean environment would double the fatigue life. Similar studies could bemade with the SPECTRA program to address any specific operating scenario.11-6 6

Suggested Modifications to the SafeHull Approach11.4.3 Other Modifications of SafeHull OutputThere are other differences in methodologies for fatigue analysis that were discussed inChapter 2 and elsewhere in the report. Many of those differences, such as changes in the S-Ncurves for structural details, or modification for hull girder bending moment prediction methods,can not be addressed through modification of the SafeHull Phase A output. Addressing thesedifferences requires modifications to the SafeHull software.11.5 Modifications that Could be Made to the SafeHull SoftwareThe use of SafeHull programs for analysis of naval ships is inappropriate because theSafeHull programs were developed for specific ship types. In particular, the design criteria fornaval vessels are significantly different than for commercial ships. However, fatigue analysis isnot based on standardized design criteria, but is related to basic engineering principles.Therefore, if modifications were made to the program to accept a more general ship geometry,the program could serve as a useful tool for naval vessels. There are many improvements thatare being continuously made to the program to reduce inadvertent input errors by users andotherwise improve the program. Some such difficulties are referred to in Chapter 9 and in theGuide for the use of Commercial Design Standards for Fatigue Analysis in Naval Ship Design,and will not be mentioned here.11.5.1 Tank DefinitionA great deal of difficulty in the use of SafeHull for fatigue analysis of naval vesselsoccurred because of the limitations of the “tanks” by which SafeHull defines loads. Thefollowing modifications should be made to the tank definition:• Include a more general tank type that will generate live and dead loads on decks.• Permit adjacent compartments to have the same type of tank.• Increase the number of tanks that can be included in one cross section through thehull.11.5.2 Structural DetailsAlthough there are a great number of structural details that can be used in ship design, theSafeHull library is currently limited to six types of penetrations of longitudinal stiffeners throughtransverse webs. The following types of details should also be included in the library:• Details with the web of the transverse frame welded to the upper flange of thelongitudinal• Cutouts with no collars or lugs• Cutouts with fully fitted collars• Slotted cutouts welded completely• Details with tee or other types of web stiffeners• Details with no flat bar or other web stiffener11-7 7

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatigue11.5.3 Slamming FactorThe input of offsets for calculation of the slamming factor is required for the first fivestations, defined at 0.0L, 0.05L, 0.10L 0.15L, and 0.20L from the forward perpendicular. Forthese locations, L is the ABS scantling length, which is generally different from the lengthbetween perpendiculars. Therefore, offsets for sections at these required locations are notgenerally available. It would ease the preparation of data if these calculations were conducted atregular stations defined in terms of the length between perpendiculars. Alternately, the usercould input the longitudinal location of the stations used. This would be useful if the data isavailable in terms of faired offsets, which are generally defined at the locations of transverseframes.Refinement in the input for slamming factor calculation may not be necessary if theminimum value of the factor, 1.0 is calculated. An initial value of the factor can be calculatedwith approximate offsets at stations that are only close to the required locations. If the calculatedfactor is significantly less than 1.0, then further refinements in the input are not necessary,because the minimum value, 1.00 will be used. The SafeHull output does not currently show thecalculated value, but could be modified to do so.11.5.4 Phase B AnalysisAn improvement to the Phase B modeler is currently being developed by ABS for to easethe development of the finite element model for a containership. Therefore, no comments willbe made on the current difficulties associated with transition from a Phase A analysis to a PhaseB analysis. However, there are limitations in other aspects of the Phase B procedure that couldbe reduced.• Eliminate the need for an inner skin in the application of loads.• Generalize the loading so that generalized loads can be applied to decks, includingboth live and dead loads.• Develop a methodology for automating Phase B fatigue analysis for standard details.11.6 SummaryThe containership version of the ABS SafeHull program can be modified so that a fatigueassessment of naval vessels can be made using the program. Slight modifications are necessaryin the input because the geometry of a typical naval vessel is not the same as a containership.The SafeHull output can be modified to account for years of service and for percent of time spentunderway. However, the output can not be directly modified to account for service conditionsother than North Atlantic operations.ABS can make modifications in the program to make it applicable to a wider range ofship types, including break bulk cargo ships and naval vessels. The principal change would be in11-8 8

Suggested Modifications to the SafeHull Approachthe development of loads within the program, which could be modified to accept generalizedloads on decks, including both live and dead loads.11-9 9

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatigue11-10 10

12. CONCLUSIONSThe ABS SafeHull Phase A program for containerships can be applied to the fatiguedesign of naval ships. Fatigue fracture in service can be reduced by such use in the early stagesof design. However, careful consideration should be made as to the effect of this design methodon longitudinal stiffeners near the waterline. Few structural members in the hull cross section areinvolved, and the increases in scantlings that would be necessary to satisfy the SafeHull fatiguecriteria would not be great. Therefore, the overall effect of implementation would be a smallincrease in the weight of ship structure. However, with weight-critical naval ships, any increasein scantlings should be carefully considered, and therefore, the subject of loading on and fatigueof side longitudinals of naval ships requires additional study.This report describes an effort to apply a method of fatigue analysis developed for aspecific class of ships to another class. In general, this idea of expansion of fatigue analysis fromone class of ships to another should continue to be exploited to the maximum extent possible sothat lessons learned for one type of ship can be applied to another. The limitations of the currenteffort lay largely in the software used to execute the methodology. Software that had beendeveloped for a specific class of ships was adapted to a certain extent to another class of ships,but that adaptation involved compromises, which led to somewhat unsatisfactory results. Inparticular, all areas of concern for fatigue cracking in naval ships were not addressed in theSafeHull software for commercial containerships.The fatigue analysis of the naval ships was not fully satisfactory because some of theassumptions that were made in developing the commercial fatigue analysis procedure did notpertain to naval ships. These assumptions include the operating environment, operationaldoctrine, years of intended service, and percentage of time underway. The allowable fatiguestress ranges developed by ABS and incorporated into both the rules and the SafeHull programcannot be easily adapted for changes in all of these variables. In this study, methods were foundto modify the ABS allowable stress ranges for changes in service life and percentage of timeunderway. A method was developed to account for other changes in assumptions, such asdifferent fatigue S-N curves, including bilinear S-N curves. However, when the analysis isperformed reflecting these differences between the assumptions for commercial ships and theassumptions for naval ships, the calibration of the methodology developed by ABS forcontainerships not longer is valid.A method to modify the allowable stress range for fatigue to accommodate differentoperational environments, such as operations in different sea states, could not be made. Suchchanges can only be accommodated in the commercial methodology through implementation ofthe ABS Spectral Fatigue Analysis procedure. However, this procedure has not beendocumented to the same extent as the ABS simplified fatigue procedure contained in the ABSRules and in the SafeHull program. The U.S. Navy SPECTRA program will accommodateflexibility in operations, but this program is not in the public domain.12-1

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatigue12-2

13. RECOMMENDATIONSThe following recommendations are based on the work of this study.1. The SafeHull containership program should be used in the preliminary fatigue analysisof naval ships. However, detailed analysis of areas of discontinuity and stressconcentration should be examined more closely, including the use of finite elementanalysis.2. Further investigation of the loading on the side shell near the waterline should beconducted. Methods of analytically predicting those loads need to be further developedand made applicable to a large range of ship types and sizes. Experimental verificationof the loads is needed.3. The SafeHull program should be made more general in nature so as to enable more typesof ships to be analyzed. This generalization should include the ability to impose live anddead loads on decks from cargo and from other sources.4. The ABS Spectral Fatigue Design procedure should be documented. When thatprocedure is documented, the study of this report should be extended by application ofthe ABS Spectral Fatigue Design procedure to naval ships.13-1

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for Fatigue13-2 2

14. REFERENCESAASHTO, Standard Specification for Highway Bridges, American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials, 16th edition, 1996.AASHTO, Guide Specification for Fatigue Evaluation of Existing Steel Bridges, AmericanAssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1990.ABS, ABS/SHIPMOTION Program: Theory, American Bureau of Shipping, April 1980.ABS, Fatigue Analysis of Tankers. R&D Division Technical Report RD-89020F, 1989.ABS, Guide for the Fatigue Strength Assessment of Tankers, June 1992.ABS, Guide for Dynamic Based Design and Evaluation of Tanker Structures, September 1993.ABS, Guide for Dynamic Based Design and Evaluation of Bulk Carrier Structures, July 1994.ABS, Guide for Dynamic Based Design and Evaluation of Container Structures, 1996.ABS, Guide for Underwater Inspection in Lieu of Drydocking Survey, American Bureau ofShipping, January 1996b.ABS, SafeHull Load Criteria for Tanker Structures, Commentary on Load Criteria, June 1999.ABS Guide 75, Improvement for Structural Connections and Sample Structural Details—ServiceExperience and Modifications for TankersABS Guide 77 Improvement for Structural Connections and Sample Structural Details—ServiceExperience and Modifications for Bulk CarriersABS, SafeHull documents, 2000.ABS, Press Release, September 26, 2000b.ABS, Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, American Bureau of Shipping, 2001.AISC, Manual of Steel Construction, 8th edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, 1980.Basar, N.S. and V.W. Jovino, Guide for Ship Structural Inspections, Ship Structure Committeereport SSC-332, 1990.14-1

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueBea, R., and R. Schulte-Strathaus, Fatigue Classification of Critical Structural Details in Tankers,Ship Structure Committee Report SSC-395, 1997.Casella, G., M. Dogliani, and C. Guedes Soares, Reliability Based Design of the PrimaryStructure of Oil Tankers, Proceedings of the OMAE 96, Vol. 2, June 16–20, 1996, FlorenceItaly, pp. 217–224.Chen, Y.N., Simplified Fatigue Damage via Weibull Distribution, letter to M. Sieve, NAVSEA03P1, April 16, 1998.Chen, H.H., H.Y. Jan, J.F. Conlon, and D. Liu. New Approach for the Design and Evaluation ofDouble-Hull Tanker Structures. SNAME Annual Transactions, 1993.Chen, Y.N. and Y.S. Shin, Consideration of Loads for Fatigue Assessment of Ship Structures.Contained in Prevention of Fracture in Ship Structure, Committee on Marine Structures,National Research Council, 1997.Chen, Y.N. and A.K. Thayamballi, Consideration of Global Climatology and LoadingCharacteristics in Fatigue Damage Assessment of ship Structures. Presented at the MarineStructural Inspection, Maintenance, and Monitoring Symposium, Arlington, Virginia, March18–19, 1991.Daidola, J.C. and V. Mishkevich, Hydrodynamic Impact Loading on Displacement Ship Hulls—An Assessment of the State of the Art, Ship Structure Committee Report SSC-385, 1995.Design Data Sheet 100-XXX, Fatigue Design of Ship Structure, Department of the Navy, Draftdated 14 March 1997.Dow, R. and C.S. Smith, FABSTRAN, U.K. Ministry of Defence, 1986.DYNRES Users Manual, MTG Marintechnik GmbH, June 1994.Engle, A.E., W. Lin, N. Salvesen, and Y. Shin. Application of 3-D Nonlinear Wave Load andStructural Response Simulations in Naval Ship Design. Naval Engineers Journal, May 1997.Evans, H., Ship Structural Design Concepts, Cycle One, Cornell Maritime Press, 1975.Glasfeld, R., Jordan, D., Kerr, M. Jr., and Zoller, D. Review of Ship Structural Details, ShipStructure Committee Report SSC-266, 1977.Glen, I.F., R.B. Paterson, and L. Luznik, Sea-Operational Profiles for Structural ReliabilityAssessments, Ship Structure Committee report SSC-406, 1999.Glenn, Bucky, SURFLANT N434A24, (757) 836-3376, telephone conversation, September 27,1999 with Robert A. Sielski, Gibbs & Cox, Inc.14-2 2

ReferencesHeyburn, R. and D. Riker, Effect of High Strength Steels on Strength Considerations of Designand Construction Details of Ships, Ship Structure Committee Report SSC-374, 1994.Hogben, N., N. Dacunha, and G. Olliver, Global Wave Statistics, British Maritime Technology,Ltd., Middlesex, U.K., 1986.Hussey, D.J., DDH Structural and Corrosion Problems, presented at a joint meeting of theEastern Canadian Section of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers and theCanadian Institute of Marine Engineers, Ottawa, Ontario, February 16, 1982.IACS, Blue Books: IACS Unified Requirements, Interpretations and Recommendation,International Association of Classification Societies, LondonISSC, Report of Committee I.2—Loads, 12th International Ship and Offshore StructuresCongress, St. John’s, Newfoundland, 1994.ISSC, Report of Committee I.2—Loads, 13th International Ship and Offshore StructuresCongress, Trondheim, Norway, 1997.Ito, A and Mizoguchi, Hydrodynamic Pressure Acting on a Full Ship in Short Waves, Journal ofthe Korean Society of Naval Architects, vol. 222, 1994.Jensen, J.J., and P.T. Pedersen, Wave-Induced Bending Moments in ships—a Quadratic Theory,Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 121, 1979, pp. 151–165.Jordan, C.R., and C.S. Cochran, In-Service Performance of Structural Details, Ship StructureCommittee Report SSC-272, 1978.Jordan, C. R. and L. T. Knight, Further Survey of In-service Performance of Structural Details,Ship Structure Committee report SSC-294, 1980.Kaplan, P., Hydrodynamic Loads in Waves—A Quasi-linear Time Domain ComputerSimulation Analysis, Hydromechanics, Inc., Delray Beach, Florida, 1993.Kaplan, P. and T.P. Sargent, Further Studies of Computer Simulation of Slamming and OtherWave-Induced Structural Loadings on Ships in Waves, Ship Structure Committee ReportSSC-231, 1972Kaplan, P. and J. Dalzell, Hydrodynamics Loads Prediction (Including Slamming) and Relationto Structural Integrity, Presented at the SSC/SNAME Ship Structures Symposium, Arlington,Virginia, 1993.Kihl, D.P., DDG-51 Whole Ship Fatigue Analysis, David Taylor Research Center report SSPD-173-91-92, September, 1991.14-3

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueKihl, D.P., Fatigue Strength and Behavior of Ship Structural Details, NSWCCD-65-TR-1998/23, April 1999.Kihl, D.P., T.F. Brady, and J.E. Beach, SUMDAM: A Computerized Linear Cumulative DamageApproach to Estimating Fatigue Life of Surface Ship Structures, David W. Taylor Naval Shipand Research Development Center report SSPD-88-173-37, April 1988.Kirkhope, K.J., Bell, R., Caron, L., and Basu, R.I. Weld Detail Fatigue Life ImprovementTechniques, Ship Structure Committee Report SSC-400, 1997.Lin, W.M., and D.K.P. Yue, Numerical Solutions for Large Amplitude Ship Motions in the TimeDomain, presented at the Eighteenth Symposium of Naval Hydrodynamics, The University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1990.Liu, D., J. Spencer, T. Itoh, S. Kawachi, and K. Shigematsu. Dynamic Load Approach in TankerDesign. SNAME Annual Transactions, 1992.Lloyds, Provisional Rules for the Classification of Naval Ships, Lloyds Register of Shipping,July 1999.Maddox, S.J., Fatigue Strength of Welded Structures, Abington Publishing, Second Edition,1991.Majumdar, P., HM&E Newsletter 98-001, Office of Naval Research Europe, August 28, 1998.McAffe, D.R. and N.S. Nappi Sr., Secondary Loads—Its Impact on Ship Structures, DavidTaylor Research Center report SSPD-91-173-2, October, 1990.McTaggart, K., SHIPMO: An Updated Strip Theory Program for Predicting Ship Motion andSea Loads in Waves, DREA Technical Memorandum 96/243, March 1997.Michaelson, R.W., Longitudinal Distribution of Primary Loads for Surface Ships, David TaylorResearch Center report SSPD-92-173-14, October 1991.Michaelson, R.W., Ship Operational Profiles Compiled from Shipboard Weather Observations of40 U.S. Navy Ships, Carderock Division Naval Surface Warfare Center, February 1996.Munse, W. H., T.W. Wilbur, M.L. Tellalian, K. Nicoll, and K. Wilson, Fatigue Characterizationof Fabricated Ship Details for Design, Ship Structure Committee Report SSC-318, 1982.Naval Ship Engineering Center, Structural Design Manual for Naval Surface Ships, NAVSEA0900-LP-097-4010, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., 1976.NATO, Standardized Wave and Wind Environments and Shipboard Reporting of SeaConditions, North Atlantic Treaty Organization STANAG No. 4194, April 1983.14-4 4

ReferencesNaval Ships’ Technical Manual; S9086–CN–STM–040, Naval Sea Systems Command,Washington, D.C.NAVSEA, System Specification for the Auxiliary Dry Cargo Carrier, T-ADC(X), NAVSEAPRF-TADC-0, CAGE Code 4K920, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C.,September 8, 1999NCHRP, National Cooperative Highway Research Program reports 102, 147, 188, 206, 227, 267,286, and 299.Nordenström, N., A Method to Predict Long-Term Distributions of Waves and Wave-InducedMotions and Loads on Ships and Other Floating Structures, Det norske Veritas PublicationNo. 81, April, 1973.NSMB, Netherlands Ship Model Basin Cooperative Research Ships PRECAL Working GroupUser’s Manual, Motion, Load, and Pressure Program Suite — PRECAL, BMT SeaTech CRSReport, January, 1995.NSWCCD, Auxiliary Dry Cargo Ship (T-ADC(X)) Ship Design Bending Moments, Letter toCommander Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 03P1) from Commander, Naval SurfaceWarfare Center, 9070 Ser 65-15, dated November 16, 1998.Ochi, M.K., Wave Statistics for the Design of Ships and Ocean Structures, Transactions of theSociety of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 85, 1978, pp. 47–76.Ochi, M.K. and L.E. Motter, Prediction of Slamming Characteristics and Hull Responses in ShipDesign, Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1973Ogilvie, F.T. and E.O. Tuck, A Rational Strip Theory of Ship Motion: Part I, Department ofNaval Architecture, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1969.OPNAV Instruction 4700.7J; Maintenance Policy for Naval Ships; December 4, 1992.Park, S.K., and F.V. Lawrence, Fatigue Characterization of Fabricated Ship Details—Phase 2,Ship Structure Committee Report SSC-346, 1990.Pomeroy, R.V., Classification—Adapting and Evolving to Meet the Challenges of the NewSafety Culture, Lloyds Register of Shipping, 1999.Richardson, W., Dynamic Effect of Fuel Oil Movement on Tank Tops, David Taylor ResearchCenter report SSPD-91-173-2, September, 1991.Rynn, P.G. and C.E. Morlan, Cross Section of Experience in SafeHull Applications, SNAMElocal section paper.14-5

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueSalvesen, N. and W.M. Lin, Large Amplitude Motion and Load Program, SAIC Report 94/1110,Science Applications International Corporation, Annapolis, Maryland, 1994.Salvesen, N, E.O. Tuck, and O. Faltinsen, Ship Motions and Sea Loads, Transactions of theSociety of Naval architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 78, 1970.Sarkani, S., D.P. Kihl, and J.E. Beach, Fatigue of Welded Cruciforms Subjected to Narrow-BandLoadings, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 118, No. 2, February 1992.Sea Systems Controllerate Publication No. 23, Design of Surface Ship Structures, ProcurementExecutive, Ministry of Defense, U.K., 1988.Salvesen, N, E.O. Tuck, and O. Faltinsen, Ship Motions and Sea Loads, Transactions of theSociety of Naval architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 78, 1970.Salvesen, N. and W.M. Lin, Large Amplitude Motion and Load Program, SAIC Report 94/1110,Science Applications International Corporation, Annapolis, Maryland, 1994.Shin, Y.S., J.S. Chung, W.M. Lin, S. Zhang, and A. Engle. Dynamic Loadings for StructuralAnalysis of Fine Form Container Ship Based of a Nonlinear Large Amplitude Motions andLoads Program, Transactions, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1997.Sieve, M.W., J.S. Waldman, R.W. Walz, and J.P. Sikora, LPD 17 Structural Design forReliability and Survivability, Presented at the DERA International Conference Advances inMarine Structures III held in Dunfirmline, Scotland, May 20–23, 1997.Sikora, J.P. Cumulative Lifetime Loadings for Naval Ships, Presented at the 1998 InternationalMechanical Engineering Congress and exhibition, Symposium on Hydroelasticity andUnsteady Fluid Loading on Naval Structures, Anaheim, California, November 15–20, 1998.Sikora, J.P., and J.E. Beach, Automated Method for Predicting Maximum Loads and FatigueLives of Ships. Presented at the ASME Symposium on Current Practices and NewTechnology on Ocean Engineering, New Orleans, 1986.Sikora, J.P., A. Dinsenbacher, and J.E. Beach, A Method for Estimating Lifetime Loads andFatigue Lives for SWATH and Conventional Monohull Ships. Naval Engineers Journal, May1983.Shin, Y.S., J.S. Chung, W.M. Lin, S. Zhang, and A. Engle. Dynamic Loadings for StructuralAnalysis of Fine Form Container Ship Based of a Nonlinear Large Amplitude Motions andLoads Program, Transactions, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1997.Slaughter, S.B., M.C. Cheung, D. Sucharski, and B. Cowper. State of the Art in Hull MonitoringSystems, Ship Structure Committee report SSC 401, 1997.Smith, C.S. and R. Dow, Computer Program NS904, U.K. Ministry of Defence, 1986.14-6 6

ReferencesSNAME, Application of Probabilistic Design Methods to Wave Loads Prediction for ShipStructures Analysis, Technical and Research Bulletin No. 2-27, 1982.SNAME, Principles of Naval Architecture, Volume III, Motions in Waves and Controllability,the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1989.Stavovy, A.B. and S.L. Chuang, Analytical Determination of Slamming Pressures for HighSpeed Vehicles in Waves, Journal of Ship Research, vol. 20, no. 4, December 1976SNAME, Technical and Research Bulletin No. 2-27, the Society of Naval Architects and MarineEngineers, 1982.SSCP, Design of Surface Ship Structures, Sea Systems Controllerate Publication No. 23, U.K.Ministry of Defense, December, 1989.Stavovy, A.B. and S.L. Chuang, Analytical Determination of Slamming Pressures for HighSpeed Vehicles in Waves, Journal of Ship Research, vol. 20, no. 4, December 1976.Stredulinsky, D.C., N.G. Pegg, and L.E. Gilroy, Comparison of Motion Predictions with FullScale Trial Measurements on CFAV Quest, Presented at the DREA InternationalConference—Advances in Marine Structures III, Dunfermline, Scotland, May 20–23, 1997.System Specification for the Auxiliary Dry Cargo Carrier, T-ADC(X), NAVSEA PRF-TADC-0,CAGE Code 4K920, dated September 8, 1999.Thayamballi, A.K, Y-K Chen, and H-S Chen, Deterministic and Reliability Based RetrospectiveStrength Assessments of Oceangoing Vessels, Transactions of the Society of Naval Architectsand Marine Engineers, Vol. 95, 1987, pp. 159–187.The Corrosion Control Information Management System (CCIMS) Inspection Manual, NavalSea Systems Command, Washington, D.C.TSCF, Guidance Manual for Inspection and Condition Assessment of Tanker Structures, TankerStructure Cooperative Forum, 1986.TSCF, Condition Evaluation and Maintenance of Tanker Structures, Tanker StructureCooperative Forum, 1992.UK Department of Energy, Offshore Installation: Guidance on Design, Construction, andCertification, Fourth Edition, London, HMSO, 1990.UK MOD, Sea Systems Controllerate Publication No. 23, Design of Surface Ship Structures,Procurement Executive, Ministry of Defense, U.K., 1988.14-7

Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueUnderwater Ship Husbandry Manual; S0600-AA-PRO-010; 0910-LP-018-0350, Revision 2;Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., October 1, 1998.United States Code, Title 10--Armed Forces; Subtitle C—Navy and Marine Corps; Part IV—General Administration; Chapter 633—Naval Vessels.Watanabe, I., Practical Method for Diffraction Pressure on a Ship Hull Running in ObliqueWaves, Journal of Korean Society of Naval Architects, vol. 221, 1994.Watanabe, I., and C. Guedes Soares, Comparative Study on the Time-Domain Analysis ofNonlinear Ship Motions and Loads, Marine Structures, Vol. 12, 1999, pp. 153–170.Williams, G.M. and. Sharpe S.E, Deep Draft Ship Inspections—Factors that affect Fatigue andFracture Prevention. Contained in Prevention of Fracture in Ship Structures, Committee onMarine Structures, National Research Council, 1997, pp. 359–366.14-8 8

Guide for the Use of Commercial DesignStandards for Fatigue Analysisin Naval Ship DesignUsing ABS SAFEHULLReportPrepared For TheShip Structure CommitteeSSC Project SR-1403Supplemental Commercial Design Guidance for FatigueUSCG Research and Development CenterContract DTCG39-99-C-E00221

1. Title1.1 Guide for the Use of Commercial Design Standards for Fatigue Analysis in Naval ShipDesign Using ABS SAFEHULL2. Designation2.1 To be provided by ASTM F253. Scope3.1 This draft guide provides instruction for the application of the ABS computer programSafeHull, a recognized commercial design standard for fatigue analysis, to the fatigue design ofnaval ships.. The emphasis of the guide will be the identification of the different approaches thatare necessary when applying SafeHull to ships whose configuration is significantly different thanthose for which SafeHull was developed. It is oriented to the minimization of differencesbetween commercial practice and naval practice, so that those engineers who are experiencedwith the commercial practice will not have to spend a significant amount of time to learn thenaval procedure and those who are experienced with naval practice will not have to spendexcessive time to learn the commercial approach.3.2 This guide is intended only as a supplement to the program documentation provided bySafeHull (Reference 4.1). If there is any question concerning either program input orinterpretation of output, the SafeHull documentation takes preference. The ABS SafeHull staffshould also be consulted concerning the use of the program. The user is urged to take one of themany SafeHull training courses available from ABS to become more familiar with the manyaspects of the SafeHull program prior to its use.4. Referenced Documents4.1 SafeHull Documentation, American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, 2001.4.2 Ship Structure Committee Report SR-1403, Supplemental Commercial Design Guidancefor Fatigue, U.S. Coast Guard, August, 2001.5. Summary of Practice5.1 This Guide provides guidance on the information necessary to perform a fatigue analysisof a typical naval vessel using SafeHull Phase A and Phase B. The guidance provided should besupplemented by the SafeHull documentation, attendance at an ABS SafeHull training session,and, as necessary, consultation with the ABS SafeHull staff.6. Significance and Use6.1 The feasibility of using the ABS SafeHull program for fatigue analysis of naval shipswas demonstrated in the Ship Structure Committee Report SR-1403, Supplemental CommercialDesign Guidance for Fatigue (Reference 4.2). That report was prepared during a research projectfunded by the Ship Structure Committee. Shortcomings and limitations associated with the useof SafeHull for this purpose, and modifications to the results of a SafeHull fatigue analysis thatare necessary for analysis of naval ships, are described in that report. Ample support for the useof SafeHull is provided by ABS in the documentation provided with the computer program(Reference 4.1). However, the emphasis of that documentation is preparation of input for thedesign of a containership, and not on fatigue analysis of a naval ship. For the naval ship typesstudied in Reference 4.2, a complete input file does not have to be developed especially for1

Phase A analysis. This guide provides the information on the minimum data required for afatigue analysis of naval combatant ship types.6.2 The program was reinstalled on a Pentium (R) II computer with a 350 MHz processor,320 MB RAM, and 5GB hard drive capability. Desktop computers of lesser capability can beused, but execution of the program is slow. Unlike most Windows-based computer programs,transfer of the data files created to another computer can be done only through the use of specialSafeHull program modules.7. Procedure7.1 Data Required for a Phase A Analysis7.1.1 Basic Ship Information7.1.1.1 Before beginning to develop program input, the user should establish a separateworking directory, or folder, for the ship to be analyzed on the hard drive of the computer beingused. Although files developed for each ship analyzed will have a unique file name, many filesare produced by SafeHull, and should be in one location. A ship name should be determined. Itshould have no more than 8 alphanumeric characters with no imbedded blanks. A unique 7-digitnumber is also needed for each ship.7.1.1.2 The following particulars on the ship being analyzed are required. All dimensionsare in meters unless otherwise mentioned. This information is provided to the program in theGeneral Data module of the program.• Length Between Perpendiculars• ABS Rule Length (Generally 0.97 × LBP)• Depth at Side at Midships• Maximum Beam on Waterline• Draft• Block Coefficient consistent with the above rule length, draft, and beam• Waterplane Coefficient• Metacentric Height (GM) (If not known, SafeHull will provide default value.)• Roll Radius of Gyration (If not known, SafeHull will provide default value.)• Design Speed (knots)• Height of Freeboard Deck at Side• Height of Bulkhead Deck at Side• Bilge Radius• Gunwale Radius• Transverse Web Frame Spacing• Grade of steel used in the hull structure per ABS rules7.1.1.3 The block coefficient is used to determine the design bending moment in accordancewith the ABS rules. The coefficient should be calculated using the ABS rule length, not thelength between perpendiculars. The minimum value used by SafeHull is 0.60, which is greaterthan the block coefficient of most high-speed combatant ships. This limitation is discussed inReference 4.2.7.1.1.4 For naval ships, the height of the freeboard deck is generally the height of thestrength deck, but the bulkhead deck is often the deck below in larger naval ships. Naval shipsgenerally have slack bilges, and so the concept of a defined bilge radius does not always apply.The bilge radius is used to define the vertical extent of the hull for which rule requirements forbilge structure apply, so that this dimension should not be greater than the depth of the2

innerbottom. If the ship has no innerbottom, some judgment should be used in defining the bilgeradius, but it should be no greater than the depth of the hull that is normally wet from water inthe bilges. The bilge radius entered should also be no greater than either the distance of the topof the bilge strake from the baseline, or the distance from the inboard edge of the bilge strakefrom the maximum beam of the ship. If this definition leads to an unreasonable size for the bilgeradius, then the extent of the plating strake that is defined as a bilge strake should be reduced.7.1.1.5 There are no other options for grade of steel other than the standard ABS Grades ofMild Steel, HS32, HS36, and HS40. ABS Grade HS 36 has a yield strength of 355 MPa (51 ksi)and is used by the U.S. Navy in Grade DH-36 as Higher Strength Steel (HSS). However, thefatigue analysis assumes that fatigue strength is independent of material grade. Designation of agrade of steel in the program with a different yield strength than that which the ship isconstructed will only effect design checks in accordance with the ABS rules, which the user doesnot have to perform in order to do a fatigue analysis.7.1.2 Library Modules There are three user-developed libraries that are used by theprogram: stiffeners, end connections, and hatch corners. These libraries should be developedprior to the input of other than general data, because the information will be required for dataentries, such as definition of stiffened panels. However, the hatch corner library is not requiredfor the fatigue analyses of naval vessels. The information on hatch corners is used only for ananalysis of hull girder torsion, which produces high stress at the corners of the large hatches incontainerships. Because naval ships do not usually have such large openings in the strengthdeck, the SafeHull Phase A torsional analysis normally will not pertain. Furthermore, thetransverse structure as used in SafeHull for containerships is so different than typical navalvessel structure that a sensible modification of input can not be made.7.1.2.1Stiffener Library7.1.2.1.1 There are two basic stiffener libraries in SafeHull. The first is the master library ofall standard structural shapes. This library is in metric dimensions and does not include any ofthe standard U.S. shapes defined by the American Iron and Steel Institute. The other is the shiplibrary of shapes specifically used on the ship being analyzed. This ship library is required foranalysis, and should be created before the information on the longitudinal structure is entered, asthe stiffener library is used for that input. Even if the entire master library is to be used, it mustbe copied over into the ship library in order that stiffener shapes may be selected. The stiffenerlibrary is developed by either selecting shapes from the master library in SafeHull or a usercreatedmaster library, or by defining each stiffener using the EDIT/ADD feature of the StiffenerLibrary in SafeHull. When developing the stiffener library, it is recommended that the shapes beinput in an orderly fashion, which will make shape selection easier when the library is usedduring input of stiffened plate panels.7.1.2.1.2 If U.S. or other shapes not in the ABS library are used, there are two optionsavailable for data entry. The first is to develop a master library of all shapes possibly used forship construction that are not in the SafeHull master library. Table 1 illustrates such a library forU.S. Tee-shapes with dimensions in millimeters. VAR 1 is the depth of the web (not the overalldepth of the member). VAR 2 is the web thickness, VAR 3 is the flange width, and VAR 4 is theflange thickness. This file was begun by using the EDIT/ADD feature of the Stiffener Library inSafeHull to define a shape as a built-up section using the process described below. When thishas been done for each shape type to be defined, then this SafeHull-generated file provides thetemplate required for the correct format. This file created by SafeHull can then be edited toinclude the desired shapes, provided that the user follows the proper format.3

Table 1 Stiffener Library Data File ShipName.SLB#-- STIFFENER PROPERTIES; FILE:D:\SAFEHULL\CG16R2\cg16r1.slb ; RECORDS: 551#ID# TYPE ABS ID DESCRIPTION VAR 1 VAR 2 VAR 3 VAR 41 BTEE 1 USER-DEF WT22"X167.5 559.05 25.91 405.13 44.962 BTEE 1 USER-DEF WT22"X145 553.97 22.10 402.08 40.131. BTEE is a built-up tee-section, with the depth specified by the depth of the web, not the total depth of the section.7.1.2.1.3 Alternately, a file of all of the shapes used in the ship being analyzed can bedeveloped using the EDIT/ADD feature of the Stiffener Library in SafeHull. A variety of othershape types are available. The Edit menu offers the following options:Inverted AnglesInverted Equal AngleInverted Unequal AngleInverted Large AngleRolled Flange Welded to Plate WebRolled SectionsBulb Flat (HP)Rolled Flat Head TeeJumbo BulbBuilt Up SectionsBalanced Built up TeeUnbalanced Built up TeeBuilt Up Non TeeBuilt Up Angled Offset Face barBuilt Up Angled TeeFlat BarBuilt Up Multi-StiffenerNull Stiffener7.1.2.1.4 If a rolled section is used, the depth entered is the total depth of the section, not thedepth of the web. Rolled sections require input of the radius of the fillet at corner of the flangeand the radius of fillet at the corner between the flange and web. Both fillet radii can be enteredas zero.7.1.2.1.5 With built up sections, such as a built up balanced tee, the depth entered is thedepth of the web, not the total depth of the section. Built up sections do not have fillets.7.1.2.1.6 A multi-stiffener is a profile created by combining other stiffeners and plates toform a combined stiffener. This definition can also be used if the stiffener is not normal to theplate, which is the assumed orientation for all other stiffeners. A null stiffener is used as aplaceholder for stiffener locations on plating during initial ship design development. It wouldn’tbe used for defining an existing ship.7.1.2.1.7 Although there are areas in the section definition screens for entering the thicknessand effective breadth of plating, that information does not have to be entered. When a stiffeneris defined later in the SafeHull input, it is defined with associated plating, for which the effectivebreadth is calculated. Therefore, each structural shape is entered only once in the stiffenerlibrary for a ship. The option of entering plate thickness and breadth is provided so that whenusing SafeHull in a design mode, full section properties are available to help with initialscantling selection.4

7.1.2.2 End Connection Library7.1.2.2.1 This library defines the structural details at the ends of stiffeners. Figure 1illustrates the type of information that can be input. The options are for a flat bar at thetransverse member, and a bracket, which can be either circular or straight, on the stiffener. Notethat the intersection with another stiffener cannot be defined, and the brackets are assumed to befitted, not lapped. If brackets are lapped, this can be accounted for by changing the Fatigue Classdefinition to other than F or F2, either Fatigue Class G or W. During the definition of the endconnection, neither the thickness of the flat bar, the web of the transverse member, nor thethickness of the bracket is defined. This definition is made later in the program module Cut OutLibrary.7.1.2.2.2 If the flat bars have no brackets attached, then the dimensions HX, HY, and R areentered as zero. When creating the end connection library, one flat bar should be entered with alldimensions equal to zero. This connection is needed for all details where there are no flat barsconnecting the longitudinal stiffener to the transverse web.Figure 1 SafeHull End Connection Library Screen7.1.2.2.3 Note that the SafeHull manual indicates that the radius of the bracket shown in thescreen is 0, but the screen shows a very obvious non-zero radius. A radius of 0 would beequivalent to having no bracket at all.7.1.2.3 Stiffener Cutout Library7.1.2.3.1 This library is not entered using the tab “Library” on the main SafeHull screen, asare the other libraries. It is entered using “Window, Longitudinal Scantling, Fatigue Strength,CutOut Library.” This library does not have to be created until the input for “Fatigue Strength ofFlat Bars” is entered, but it may be created sooner. Only those stiffener cutouts that have flat barstiffeners between the upper edge of the flange and the web of the transverse can be analyzed by5

SafeHull, so it is not necessary to define any other cutouts than those with flat bars (or otherstiffeners, such as tees).7.1.2.3.2 The six types of cutouts defined by SafeHull, including collar plates, are illustratedin Figure 2, and a sample input menu for Type 5 is provided in Figure 3. Note that there is nooption for defining the radii of the cut out corners, or for defining a cut out in which the top ofthe flange is welded to the web of the transverse. Completely fitted openings (slots) are not aninput option either.Figure 2 SafeHull Stiffener Cut Out Library Definition6

Figure 3 Input for Type 5 Stiffener Cut Out7.1.3 Longitudinal Scantlings7.1.3.1 Although the screen for “Hull/Tank Geometry” appears in the “Window” screenprior to “Longitudinal Scantling,” it is best to input the data for the scantlings first, because thedefinition of the hull and tanks is based on this input. The “Slamming Factor” menu appearswithin the Longitudinal Scantling menu, but because it relates to hull geometry, it will bediscussed with the “Hull/Tank Geometry” input. The second item within the LongitudinalScantling menu is “Section Definition,” which is used to define the structural configuration andscantlings of longitudinal members.7.1.3.2 The first screen in Section Definition is shown in Figure 4. The scantlings can beinput, and a fatigue analysis made for more than one cross section of the hull. Each sectionshould have a unique description, although the section number is used by SafeHull. Newsections are defined by clicking on the icon on the bottom left of the screen, and then enteringthe name of the new section and its distance from the after perpendicular. For a fatigue analysisof a naval vessel, the only other item on this screen for which data entry is required is the“Special Fatigue Location,” which is necessary for fatigue calculations. In general, the fatigueanalysis will be at the intersection of the longitudinals with the transverse frame. Therefore, theoffset dimension “X Location for Fatigue” should be entered as zero. The still water hull girderbending moments and shears may be entered, but the stresses from these are added to andsubtracted from the load range, so that the actual values have no effect on a fatigue analysis.Other input, such as Cross Deck and Hatch Opening, and Container Tiers and Rows may beomitted when only a fatigue analysis of longitudinals is being performed.7

Figure 4 General Data for Section Definition7.1.3.4 The next screen in Section Definition is shown in Figure 5. This is the screen bywhich the structural configuration of longitudinal members is defined. All of the sections forwhich analyses are desired are defined using this screen and the screens included in it.7.1.3..5 The “Available Section List” provides the acceptable SafeHull names for portions ofthe hull structure. Those names are:• Keel Plate• Bottom• Bilge• Side• Forecastle Deck• Sheerstrake• Gunwale• Upper Deck• Plating Within Line of Deck Openings• Inner Bottom• Watertight Flat• Non-tight Flat• Lower Wing Tank Sloping Plate8

• Inner Skin Bulkhead• Other Longitudinal Bulkhead• Hatch Coaming• Non-tight Bottom Girder• Watertight Bottom Girder• Non-Tight Stringer• Watertight Stringer• Swash Bulkhead• Non-tight Deck Girder• Watertight Deck Girder• Miscellaneous Plate• Second Deck• Forecastle Deck• Poop DeckFigure 5 Input of Scantling Sections Screen7.1.3.6 Those strakes required for fatigue analysis are the Keel Plate, Bottom, Side,Sheerstrake, Upper Deck, and Second Deck. The Upper Deck is the strength deck at the sectiondefined. The Second Deck is the next deck below the Upper Deck. It does not appear necessary9

to define the Bilge, Gunwale, or Inner Bottom. If a Gunwale is defined, no special input isavailable for a rounded gunwale.7.1.3.7 If there are more than two decks, they can be defined as either Watertight Flats orNon-tight Flats. Multiple instances of the same name are permitted, and are then namedWatertight Flat 2, etc. Longitudinal Bulkheads should be defined as Inner Skin Bulkheads, forwhich there may be multiple instances. The categories of Other Longitudinal Bulkhead,Forecastle Deck, and Poop Deck may not be used except for structure forward or aft of themidships 0.4 length of the ship. The section desired is selected by scrolling through the“Available Section List” to find the desired section, and then using the “Add” button below.After other sections have been selected, the section to be entered or edited is obtained by usingthe “Selected Section List.” In Figure 5, the selected section is the Bottom, which need not agreewith the section shown in the “Available Section List,” which is the Keel Plate in Figure 5.7.1.3.8 With this menu, plating with attached stiffeners is defined. A plate may begin andend at a longitudinal butt between adjacent strakes of plating. However, a beginning or end of aplate must be defined whenever there is an intersection with any other longitudinally continuousmembers, except for longitudinal stiffeners. For example, the bottom shell of a ship with aninnerbottom is shown in Figure 5, and the second plate ends at coordinates Z = 2.73, Y = 0.279because this location is the first longitudinal girder in the innerbottom.7.1.3.9The first plate within a section has the coordinates in the “Section Starting Point.”The end coordinates of the first plate are in the first row in the table, which also contains otherproperties for that plate. Subsequent plates are entered in order in the following rows, so that thestarting point of the second plate is end point of the first plate, and its end point is at thecoordinates of the next row of the table.7.1.3.10 Subsequent sections that are defined use a new starting point. For example, whenthe first longitudinal girder in the innerbottom is defined, its starting point is the intersection withthe coordinates of the bottom, Z = 2.730, Y = 0.279.7.1.3.11..Properties of plate that are defined in each row include the thickness (inmillimeters) and the material of the plate. Only one thickness can be described, so where there isa change in plating thickness, a new plate must be defined. If the plating is effective inlongitudinal strength, then the column “NSM” is marked “Yes,” otherwise it is “No.” Therefore,a separate plate must be defined for any area in the cross section that is not to be included in thehull girder section modulus calculation.7.1.3.12 If the plate is longitudinally stiffened, then the “Frm Sys” column is indicated as“Long,” otherwise it is “Trans.” The last column is important for the identification of the platein the output. However, it is limited to about eight characters, so should be descriptive and short.7.1.3.13..Longitudinal stiffeners are defined for each plate. The number of stiffenersassociated with a plate is entered in the column marked “No.” The “Offset(m)” is the distance inmeters between the beginning of the plate and the first stiffener on the plate. Other stiffeners onthe plate are then spaced at the distance in the column “SP(m).” Note that if the plate isineffective in longitudinal strength, then all of the attached stiffeners are also ineffective.7.1.3.14 The center and side girders of the innerbottom, as shown in Figure 5, are definedwith plating. Each section of plates is either a “Non-tight Bottom Girder” or a “WatertightBottom Girder”. These girders may have their own longitudinal stiffeners.7.1.3.15 Stiffeners are oriented so that the “Normal” direction points the stiffener towardsthe left (from the plate beginning to end). Selecting “Reverse” will point the stiffener in theopposite direction. The direction of the stiffeners will be seen in the outline of the section shownon the screen once the save icon in the bottom center of the screen is clicked.10

7.1.3.16 It is useful at this point to click on the icon at the bottom of the screen that lookslike:This icon will provide a menu for looking at the data input in more detail, including zoom andscroll buttons. Another useful feature is the icon that looks like:Options for showing either local or global stiffener or plate sections will appear by clicking onthis icon. This feature is important at later stages in the use of SafeHull, especially whendifficulties in the input cause the execution of the program to fail, and the error messages refer toglobal stiffener or plate numbers.7.1.3.17 Definition of the properties of the stiffeners is made by selecting the “StiffenerProperties” tab on the “Section Definition” screen. It is very important that before doing this, the“Save” icon on the bottom of the screen be used. Otherwise, section properties can be lost. Theicon to the right of this, which shows multiple 3 ½ inch diskettes, will save all of the sectionsdefined, and should also be liberally used to avoid problems.7.1.3.18 It is possible to go through all of the transverse cross sections to be input, usingscreens similar to Figure 5, and define all of the sections with their plates, and then define thestiffeners. The screen in Figure 5 shows that the scantling section, individual section, and theplate can be selected prior to input of stiffener properties. However, to avoid confusion as towhich stiffeners are being added, it is best to first click on the box for the number of stiffenersfor a particular plate when in the “Define Scantling Section” screen, and then select the“Stiffener Properties” tab. Clicking on the “Stiffener Properties” tab will display a screen similarto Figure 6 for defining stiffener properties for a particular plate. When this is done, thedarkened box marked “No. of Stiffeners” will show the number of stiffeners to be defined.11

Figure 6 The Stiffener Properties Screen7.1.3.19 Each stiffener is defined in a separate row in the table. Clicking on the box in the“LibID” column will make the stiffener library previously defined for the ship appear. Clickingon the desired structural shape will bring back the Stiffener Properties screen. The material forthe stiffener can be different from the material of the plate, and is selected in the “Mat” column.The details previously defined in the End Connection Library are now selected for the forwardand aft end of each stiffener in the “Aft ID” and “ForeID” columns. A stiffener is defined asspanning between two transverse frames, so that “Aft ID” refers to the detail at the firsttransverse frame aft of the section being defined. The cutout detail is not selected at this time.7.1.3.20 If the spacing of transverse frames or other supporting members (other than struts)is the same as the Transverse Web Frame Spacing previously defined in the general ship data,then no entry needs to be made in the “Span” Column. If the stiffener has openings that makepart of the section ineffective in longitudinal strength, then the transverse dimension of theineffective portion is indicated in the “Opening” column.7.1.3.21 If there are structural members connecting stiffeners in opposing sections, such asbottom and innerbottom stiffeners, they are sometimes connected at mid-span by struts. If so,clicking in the “Strut” column will permit entry of the material and structural section of such astrut. If there are no struts, then the box is not checked.7.1.3.21 Although apparently not necessary, it is a good idea to click on the “Save” iconat the bottom of the screen before returning to the “Define Scantling Section” tab.12

7.1.4 Hull/Tank Geometry7.1.4.1 For a fatigue analysis of the midship section of a typical naval ship, the only offsetsthat must be entered, other than for bow flare, are for the midship section. If analyses are to beconducted for other sections, their offsets must be entered. The description below is just for thecase of one section at midships, describing what appears to be the minimum input required forfatigue analysis. Although offsets may be available in a different format and at other pointsaround the hull, the points used to define the shell plates provide a sufficient data set for hulldefinition. Furthermore, using the same points for both hull definition and structural definitionavoids ambiguity in the description of the geometry.7.1.4.2 For entry of offsets and definition of hull compartments for tank definition, it isuseful at this time to have available the file ShipName.OPL. When developing the initial inputfor SafeHull, a working directory is defined for the ship being input. This file will be in thatdirectory”. An example of this file is shown in Table 2. The data in the file is similar to theinput screen shown in Figure 5, except that now the plate numbers are the global ID numbers,and the coordinates of the start and end nodes are given. By referring to this file, the user can becertain that the offsets for the hull coordinates and tanks are the same as for the structure. It isalso a good idea to review this file to make certain that intersecting members have the samecoordinates.Table 2 Input Data in File ShipName.OPLPLT#SEC ID FRAM MAT19 APRIL 2001 09:20:00 PAGE: 1ABS/SAFEHULL/CPOSTGEN V6.00 (2000 Rules)PLATE INFORMATION BASED ON SCANTLING GROUPSHIP : DLG 16 Renamed DLG16FILE : DLG16.OPLMidship Section --- Scantling group 1 ( x = 77.725 m from AP )START NODE END NODEID Z(m) Y(m) ID Z(m) Y(m)OFRTHKG(mm)NSTR#SPS1(m)SPFR(m)SPACE(m)SPAN(m)** Keel Plate (Rule 5-5-4/11.3.1, 5-5-4/11.1.3) **1 KPL101 1 HT36 1 0.000 0.000 2 0.610 0.025 19.05 0 0 0 0.738 2.438 FPK**Bottom (Rule 5-5-4/11.3.1, 5-5-0.3) **2 BTM101 1 HT36 2 0.610 0.025 3 1.524 0.100 15.88 1 0.127 0.762 0.790 2.438 A13 BTM102 1 HT36 3 1.524 0.100 4 2.730 0.279 15.88 1 0.762 0.762 0.762 2.438 A2USERID7.1.4.3 Figure 7 shows the input screen for the definition of the shell shape. The figure ofthe cross section does not appear until the “Save” icon is clicked. It is necessary to define thehull between the transverse bulkheads immediately forward and aft of midships, and the offset atthose locations and at midships can be entered as three separate sections. However, if only ananalysis at midships is made, then this portion of the hull can be treated as parallel midbody,with all three sections having the same offsets and therefore only entered once.13

Figure 7 2-D Shell Shape Definition Screen7.1.4.4 With only one 2-D shape defined for midships, the definition of the shell between thebulkheads forward and aft of midships is made as shown in Figure 8. Input is required for bothbulkheads and for midships. The shape is selected and then the distance from the afterperpendicular is defined for this shape. This is done for three locations.Figure 8 Shell Definition Screen14

7.1.4.5 The basis for local load application in SafeHull is the tank. There are five differenttypes of tanks that can be defined in Phase A:• Cargo Hold• Ballast Tank• Void Space/ Underway Passage• Duct Keel• Fuel Oil Tank7.1.4.6 For a local load to be developed for a surface, such as a deck or the side shell, thatsurface must be part of the boundary of a tank. This condition also includes external hydrostaticand hydrodynamic loads from wave action. The definition of the ballast tank and the fuel oiltank include air pipes that are part of the development of a hydrostatic head. The cargo tankapparently does not develop cargo loads, for the analysis of naval vessels there is no optionavailable for defining live and dead loads on decks. The Void Space/ Underway Passage and theDuct Keel do not develop internal loads.7.1.4.7 There is a limitation in SafeHull that two adjacent tanks in one cross section may notbe cargo tanks. Therefore, if a naval vessel has several decks, then the Void Space/ UnderwayPassage must be used between compartments that are defined as Cargo Holds. Such definitionwill result in most decks not having a load applied to them. It is possible if a deck is defined as aNon-tight Flat to have a single tank defined for the compartments above and below that deck.No local loads will be developed for that deck, but that is a limitation of SafeHull.7.1.4.8 Tanks are defined in a manner that is similar to shell definition. Two-dimensionalcross sections are defined for the forward and after ends of the tanks, and then selected in a menuthat defines the individual tank. As with the shell definition, the tanks may have the same crosssection at both ends. The tanks should be defined having a longitudinal extent between thebulkhead immediately forward of midships and immediately aft of midships (or the longitudinallocation of the ship for which the analysis is being made). However, tank 2-dimensional sectionsmay be defined as closed curves or as open curves that are closed by the previously defined shell.7.1.5 Slamming Factor7.1.5.1 The input for computation of the magnification of loads from bow flare slamming isindependent of most other input. The offsets for the first five stations of the hull above thedesign waterline are entered, starting with the forward perpendicular. The offsets below thewaterline may be entered, but are not used in the computations. The remaining stations are at0.05L, 0.10L, 0.15L, and 0.20 L from the forward perpendicular. For most ships where 20stations are defined, these would be stations 0 through 4, respectively. Unfortunately, whendefining these locations, SafeHull uses the rule length for L, so that interpolation of offsetsbetween the stations for which they are available will generally be required. To avoid doing that,an initial calculation of slamming factor can be made using offsets with the available stationsclosest to the required stations. If the slamming factor determined by SafeHull is 1.000, then itprobably is the minimum values, with the calculated value less. If such is the case, no furtherrefinement in offsets of the forebody is needed.7.1.5.2 Note that when the factor is computed, the user must manually enter it into the boxfor Slamming Factor.7.1.6 Fatigue Strength of Flat Bar7.1.6.1 Following the definition of the longitudinal scantlings, the further information ondetails for the connection of longitudinals to transverse frames are added through the menu“Window, Longitudinal Scantling, Fatigue Strength, Fatigue Strength of Flat Bars.” This will15

produce a screen similar to Figure 9. Input of data to this screen can be provided only afterdefinition of stiffeners. However, it is recommended that this data not be entered until test runshave been made of the program to ensure that all modules of the program are able to successfullyexecute and that there are no errors in the input. The reason for delaying this input is becausechanging the section definition will generally remove all data from this screen, and theinformation will have to be reentered. This is particularly so when a ship file has been closedand then reopened. If the screen for Fatigue Strength of Flat Bar is opened, a message willappear saying “Please Define Scantlings First.” Opening the Section Definition Screen and thenclosing it will remove this message and permit entry of data. However, doing so will frequentlycause the information previously entered to disappear.7.1.6.2 If the information previously entered on the fatigue strength of flat bars is so lost, itgenerally may be found in the file ShipName.FFB. The information in this file can then bereentered manually in the Fatigue Strength of Flat Bar screen.Figure 9 Fatigue Strength of Flat Bar Screen7.1.6.3 The stiffener identification numbers in the Fatigue Strength of Flat Bar screen do notrefer to either the global stiffener ID or the local stiffener ID that was used when the stiffenerswere defined in the Stiffener Properties Screen. Instead, there is a sequential number for thesection of the hull in which the stiffener is included. For example, Figure 5 shows that 5 plateswere defined for the bottom section of the hull, but there were a total of only 3 stiffeners attachedto the bottom plate. Figure 12.6 shows the definition of the stiffeners for plate number 1 of thebottom. If more than one stiffener had been attached to this bottom plate, they would have had asequence of local stiffener numbers. Figure 9 shows the stiffeners for the bottom section to be16

enumbered. Therefore, caremust be used in defining these details so that the correct informationbecomes associated with each stiffener.7.1.6.4 Note that the depth of the flat bar had been previously defined in the end connectionlibrary, as well as the size of any bracket attached Now with the Fatigue Strength of Flat Barmenu, the thickness of the flat bar and of the associated bracket is defined. The cutout detail isselected from the previously defined cutout library, with the thickness of the web of thetransverse frame and the thickness of the collar plates also defined. The default fatigue class forthese details is Class F2, but the user has the option of changing the fatigue class for every detailanalyzed.7.1.6.5 The throat thickness of the weld of the flat bar to the longitudinalis entered toperform a fatigue analysis of that weld. That weld is considered to be a Class W detail with noalternative permitted.7.1.7 Unnecessary Data The above data entry is all that is required to perform a faigueanalysis in Phase A of SafeHull. There are other input screens that may be ignored. It is notnecessary to enter information on the transverse bulkheads. Similarly, the scantlings oftransverse frames do not have to be defined except for the thickness of the web, which is part ofthe data entry for fatigue strength of flat bars. The longitudinal girders and stiffeners of theinnerbottom are defined as part of the sectional properties. The other menus that provide fordefinition of the innerbottom structure, such as floors, do not have to be used. The SafeHullPhase A program does not make an analysis of the innerbottom grillage for the purpose ofproviding stress to use in fatigue analysis.7.1.8 Phase A Analysis7.1.8.1 When the input is complete as outlined above, the Phase A input is complete and theprogram should be ready for execution. To check the input, there is a tab on the SafeHull screencalled “Utilities” and under it the menu item Input Files.” Files can be brought up and printed toensure that the data has been correctly entered. The format of these files is somewhat diffiecultto follow, and all information, such as global stiffener numbers, is not included. There are notfiles under this menu for all input items, such as the input of fatigue strength of flat bars.However, additional files are available in the project directory for the ship, and can be checkedfor input accuracy.7.1.8.2 There are twelve menu items, or program modules, in the tab “Execute.”X General Ship & Tank Geometry InformationX Generate Longitudinal ScantlingsX Hull-Girder Section ModulusX Calculate Longitudinal Scantlings• Calculate Torsional PropertiesX Steel Weight Estimate• Transverse Members• Torsional Stiffness AssessmentX Fatigue Analysis for Longitudinal Member• Fatigue Analysis for Hatch Corner• Calculate Shear Strength• Calculate Fore and Afterbody Side Stringers7.1.8.3 Of these, only six program modules, those marked with the symbol “X”, need to beexecuted to perform the fatigue analysis. In general, because insufficient information has beenentered, the other program modules will not execute. These program modules must be executed17

in sequence. If errors are found in the input during execution and corrected, all of the programmodules should be reexecuted.7.1.8.3 As an aid to the user, a log file is created by the program, providing information onthe successful or unsuccesful execution of each program module. Error and warning messagesare entered in the log file, and are of some help in diagnosing problems. It is useful to read thelog file after the execution of each program module to be certain that there were no errors foundduring execution. Some error messages will be shown on the screen during execution of aprogram module, but they usually do not stay on the screen. Most, although not all, of thosemessages can be found in the log file. The log file can be found under “Utilities, Log Files.” Ifthe program is reexecuted, the log file may be deleted to keep it from becoming too long. Acopy can be made before deleting if desired.7.1.8.4 All of the files under the “Utilities” tab may be printed directly, although those intabular form may not have columns properly aligned in the print-out, depending on the printerbeing used. They may be copied in two ways. If the left mouse button is clicked and draggedover the file, the text can be selected and then copied using the “Control+C” keys (PC). The textcan then be pasted into a word processing or spreadsheet program. Alternately,the file can befound in the project directory and opened into a word processing program.7.1.8.5 Chapter 15 of the Containership Phase A User’s Manual lists the files that areavailable. They have the names ShipName.*, where ShipName is the name used for the shipbeing analyzed, and the suffix is assigned according to file type. The files that are applicable tothe Phase A fatigue analysis are:• Stiffener Library — *.SLB• Multi-Stiffener Library Information — *.SLC• End Connection Library — *.DLB• Hatch Corner Library — *.CLB• Cutout Library — *.TLB• General Ship Information — *.GDF• Tank & Cargo Hold Information — *.INT• Longitudinal Cross Section Scantlings — *.LSC• Fore & Aft Scantling — *.CFA• General Ship & Tank Geometry Information — *.OTK• General Scantling Information For All Groups — *.OSG• Plate Information For All Groups — *.OPL• Stiffener Information For All Groups — *.OST• Hull Girder Section Modulus For All Groups — *.OSC• Required Longitudinal Scantlings-Detailed — *.OSL• Required Longitudinal Scantlings-Summary — *.OSM• Summary of Steel Weight Estimate — *.OWS• Details of Steel Weight Estimate — *.OWD• Fatigue Assessment of Longitudinal – Detailed — *.OF1• Fatigue Assessment of Longitudinal – Summary — *.OF2• Fatigue Assessment of Flat Bar — *.PRF7.1.8.6 After execution of the Hull-Girder Section Modulus program module, the fileShipName.OSC should be examined to determine the section modulus computed by SafeHull.The section moduli are provided for the gross section as designed, and for the net section with18

scantlings reduced for wastage. The gross section properties should be equal to the propertiesavailable from other sources, such as a longitudinal strength study or drawing for the ship. Anydifferences should be reconciled in terms of effective material and input scantlings before thefinal program modules are executed.7.1.8.7 When the Fatigue Analysis for Longitudinal Member program module has beensuccessfully executed, the results of the fatigue analysis of longitudinals and of flat bars can beobtained using the Utilities, Output Files, Execute, Fatigue Assessment menu. Under FatigueAssessment, the output for fatigue assessment of longitudinals can be obtained as either adetailed or a summary file. These fatigue analysis files are also available in the workingdirectory as the files ShipName.OF1, ShipName.OF2, and ShipName.PRF. Their contents aredescribed in Reference 4.1.7.2. Data Required for a Phase B Analysis7.2.1 Phase A Considerations7.2.1.1..Execution of a Phase B Analysis requires execution of a Phase A analysis. However,with the current version of the Phase B Containership version of SafeHull, the Phase A input fortransverse members, including transverse bulkheads, is not used in Phase B. That information isseparately input by the user during Phase B, so the effort of creating transverse scantlings inPhase A is not required.7.2.1.2 When using Phase A input for Phase B analysis, it may be best to rethink the PhaseA input of the “plate” sections that describe the longitudinally continuous structure. In Phase B,each one of these “plates” is treated as a “strake” of plating and attached stiffeners. The strakesare used to form quadrilateral finite elements which for a Phase B coarse mesh analysis have thesame width as the width of the strake. The length of the finite elements is a user option, but alogical choice is the spacing of transverse frames. However, during Phase A input, emphasis oncorrect representation of the structure can lead to poor finite element modeling. For example, aseam in the plating may be within 100 mm of a deck, and therefore a Phase A plate will bedefined that is 100 mm wide. When this model is used in Phase B, it becomes a strake and finiteelement that is 100 mm by perhaps 2,000 mm. Such a high aspect ratio represents poor finiteelement modeling.7.2.1.3 A better approach would be to reenter the Phase A data to avoid narrow plates.Where there are changes in plating thickness, such as in the side shell between two decks, thethickness should be averaged and one plate defined between decks.7.2.1.4 Another concern in the Phase A input is to make certain that there are enough platesforming a deck so that in defining transverse bulkheads, vertical finite elements can be joined todeck elements. It may be convenient to have only one plate defined in Phase A to represent adeck, but that will represent poor modeling of a bulkhead. Likewise, the plates in decks shouldbe aligned with those in other decks so that the elements defining transverse bulkheads arevertical.7.2.2 The SafeHull Modeler7.2.2.1 The modeler in Phase B takes the longitudinally continuous structure created inPhase B as the basis for a finite element mesh. The first step is to convert the plate and stiffenerlayout into Phase B through the menu File, Import Phase A Data, Plate and Stiffener Layout. Anoption is available for converting Phase A tank data, but this is unnecessary, as tanks have to beredefined in Phase B. With the limited data used, a message such as “File Creation Error” maybe generated. This message can be ignored as long as the file ShipName.3XS is created in thedirectory.19

7.2.2.2 Once the SafeHull Phase A has been imported, the ABS Modeler should be startedwith the menu item FE-Modeler, ABS Modeler. Now the command File, Import, Phase A datashould be used. The file ShipName.3XS should be used to create a model of the starboard side,not the file ShipName.3XP, which creates the port side. If a coarse mesh is selected, elementswill be the width of the Phase A plates. Otherwise, in the fine mesh option, there will be anelement for every longitudinal stiffener. The “Module Section Length” is input, whichrepresents the length of the finite elements. This should be the transverse frame spacing or afraction such as one-half or one-third of it. Note that the Phase B units are centimeters, notmeters as in Phase A. In Phase B, the model generated should extend from the second transversebulkhead aft of midships to the second transverse bulkhead forward of midships, so that there arefour transverse bulkheads forming three compartments, or holds. Therefore, the number ofsections per module should be equal to the length of the model divided by the module sectionlength. If the transverse frames are irregularly spaced, then adjustments to the model will beneeded. Figure 10 shows the model generated at this point.Figure 10 ABS SafeHull Modeler7.2.2.3 Various commands are available in the ABS Modeler for the input of transverseframes and bulkheads. Other features, such as openings can be made by adding or deletingelements. For stiffeners, the shapes that are in the stiffener library that was created in Phase Aare available now. If additional shapes are needed, then the library will have to be edited.7.2.2.4 There are some differences between the conventions used in the ABS Modeler and inNASTRAN. For example, in the ABS Modeler, the web of a bar element is contained in the20

plate that is defined by the three points used to define the element. In NASTRAN, the principalaxis of a member is normal to that plane. Therefore, the menu and help screens must be readcarefully by the user when entering data.7.2.2.5 The strake element used in the ABS Modeler is convenient because it includeslongitudinal and transverse stiffeners. To create the model shown in Figure 10, strake elementswith the same properties are placed at every one of the sections along the length of the ship.Therefore, if a transverse frame is added to one strake, it is reproduced at every section along thelength of the model. This is a convenient feature if the spacing of the sections in the model isequal to the spacing of transverse frames. However, if the sections of the model are spaced moreclosely than the transverse frames of the ship, extra transverse frames will be added and willhave to be removed from the model.7.2.2.6 When the ABS Modeler file is completed, it should be saved in the project directory,and then exported as a NASTRAN file. This is done with the command File, Export,NASTRAN. Execution will produce a blank screen similar to Figure 11, which can be ignored.Figure 11 SafeHull Screen after Export of Modeler File to NASTRAN File7.3 Limitations when Applying SafeHull to U.S. Navy Ships7.3.1 The SafeHull program was developed for the design and analysis of very specific shiptypes, and not for application to naval vessels. If the above guidance is used to analyze a navalship, then a successful analysis using the ABS SafeHull program will result. However, there are21

many limitations associated with this procedure which will diminish the usefulness of theresulting analysis.7.3.2 There are basic differences in methods of fatigue analysis and factors that must beconsidered in the development of standardized methods for fatigue analysis, either commercialor military. These differences are outlined below.I. Technical differences in fatigue analysisA. Approach,1. S-N fatigue crack initiation analysis2. da/dN fatigue crack growth analysisB. Loading Analysis1. Spectral Fatigue Analysis2. Weibull Distribution3. Standardized Loadsa. Hull Girder Bending momentsb. Side Loadsc. Generalized RAO’sC. Fatigue Detail Database1. Specialized database2. Standardized curvesD. Hot-Spot stress approachE. Inclusion of Hull Girder WhippingF. Acceptable Probability of FailureG. Standardized Operating ConditionsII.Commercial vs. MilitaryA. Calibration of Weibull Loading Spectra for Ship Types and Operating ConditionsB. Development of Standard Bending Moments for ship TypesC. Development of RAO’s and Whipping Moments for Ship TypesD. Differences in Assumed Operating ConditionsIII.Standardization of MethodA. Selection of MethodologyB. Adaptation to Specific Conditions7.3.3 There are considerable differences between the historical approaches to the structuraldesign of military and commercial ships for environmental loads. These differences havediminished in recent years as the commercial procedures have evolved to include structuraldesign based on analytically developed loads and detailed stress analysis. Both the ABS DLAapproach and the current U.S. Navy approach use definition of loads made by analysis of typicalships, and generalize the results for future designs. The approaches, in general, provide fordirect computation of ship response and for differences in assumed operational profiles. Thedifferences between procedures may diminish in the future as the classification societies developrules for military ships and the military authorities adopt these rules. The degree of differencewill not be able to be ascertained until ships are designed using the new rules, and the scantlingsso developed are compared to equivalent ships designed under the old approach. An importantdifference as far as fatigue life of structure will be which approach will result in heavier22

scantlings, and thus have an inherently greater fatigue life. In either case, because fatigueassessment has now become standard practice for both commercial and military ship design,either approach should result in satisfactory fatigue lives.7.3.4 There is nothing inherent in either a commercial or military ship that should affect theoverall methodology. However, the current commercial and military fatigue philosophy isdifferent. The ABS approach is to prevent fatigue cracking, in general, and assess details inhighly stressed areas important to safety. The U.S. Navy approach is to prevent fatigue cracking(safe life). These differences in approach come from historical development and preferences inthe organizations developing the methods. There are unique features associated with specificship types and operating environments that can affect a standardized method. The objective ofthis study is to determine if a standardized method developed from a set of assumptions on hullform, operating environment, and type of structural details can be used in conditions in whichthose assumptions have changed.7.3.5 If a methodology developed for commercial ships is applied to military ships, adetermination is needed to as to how much difference there will be in results. A broader questioncan be asked as to the degree of accuracy of any methodology. The paucity of real data points ofwell- documented service experience combined with the inherent variability in analyses makescalibration poor. Application of fatigue analysis to design and assessment of existing shipsseems to be pointing in the right direction for identification of bad actors in the structure thatshould be fixed, but there is still a lot of inconsistency in results between areas that have crackedand the fatigue predictions. However, comparison of analysis with service failures on operatingships is somewhat shaky, with both unpredicted failures and predictions that are not borne out byexperience.8. Keywords8.1 SafeHull8.2 Ship Fatigue23

App A-1APPENDIX AFATIGUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SHIP A

App A-2STF#Table A.1 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Longitudinals for Ship AABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.11 (2000 Rules) -- Non Production (Special consideration required for L < 130m)SHIP : F2 Detailes Length 124.18 mLxBxDxd = 124.18x 14.42x 7.57x 4.59(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 76210.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 168609.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 3.88(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSS U M M A R YRange of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 56290.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 31972.(tf-m)SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)"Net" Ship Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75Ct Cy LP#LC#LocalLoadRange(m)Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm2)FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P Sf R /P S SCANTLINGS USERDEFINEDID1 KPL10101 A/ 1 0 3959 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2414 45 1986 F2 0.912 2503 0.79 24x14x130# I-T CVKFPK01F/ 1 0 3959 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2414 45 1986 F2 0.912 2503 0.79 CVKFPK012 BTM10101 A/ 1 0.03 225 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2659 728 2735 F2 0.912 2503 1.09 10 X 4 X 15# I/T S1 01F/ 1 0.03 225 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2659 728 2735 F2 0.912 2503 1.09 S1 013 BTM10202 A/ 2 0.08 225 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2623 607 2607 F2 0.912 2503 1.04 10 X 4 X 15# I/T S2 02F/ 1 0.08 225 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2623 607 2607 F2 0.912 2503 1.04 S2 024 BTM10303 A/ 1 0.2 225 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2534 668 2586 F2 0.912 2503 1.03 10 X 4 X 15# I/T S3 03F/ 1 0.2 225 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2534 668 2586 F2 0.912 2503 1.03 S3 035 BTM10404 A/ 1 0.43 1120 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2206 140 1894 F2 0.912 2503 0.76 18x7x12.75#/17.85# S4 04F/ 1 0.43 1120 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2206 140 1894 F2 0.912 2503 0.76 S4 046 BTM10505 A/ 1 0.77 163 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2115 928 2457 F2 0.912 2503 0.98 10 X 4 X 12# I/T S5 05F/ 1 0.77 163 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2115 928 2457 F2 0.912 2503 0.98 S5 057 BLG10101 A/ 2 1.24 163 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1805 1167 2823 F2 0.912 2503 1.13 10 X 4 X 12# I/T S6 01F/ 1 1.24 163 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1805 1167 2823 F2 0.912 2503 1.13 S6 01

App A-3STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP#LC#LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm2) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P Sf R /P S SCANTLINGS USERDEFINEDID8 SHL10101 A/ 1 1.91 177 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.69 1713 1519 3071 F2 0.949 2360 1.3 10 X 4 X 12# I/T S7 01F/ 1 1.91 177 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.69 1713 1519 3071 F2 0.949 2360 1.3 S7 019 SHL10202 A/ 2 2.63 176 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.55 1589 1418 2857 F2 0.949 2360 1.21 10 X 4 X 12# I/T S8 02F/ 1 2.63 176 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.55 1589 1418 2857 F2 0.949 2360 1.21 S8 0210 SHL10303 A/ 1 3.39 98 2.44 1 1 1 5&6 13.14 496 4043 4312 F2 0.949 2360 1.83 WT6 x 4 x 7 #T S9 03F/ 1 3.39 98 2.44 1 1 1 5&6 13.14 496 4043 4312 F2 0.949 2360 1.83 S9 0311 SHL10404 A/ 1 4.15 98 2.44 1 0.98 1 F1&F2 11.44 1395 3445 4598 F2 0.949 2360 1.95 WT6 x 4 x 7 #T S10 04F/ 1 4.15 98 2.44 1 0.98 1 F1&F2 11.44 1395 3445 4598 F2 0.949 2360 1.95 S10 0412 SHS10101 A/ 1 4.95 251 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 10.91 1612 1440 2899 F2 0.949 2360 1.23 12 X 4 X 14# I/T S11 01F/ 1 4.95 251 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 10.91 1612 1440 2899 F2 0.949 2360 1.23 S11 0113 SHS10202 A/ 1 5.82 100 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1785 2339 3917 F2 0.94 2396 1.64 WT6 x 4 x 7 #T S12 02F/ 1 5.82 100 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1785 2339 3917 F2 0.94 2396 1.64 S12 0214 SHS10303 A/ 2 6.67 173 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 2068 334 2282 F2 0.885 2636 0.87 8 X 4 X 13# I/T S13 03F/ 1 6.67 173 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 2068 334 2282 F2 0.885 2636 0.87 S13 0315 DEC10201 A/ 2 7.67 171 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.67 171 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.9116 DEC10302 A/ 1 7.71 171 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.71 171 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.9117 DEC10403 A/ 2 7.77 169 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.77 169 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.9118 DEC10504 A/ 1 7.81 169 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.81 169 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.9119 DEC10605 A/ 2 7.85 169 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.85 169 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.9120 DEC10706 A/ 1 7.86 169 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.86 169 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.9121 DEC10807 A/ 2 7.87 159 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.87 159 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.9122 DEC10908 A/ 1 7.87 160 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91 8 X 4 X 13# I/T

App A-4STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP#LC#LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm2) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SF/ 1 7.87 160 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91f R /P S SCANTLINGS USERDEFINEDID23 DEC10909 A/ 2 7.87 159 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.87 159 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.9124 SDK10101 A/ 1 4.95 70 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1525 0 1448 F2 0.949 2360 0.61 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1st Pl01F/ 1 4.95 70 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1525 0 1448 F2 0.949 2360 0.61 1st Pl0125 SDK10202 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1327 0 1260 F2 0.949 2360 0.53 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_02F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1327 0 1260 F2 0.949 2360 0.53 1stPl_0226 SDK10203 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1182 0 1123 F2 0.949 2360 0.48 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_03F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1182 0 1123 F2 0.949 2360 0.48 1stPl_0327 SDK10204 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1038 0 986 F2 0.949 2360 0.42 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_04F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1038 0 986 F2 0.949 2360 0.42 1stPl_0428 SDK10205 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 893 0 849 F2 0.949 2360 0.36 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_05F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 893 0 849 F2 0.949 2360 0.36 1stPl_0529 SDK10206 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 749 0 711 F2 0.949 2360 0.3 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_06F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 749 0 711 F2 0.949 2360 0.3 1stPl_0630 SDK10207 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 604 0 574 F2 0.949 2360 0.24 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_07F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 604 0 574 F2 0.949 2360 0.24 1stPl_0731 SDK10208 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 460 0 437 F2 0.949 2360 0.19 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_08F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 460 0 437 F2 0.949 2360 0.19 1stPl_0832 SDK10209 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 7&8 0 315 0 300 F2 0.949 2360 0.13 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_09F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 7&8 0 315 0 300 F2 0.949 2360 0.13 1stPl_09

App A-5Table A.2 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Bars for Ship A15 MARCH 2001 14:48:46 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.11 (2000 Rules) -- Non Production (Special consideration required for L < 130m)SHIP : F2 DetaIes Length 124.18 mLxBxDxd = 124.18x 14.42x 7.57x 4.59(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 76210.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 168609.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 3.88(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR FLAT-BAR SUPPORT STIFFENERS OF LONGITUDINALSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 64.01m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 56290.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 31972.(tf-m)CutoutLABELID LOC Dist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeSupportAreasHead Force As Ac(m) (tf) (cm 2 )SCFStress Range(kg/cm2)fs fL fRiFATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSfR/PSBLG10101 1 1 1.24 0.927 2.34 5.84 12.99 7.9 38.8 1.5 265 2823 2851 F2 0.912 2503 1.142 1.24 0.927 2.34 5.84 12.99 7.9 38.8 1.25 265 2823 2843 F2 0.912 2503 1.14[Weld Throat] 1.24 0.927 2.34 5.84 12.99 [Asw]= 8 1.25 265 0 326 W 0.912 1805 0.18SHS10303 2 1 6.67 0.878 2.34 1.87 3.94 7.9 23.2 1.5 121 2282 2289 F2 0.885 2636 0.872 6.67 0.878 2.34 1.87 3.94 7.9 23.2 1.25 121 2282 2287 F2 0.885 2636 0.87[Weld Throat] 6.67 0.878 2.34 1.87 3.94 [Asw]= 8 1.25 121 0 149 W 0.885 1900 0.08DEC10201 2 1 7.67 0.804 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.5 0 2445 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.912 7.67 0.804 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.25 0 2445 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91[Weld Throat] 7.67 0.804 2.34 0 0 [Asw]= 8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.875 1936 0DEC10403 2 1 7.77 0.807 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.5 0 2445 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.912 7.77 0.807 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.25 0 2445 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91[Weld Throat] 7.77 0.807 2.34 0 0 [Asw]= 8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.875 1936 0DEC10605 2 1 7.85 0.836 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.5 0 2445 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91

App A-6CutoutLABELID LOC Dist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeSupportAreasSCFStress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSHead Force As Ac(m) (tf) (cm 2 )fs fL fRi2 7.85 0.836 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.25 0 2445 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91[Weld Throat] 7.85 0.836 2.34 0 0 [Asw]= 8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.875 1936 0DEC10807 2 1 7.87 0.735 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.5 0 2445 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.912 7.87 0.735 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.25 0 2445 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91[Weld Throat] 7.87 0.735 2.34 0 0 [Asw]= 8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.875 1936 0DEC10909 2 1 7.87 0.66 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.5 0 2445 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.912 7.87 0.66 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.25 0 2445 2445 F2 0.875 2688 0.91[Weld Throat] 7.87 0.66 2.34 0 0 [Asw]= 8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.875 1936 0fR/PS

App A-7STF#Table A.3 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F Longitudinals for Ship A15 MARCH 2001 14:57:10 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.11 (2000 Rules) -- Non Production (Special consideration required for L < 130m)SHIP : Class F Details Length 124.18 mLxBxDxd = 124.18x 14.42x 7.57x 4.59(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 76210.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 168609.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 3.88(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 64.01m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 56290.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 31972.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Local Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75 Long Perm.SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)sm(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)Stress Range(kg/cm 2 )f RG f RL f RFATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGS USERDEFINEDID1 KPL10101 A/ 1 0 3959 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2414 45 1986 F 0.912 2846 0.7 24x14x130# I-T CVKFPK01F/ 1 0 3959 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2414 45 1986 F 0.912 2846 0.7 CVKFPK012 BTM10101 A/ 1 0.03 225 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2659 728 2735 F 0.912 2846 0.96 10 X 4 X 15# I/T S1 01F/ 1 0.03 225 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2659 728 2735 F 0.912 2846 0.96 S1 013 BTM10202 A/ 2 0.08 225 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2623 607 2607 F 0.912 2846 0.92 10 X 4 X 15# I/T S2 02F/ 1 0.08 225 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2623 607 2607 F 0.912 2846 0.92 S2 024 BTM10303 A/ 1 0.2 225 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2534 668 2586 F 0.912 2846 0.91 10 X 4 X 15# I/T S3 03F/ 1 0.2 225 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2534 668 2586 F 0.912 2846 0.91 S3 035 BTM10404 A/ 1 0.43 1120 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2206 140 1894 F 0.912 2846 0.67 18x7x12.75#/17.85# S4 04F/ 1 0.43 1120 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2206 140 1894 F 0.912 2846 0.67 S4 04

App A-8STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)sm(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)Stress Range(kg/cm 2 )f RG f RL f RFATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGS USERDEFINEDID6 BTM10505 A/ 1 0.77 163 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2115 928 2457 F 0.912 2846 0.86 10 X 4 X 12# I/T S5 05F/ 1 0.77 163 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 4.25 2115 928 2457 F 0.912 2846 0.86 S5 057 BLG10101 A/ 2 1.24 163 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1805 1167 2823 F 0.912 2846 0.99 10 X 4 X 12# I/T S6 01F/ 1 1.24 163 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1805 1167 2823 F 0.912 2846 0.99 S6 018 SHL10101 A/ 1 1.91 177 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.69 1713 1519 3071 F 0.949 2680 1.15 10 X 4 X 12# I/T S7 01F/ 1 1.91 177 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.69 1713 1519 3071 F 0.949 2680 1.15 S7 019 SHL10202 A/ 2 2.63 176 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.55 1589 1418 2857 F 0.949 2680 1.07 10 X 4 X 12# I/T S8 02F/ 1 2.63 176 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.55 1589 1418 2857 F 0.949 2680 1.07 S8 0210 SHL10303 A/ 1 3.39 98 2.44 1 1 1 5&6 13.14 496 4043 4312 F 0.949 2680 1.61 WT6 x 4 x 7 #T S9 03F/ 1 3.39 98 2.44 1 1 1 5&6 13.14 496 4043 4312 F 0.949 2680 1.61 S9 0311 SHL10404 A/ 1 4.15 98 2.44 1 0.98 1 F1&F2 11.44 1395 3445 4598 F 0.949 2680 1.72 WT6 x 4 x 7 #T S10 04F/ 1 4.15 98 2.44 1 0.98 1 F1&F2 11.44 1395 3445 4598 F 0.949 2680 1.72 S10 0412 SHS10101 A/ 1 4.95 251 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 10.91 1612 1440 2899 F 0.949 2680 1.08 12 X 4 X 14# I/T S11 01F/ 1 4.95 251 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 10.91 1612 1440 2899 F 0.949 2680 1.08 S11 0113 SHS10202 A/ 1 5.82 100 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1785 2339 3917 F 0.94 2722 1.44 WT6 x 4 x 7 #T S12 02F/ 1 5.82 100 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1785 2339 3917 F 0.94 2722 1.44 S12 0214 SHS10303 A/ 2 6.67 173 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 2068 334 2282 F 0.885 2997 0.76 8 X 4 X 13# I/T S13 03F/ 1 6.67 173 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 2068 334 2282 F 0.885 2997 0.76 S13 0315 DEC10201 A/ 2 7.67 171 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.67 171 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.816 DEC10302 A/ 1 7.71 171 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.71 171 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.817 DEC10403 A/ 2 7.77 169 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.77 169 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.818 DEC10504 A/ 1 7.81 169 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.81 169 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.819 DEC10605 A/ 2 7.85 169 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.85 169 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8

App A-9STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)sm(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)Stress Range(kg/cm 2 )f RG f RL f RFATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGS USERDEFINEDID20 DEC10706 A/ 1 7.86 169 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.86 169 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.821 DEC10807 A/ 2 7.87 159 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.87 159 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.822 DEC10908 A/ 1 7.87 160 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.87 160 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.823 DEC10909 A/ 2 7.87 159 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8 8 X 4 X 13# I/TF/ 1 7.87 159 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2574 0 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.824 SDK10101 A/ 1 4.95 70 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1525 0 1448 F 0.949 2680 0.54 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1st Pl01F/ 1 4.95 70 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1525 0 1448 F 0.949 2680 0.54 1st Pl0125 SDK10202 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1327 0 1260 F 0.949 2680 0.47 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_02F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1327 0 1260 F 0.949 2680 0.47 1stPl_0226 SDK10203 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1182 0 1123 F 0.949 2680 0.42 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_03F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1182 0 1123 F 0.949 2680 0.42 1stPl_0327 SDK10204 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1038 0 986 F 0.949 2680 0.37 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_04F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1038 0 986 F 0.949 2680 0.37 1stPl_0428 SDK10205 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 893 0 849 F 0.949 2680 0.32 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_05F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 893 0 849 F 0.949 2680 0.32 1stPl_0529 SDK10206 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 749 0 711 F 0.949 2680 0.27 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_06F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 749 0 711 F 0.949 2680 0.27 1stPl_0630 SDK10207 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 604 0 574 F 0.949 2680 0.21 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_07F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 604 0 574 F 0.949 2680 0.21 1stPl_0731 SDK10208 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 460 0 437 F 0.949 2680 0.16 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_08F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 460 0 437 F 0.949 2680 0.16 1stPl_0832 SDK10209 A/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 7&8 0 315 0 300 F 0.949 2680 0.11 WT5 x 4 x 6# T 1stPl_09F/ 1 4.95 65 2.44 1 1 1 7&8 0 315 0 300 F 0.949 2680 0.11 1stPl_09

App A-10CutoutLABELTable A.4 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F Flat Bars for Ship A15 MARCH 2001 14:57:10 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.11 (2000 Rules) -- Non Production (Special consideration required for L < 130m)SHIP : Class F Details Length 124.18 mLxBxDxd = 124.18x 14.42x 7.57x 4.59(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 76210.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 168609.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 3.88(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR FLAT-BAR SUPPORT STIFFENERS OF LONGITUDINALSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 64.01m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 56290.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 31972.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75ID LOCDist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeSupportAreasSCFStress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSHead Force As Ac(m) (tf) (cm 2 )fs fL fRiBLG10101 1 1 1.24 0.927 2.34 5.84 12.99 7.9 38.8 1.5 265 2823 2851 F 0.912 2846 12 1.24 0.927 2.34 5.84 12.99 7.9 38.8 1.25 265 2823 2843 F 0.912 2846 1[Weld Throat] 1.24 0.927 2.34 5.84 12.99 [Asw]= 8 1.25 265 0 326 W 0.912 1805 0.18SHS10303 2 1 6.67 0.878 2.34 1.87 3.94 7.9 23.2 1.5 121 2282 2289 F 0.885 2997 0.762 6.67 0.878 2.34 1.87 3.94 7.9 23.2 1.25 121 2282 2287 F 0.885 2997 0.76[Weld Throat] 6.67 0.878 2.34 1.87 3.94 [Asw]= 8 1.25 121 0 149 W 0.885 1900 0.08DEC10201 2 1 7.67 0.804 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.5 0 2445 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.82 7.67 0.804 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.25 0 2445 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8[Weld Throat] 7.67 0.804 2.34 0 0 [Asw]= 8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.875 1936 0DEC10403 2 1 7.77 0.807 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.5 0 2445 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.82 7.77 0.807 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.25 0 2445 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8[Weld Throat] 7.77 0.807 2.34 0 0 [Asw]= 8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.875 1936 0fR/PS

App A-11CutoutLABELID LOCDist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeSupportAreasSCFStress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSHead Force As Ac(m) (tf) (cm 2 )fs fL fRiDEC10605 2 1 7.85 0.836 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.5 0 2445 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.82 7.85 0.836 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.25 0 2445 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8[Weld Throat] 7.85 0.836 2.34 0 0 [Asw]= 8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.875 1936 0DEC10807 2 1 7.87 0.735 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.5 0 2445 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.82 7.87 0.735 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.25 0 2445 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8[Weld Throat] 7.87 0.735 2.34 0 0 [Asw]= 8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.875 1936 0DEC10909 2 1 7.87 0.66 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.5 0 2445 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.82 7.87 0.66 2.34 0 0 6.3 0 1.25 0 2445 2445 F 0.875 3055 0.8[Weld Throat] 7.87 0.66 2.34 0 0 [Asw]= 8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.875 1936 0fR/PS

App B-1APPENDIX BFATIGUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SHIP B

App B-2STF#SafeHullSTF IDTable B.1 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Longitudinals for Ship B18 MARCH 2001 17:11:02 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.00 (2000 Rules)SHIP : MidshipsLxBxDxd = 162.02x 25.67x 16.61x 6.55(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 883156.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 1958098.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 7.57(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 83.51m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 180100.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 122681.(tf-m)TOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)sm Unsup(cm3) Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm2) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)f R /P S SCANTLINGS USERDEFINEDID1 BTM10801 A/ 1 0.24 509 2.362 1 1 2 1&2 4.86 1434 266 1373 F2 0.885 2631 0.52 12 x 6.5 x 27# I- Strake01F/ 2 0.24 509 2.362 1 1 2 1&2 4.86 1434 266 1373 F2 0.885 2631 0.52 Strake012 BTM10802 A/ 1 0.28 509 2.362 1 1 2 1&2 4.86 1424 261 1360 F2 0.885 2631 0.52 12 x 6.5 x 27# I- Strake02F/ 2 0.28 509 2.362 1 1 2 1&2 4.86 1424 261 1360 F2 0.885 2631 0.52 Strake023 BLG10201 A/ 1 0.73 509 2.362 1 1 2 1&2 4.81 1334 306 1325 F2 0.885 2631 0.5 12 x 6.5 x 27# I- Strake01F/ 2 0.73 509 2.362 1 1 2 1&2 4.81 1334 306 1325 F2 0.885 2631 0.5 Strake014 BLG10302 A/ 1 1.22 509 2.362 1 1 2 1&2 5.08 1233 335 1266 F2 0.885 2631 0.48 12 x 6.5 x 27# I- Strake02F/ 2 1.22 509 2.362 1 1 2 1&2 5.08 1233 335 1266 F2 0.885 2631 0.48 Strake025 BLG10303 A/ 1 2.08 509 2.362 1 1 2 TZONE 1092 424 1440 F2 0.885 2631 0.55 12 x 6.5 x 27# I- Strake03F/ 2 2.08 509 2.362 1 1 2 TZONE 1092 424 1440 F2 0.885 2631 0.55 Strake036 BLG10304 A/ 1 2.93 509 2.362 1 1 2 TZONE 1085 559 1561 F2 0.885 2631 0.59 12 x 6.5 x 27# I- Strake04F/ 2 2.93 509 2.362 1 1 2 TZONE 1085 559 1561 F2 0.885 2631 0.59 Strake04

App B-3STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)sm Unsup(cm3) Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm2) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)f R /P S SCANTLINGS USERDEFINEDID7 SHL10101 A/ 1 3.87 418 2.362 1 1 2 F1&F2 9.67 1059 659 1632 F2 0.924 2456 0.66 12 x 4 x 22# I-T G Stra01F/ 2 3.87 418 2.362 1 1 2 F1&F2 9.67 1059 659 1632 F2 0.924 2456 0.66 G Stra018 SHL10202 A/ 1 4.51 223 2.362 1 1 2 F1&F2 9.94 1014 1239 2140 F2 0.924 2456 0.87 10 x 4 x 15# I-T H Stra02F/ 2 4.51 223 2.362 1 1 2 F1&F2 9.94 1014 1239 2140 F2 0.924 2456 0.87 H Stra029 SHL10203 A/ 1 5.42 223 2.362 1 1 2 F1&F2 11.02 944 1607 2423 F2 0.924 2456 0.99 10 x 4 x 15# I-T H Stra03F/ 2 5.42 223 2.362 1 1 2 F1&F2 11.02 944 1607 2423 F2 0.924 2456 0.99 H Stra0310 SHL10204 A/ 1 6.33 223 2.362 1 0.75 2 F1&F2 12.11 874 1474 2231 F2 0.924 2456 0.91 10 x 4 x 15# I-T H Stra04F/ 2 6.33 223 2.362 1 0.75 2 F1&F2 12.11 874 1474 2231 F2 0.924 2456 0.91 H Stra0411 SHL10305 A/ 1 7.43 200 2.362 1 0.4 2 F1&F2 11.21 786 815 1521 F2 0.924 2456 0.62 10 x 4 x 15# I-T J1 Str05F/ 2 7.43 200 2.362 1 0.4 2 F1&F2 11.21 786 815 1521 F2 0.924 2456 0.62 J1 Str0512 SHL10506 A/ 1 9.23 102 2.438 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.88 920 825 1658 F2 0.924 2456 0.68 6 X 4 X 7# T K Stra06F/ 1 9.23 102 2.438 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.88 920 825 1658 F2 0.924 2456 0.68 K Stra0613 SHL10507 A/ 1 10.04 102 2.438 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.91 988 704 1607 F2 0.924 2456 0.65 6 X 4 X 7# T K Stra07F/ 1 10.04 102 2.438 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.91 988 704 1607 F2 0.924 2456 0.65 K Stra0714 SHL10708 A/ 1 11.76 102 2.438 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 5.84 1130 614 1657 F2 0.924 2456 0.67 6 X 4 X 7# T L2 Str08F/ 1 11.76 102 2.438 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 5.84 1130 614 1657 F2 0.924 2456 0.67 L2 Str0815 SHL10809 A/ 1 12.7 102 2.438 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1163 429 1513 F2 0.917 2485 0.61 6 X 4 X 7# T M1 Str09F/ 1 12.7 102 2.438 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1163 429 1513 F2 0.917 2485 0.61 M1 Str0916 SHL11010 A/ 1 14.17 446 2.438 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1340 19 1291 F2 0.871 2713 0.48 10 x 5.75 x 25# I-T N Stra10F/ 1 14.17 446 2.438 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1340 19 1291 F2 0.871 2713 0.48 N Stra1017 SHS10101 A/ 1 15.01 446 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 1517 0 1441 F2 0.847 2848 0.51 10 x 5.75 x 25# I-T Shr St01F/ 1 15.01 446 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 1517 0 1441 F2 0.847 2848 0.51 Shr St0118 SHS10102 A/ 1 15.81 446 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 1680 0 1596 F2 0.847 2848 0.56 10 x 5.75 x 25# I-T Shr St02F/ 1 15.81 446 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 1680 0 1596 F2 0.847 2848 0.56 Shr St0219 DEC10101 A/ 1 16.61 388 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk O01F/ 1 16.61 388 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk O0120 DEC10102 A/ 1 16.61 388 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk O02F/ 1 16.61 388 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk O02

App B-4STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)sm Unsup(cm3) Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm2) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)f R /P S SCANTLINGS USERDEFINEDID21 DEC10103 A/ 1 16.61 388 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk O03F/ 1 16.61 388 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk O0322 DEC10104 A/ 1 16.61 920 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1792 0 1702 F2 0.847 2848 0.6 10 x 10 x 49 # I MnDk O04F/ 1 16.61 920 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1792 0 1702 F2 0.847 2848 0.6 MnDk O0423 DEC10105 A/ 1 16.61 388 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk O05F/ 1 16.61 388 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk O0524 DEC10106 A/ 1 16.61 388 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk O06F/ 1 16.61 388 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk O0625 DEC10107 A/ 1 16.61 388 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk O07F/ 1 16.61 388 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk O0726 DEC10108 A/ 1 16.61 388 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk O08F/ 1 16.61 388 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk O0827 DEC10209 A/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk I09F/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk I0928 DEC10210 A/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk I10F/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk I1029 DEC10211 A/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk I11F/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk I1130 DEC10212 A/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk I12F/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk I1231 DEC10213 A/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk I13F/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk I1332 DEC10214 A/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk I14F/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk I1433 DEC10215 A/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk I15F/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk I1534 DEC10216 A/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk I16F/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk I16

App B-5STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)sm Unsup(cm3) Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm2) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)f R /P S SCANTLINGS USERDEFINEDID35 DEC10217 A/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk I17F/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk I1736 DEC10218 A/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk I18F/ 1 16.61 383 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk I1837 DEC10319 A/ 1 16.61 119 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk I19F/ 1 16.61 119 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk I1938 DEC10320 A/ 1 16.61 119 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk I20F/ 1 16.61 119 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk I2039 DEC10321 A/ 1 16.61 119 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 12 x 4 x 19# I-T MnDk I21F/ 1 16.61 119 4.877 1 1 1 1&2 0 1781 0 1692 F2 0.847 2848 0.59 MnDk I2140 WTF10101 A/ 1 7.24 204 2.362 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 27 0 26 F2 0.847 2848 0.01 8 x 5.25 x 17# I-T 4tdDkI01F/ 2 7.24 204 2.362 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 27 0 26 F2 0.847 2848 0.01 4tdDkI0141 WTF10102 A/ 1 7.24 204 2.362 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 87 0 83 F2 0.847 2848 0.03 8 x 5.25 x 17# I-T 4tdDkI02F/ 2 7.24 204 2.362 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 87 0 83 F2 0.847 2848 0.03 4tdDkI0242 WTF10103 A/ 1 7.24 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 147 0 140 F2 0.847 2848 0.05 8 x 5.25 x 17# I-T 4tdDkI03F/ 1 7.24 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 147 0 140 F2 0.847 2848 0.05 4tdDkI0343 WTF10104 A/ 1 7.24 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 207 0 197 F2 0.847 2848 0.07 8 x 5.25 x 17# I-T 4tdDkI04F/ 1 7.24 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 207 0 197 F2 0.847 2848 0.07 4tdDkI0444 WTF10105 A/ 1 7.24 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 267 0 254 F2 0.847 2848 0.09 8 x 5.25 x 17# I-T 4tdDkI05F/ 1 7.24 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 267 0 254 F2 0.847 2848 0.09 4tdDkI0545 WTF10106 A/ 1 7.24 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 327 0 311 F2 0.847 2848 0.11 8 x 5.25 x 17# I-T 4tdDkI06F/ 1 7.24 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 327 0 311 F2 0.847 2848 0.11 4tdDkI0646 WTF10107 A/ 1 7.24 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 387 0 368 F2 0.847 2848 0.13 8 x 5.25 x 17# I-T 4tdDkI07F/ 1 7.24 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 387 0 368 F2 0.847 2848 0.13 4tdDkI0747 WTF10108 A/ 1 7.24 204 2.362 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 447 0 425 F2 0.847 2848 0.15 8 x 5.25 x 17# I-T 4tdDkI08F/ 2 7.24 204 2.362 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 447 0 425 F2 0.847 2848 0.15 4tdDkI0848 WTF20201 A/ 1 8.38 105 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.84 546 139 651 F2 0.847 2848 0.23 6 x 4 x 12# T 4thDkO01F/ 1 8.38 105 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.84 546 139 651 F2 0.847 2848 0.23 4thDkO01

App B-6STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)sm Unsup(cm3) Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm2) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)f R /P S SCANTLINGS USERDEFINEDID49 WTF20202 A/ 1 8.38 105 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.72 575 120 660 F2 0.847 2848 0.23 6 x 4 x 12# T 4thDkO02F/ 1 8.38 105 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.72 575 120 660 F2 0.847 2848 0.23 4thDkO0250 WTF20203 A/ 1 8.38 105 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.61 603 101 668 F2 0.847 2848 0.23 6 x 4 x 12# T 4thDkO03F/ 1 8.38 105 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.61 603 101 668 F2 0.847 2848 0.23 4thDkO0351 WTF20204 A/ 1 8.38 105 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.49 632 81 677 F2 0.847 2848 0.24 6 x 4 x 12# T 4thDkO04F/ 1 8.38 105 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.49 632 81 677 F2 0.847 2848 0.24 4thDkO0452 WTF20205 A/ 1 8.38 105 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.37 660 62 686 F2 0.847 2848 0.24 6 x 4 x 12# T 4thDkO05F/ 1 8.38 105 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.37 660 62 686 F2 0.847 2848 0.24 4thDkO0553 WTF20306 A/ 1 8.38 81 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.77 751 354 1049 F2 0.847 2848 0.37 5 x 4 x 7.5 # T 4thDkO06F/ 1 8.38 81 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.77 751 354 1049 F2 0.847 2848 0.37 4thDkO0654 WTF20307 A/ 1 8.38 81 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.52 811 212 972 F2 0.847 2848 0.34 5 x 4 x 7.5 # T 4thDkO07F/ 1 8.38 81 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.52 811 212 972 F2 0.847 2848 0.34 4thDkO0755 WTF30501 A/ 1 10.82 1557 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 387 0 367 F2 0.847 2848 0.13 18 x 8.75 x 70# I-T 3rdDkI01F/ 1 10.82 1557 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 387 0 367 F2 0.847 2848 0.13 3rdDkI0156 WTF30502 A/ 1 10.82 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 446 0 424 F2 0.847 2848 0.15 8 x 5.25 x 17# I-T 3rdDkI02F/ 1 10.82 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 446 0 424 F2 0.847 2848 0.15 3rdDkI0257 WTF30503 A/ 1 10.82 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 506 0 481 F2 0.847 2848 0.17 8 x 5.25 x 17# I-T 3rdDkI03F/ 1 10.82 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 506 0 481 F2 0.847 2848 0.17 3rdDkI0358 WTF30504 A/ 1 10.82 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 566 0 538 F2 0.847 2848 0.19 8 x 5.25 x 17# I-T 3rdDkI04F/ 1 10.82 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 566 0 538 F2 0.847 2848 0.19 3rdDkI0459 WTF30505 A/ 1 10.82 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 626 0 594 F2 0.847 2848 0.21 8 x 5.25 x 17# I-T 3rdDkI05F/ 1 10.82 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 626 0 594 F2 0.847 2848 0.21 3rdDkI0560 WTF30506 A/ 1 10.82 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 685 0 651 F2 0.847 2848 0.23 8 x 5.25 x 17# I-T 3rdDkI06F/ 1 10.82 204 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 685 0 651 F2 0.847 2848 0.23 3rdDkI0661 WTF30607 A/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 780 0 741 F2 0.847 2848 0.26 6 X 4 X 7# T 3rdDkO07F/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 780 0 741 F2 0.847 2848 0.26 3rdDkO0762 WTF30608 A/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 816 0 775 F2 0.847 2848 0.27 6 X 4 X 7# T 3rdDkO08F/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 816 0 775 F2 0.847 2848 0.27 3rdDkO08

App B-7STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)sm Unsup(cm3) Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm2) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)f R /P S SCANTLINGS USERDEFINEDID63 WTF30609 A/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 851 0 808 F2 0.847 2848 0.28 6 X 4 X 7# T 3rdDkO09F/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 851 0 808 F2 0.847 2848 0.28 3rdDkO0964 WTF30610 A/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 886 0 842 F2 0.847 2848 0.3 6 X 4 X 7# T 3rdDkO10F/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 886 0 842 F2 0.847 2848 0.3 3rdDkO1065 WTF30611 A/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 922 0 876 F2 0.847 2848 0.31 6 X 4 X 7# T 3rdDkO11F/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 922 0 876 F2 0.847 2848 0.31 3rdDkO1166 WTF30612 A/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 957 0 909 F2 0.847 2848 0.32 6 X 4 X 7# T 3rdDkO12F/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 957 0 909 F2 0.847 2848 0.32 3rdDkO1267 WTF30613 A/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 992 0 943 F2 0.847 2848 0.33 6 X 4 X 7# T 3rdDkO13F/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 992 0 943 F2 0.847 2848 0.33 3rdDkO1368 WTF30614 A/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1027 0 976 F2 0.847 2848 0.34 6 X 4 X 7# T 3rdDkO14F/ 1 10.82 79 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1027 0 976 F2 0.847 2848 0.34 3rdDkO1469 INS10201 A/ 1 1.6 290 2.438 1 1 2 1&2 0.56 1217 45 1199 F2 0.885 2631 0.46 12 x 4 x 16.5# I-T BhdIB-01F/ 1 1.6 290 2.438 1 1 2 1&2 0.56 1217 45 1199 F2 0.885 2631 0.46 BhdIB-0170 INS10202 A/ 1 2.21 290 2.438 1 1 2 TZONE 1041 38 1025 F2 0.898 2560 0.4 12 x 4 x 16.5# I-T BhdIB-02F/ 1 2.21 290 2.438 1 1 2 TZONE 1041 38 1025 F2 0.898 2560 0.4 BhdIB-0271 INS10203 A/ 1 2.82 290 2.438 1 1 2 TZONE 911 31 895 F2 0.912 2501 0.36 12 x 4 x 16.5# I-T BhdIB-03F/ 1 2.82 290 2.438 1 1 2 TZONE 911 31 895 F2 0.912 2501 0.36 BhdIB-0372 INS10304 A/ 1 3.45 284 2.438 1 1 2 F1&F2 0.3 835 22 815 F2 0.924 2456 0.33 12 x 4 x 16.5# I-T BhdIB-04F/ 1 3.45 284 2.438 1 1 2 F1&F2 0.3 835 22 815 F2 0.924 2456 0.33 BhdIB-0473 INS10305 A/ 1 3.95 284 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.29 794 20 773 F2 0.924 2456 0.31 12 x 4 x 16.5# I-T BhdIB-05F/ 1 3.95 284 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.29 794 20 773 F2 0.924 2456 0.31 BhdIB-0574 INS10306 A/ 1 4.45 224 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.36 750 31 742 F2 0.924 2456 0.3 10 x 4 x 15# I-T BhdIB-06F/ 1 4.45 224 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.36 750 31 742 F2 0.924 2456 0.3 BhdIB-0675 INS10307 A/ 1 4.95 224 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.42 710 36 708 F2 0.924 2456 0.29 10 x 4 x 15# I-T BhdIB-07F/ 1 4.95 224 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.42 710 36 708 F2 0.924 2456 0.29 BhdIB-0776 INS10308 A/ 1 5.45 224 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.49 669 41 675 F2 0.924 2456 0.27 10 x 4 x 15# I-T BhdIB-08F/ 1 5.45 224 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.49 669 41 675 F2 0.924 2456 0.27 BhdIB-08

App B-8STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)sm Unsup(cm3) Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm2) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)f R /P S SCANTLINGS USERDEFINEDID77 INS10309 A/ 1 5.95 224 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.55 628 47 641 F2 0.924 2456 0.26 10 x 4 x 15# I-T BhdIB-09F/ 1 5.95 224 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.55 628 47 641 F2 0.924 2456 0.26 BhdIB-0978 INS10310 A/ 1 6.45 224 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.61 587 52 607 F2 0.924 2456 0.25 10 x 4 x 15# I-T BhdIB-10F/ 1 6.45 224 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.61 587 52 607 F2 0.924 2456 0.25 BhdIB-1079 INS10311 A/ 1 6.95 201 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.67 546 64 580 F2 0.924 2456 0.24 10 x 4 x 15# I-T BhdIB-11F/ 1 6.95 201 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.67 546 64 580 F2 0.924 2456 0.24 BhdIB-1180 INS10312 A/ 1 7.45 201 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.73 506 69 546 F2 0.924 2456 0.22 10 x 4 x 15# I-T BhdIB-12F/ 1 7.45 201 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.73 506 69 546 F2 0.924 2456 0.22 BhdIB-1281 INS10413 A/ 1 7.81 198 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.77 515 85 570 F2 0.924 2456 0.23 10 x 4 x 15# I-T Bhd4-413F/ 1 7.81 198 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.77 515 85 570 F2 0.924 2456 0.23 Bhd4-41382 INS10514 A/ 1 9.19 101 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 622 0 590 F2 0.924 2456 0.24 6 X 4 X 7# T Bhd4-314F/ 1 9.19 101 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 622 0 590 F2 0.924 2456 0.24 Bhd4-31483 INS10515 A/ 1 10 101 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 688 0 653 F2 0.924 2456 0.27 6 X 4 X 7# T Bhd4-315F/ 1 10 101 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 688 0 653 F2 0.924 2456 0.27 Bhd4-31584 INS10616 A/ 2 11.68 102 2.286 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 825 0 783 F2 0.924 2456 0.32 6 X 4 X 7# T Bhd3-216F/ 2 11.68 102 2.286 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 825 0 783 F2 0.924 2456 0.32 Bhd3-21685 INS10617 A/ 2 12.54 102 2.286 1 1 1 TZONE 899 0 854 F2 0.922 2466 0.35 6 X 4 X 7# T Bhd3-217F/ 2 12.54 102 2.286 1 1 1 TZONE 899 0 854 F2 0.922 2466 0.35 Bhd3-21786 INS10718 A/ 1 14.21 448 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1260 0 1197 F2 0.87 2720 0.44 10 x 5.75 x 25# I-T Bhd2-M18F/ 1 14.21 448 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1260 0 1197 F2 0.87 2720 0.44 Bhd2-M1887 INS10719 A/ 1 15.01 448 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 1517 0 1441 F2 0.847 2848 0.51 10 x 5.75 x 25# I-T Bhd2-M19F/ 1 15.01 448 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 1517 0 1441 F2 0.847 2848 0.51 Bhd2-M1988 INS10720 A/ 1 15.81 448 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 1680 0 1596 F2 0.847 2848 0.56 10 x 5.75 x 25# I-T Bhd2-M20F/ 1 15.81 448 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 1680 0 1596 F2 0.847 2848 0.56 Bhd2-M2089 INS20801 A/ 1 1.13 540 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 1313 0 1248 F2 0.885 2631 0.47 12 x 6.5 x 27# I- OutrBh01F/ 1 1.13 540 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 1313 0 1248 F2 0.885 2631 0.47 OutrBh0190 INS20802 A/ 1 1.93 540 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1142 9 1093 F2 0.892 2596 0.42 12 x 6.5 x 27# I- OutrBh02F/ 1 1.93 540 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1142 9 1093 F2 0.892 2596 0.42 OutrBh02

App B-9STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)sm Unsup(cm3) Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm2) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)f R /P S SCANTLINGS USERDEFINEDID91 INS20803 A/ 1 2.73 630 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1019 29 996 F2 0.91 2510 0.4 12 x 6.5 x 31# I-T OutrBh03F/ 1 2.73 630 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1019 29 996 F2 0.91 2510 0.4 OutrBh0392 INS20804 A/ 1 3.53 419 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.92 972 71 991 F2 0.924 2456 0.4 12 x 4 x 22# I-T OutrBh04F/ 1 3.53 419 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.92 972 71 991 F2 0.924 2456 0.4 OutrBh0493 INS20905 A/ 1 4.43 419 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.89 898 78 928 F2 0.924 2456 0.38 12 x 4 x 22# I-T OutrBh05F/ 1 4.43 419 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.89 898 78 928 F2 0.924 2456 0.38 OutrBh0594 INS20906 A/ 1 5.45 419 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.87 815 80 851 F2 0.924 2456 0.35 12 x 4 x 22# I-T OutrBh06F/ 1 5.45 419 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.87 815 80 851 F2 0.924 2456 0.35 OutrBh0695 INS20907 A/ 1 6.47 419 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.84 732 78 769 F2 0.924 2456 0.31 12 x 4 x 22# I-T OutrBh07F/ 1 6.47 419 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.84 732 78 769 F2 0.924 2456 0.31 OutrBh0796 INS20908 A/ 1 7.49 392 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.8 649 74 687 F2 0.924 2456 0.28 12 x 4 x 22# I-T OutrBh08F/ 1 7.49 392 2.438 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.8 649 74 687 F2 0.924 2456 0.28 OutrBh0897 SDK10101 A/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1224 0 1162 F2 0.895 2580 0.45 8 x 4 x 13# I-T 2nd Dk01F/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1224 0 1162 F2 0.895 2580 0.45 2nd Dk0198 SDK10102 A/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1201 0 1141 F2 0.895 2580 0.44 8 x 4 x 13# I-T 2nd Dk02F/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1201 0 1141 F2 0.895 2580 0.44 2nd Dk0299 SDK10103 A/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1179 0 1120 F2 0.895 2580 0.43 8 x 4 x 13# I-T 2nd Dk03F/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1179 0 1120 F2 0.895 2580 0.43 2nd Dk03100 SDK10104 A/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1157 0 1099 F2 0.895 2580 0.43 8 x 4 x 13# I-T 2nd Dk04F/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1157 0 1099 F2 0.895 2580 0.43 2nd Dk04101 SDK10105 A/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1135 0 1078 F2 0.895 2580 0.42 8 x 4 x 13# I-T 2nd Dk05F/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1135 0 1078 F2 0.895 2580 0.42 2nd Dk05102 SDK10106 A/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1113 0 1057 F2 0.895 2580 0.41 8 x 4 x 13# I-T 2nd Dk06F/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1113 0 1057 F2 0.895 2580 0.41 2nd Dk06103 SDK10107 A/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1090 0 1036 F2 0.895 2580 0.4 8 x 4 x 13# I-T 2nd Dk07F/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1090 0 1036 F2 0.895 2580 0.4 2nd Dk07104 SDK10108 A/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1068 0 1015 F2 0.895 2580 0.39 8 x 4 x 13# I-T 2nd Dk08F/ 1 13.41 165 2.438 1 1 1 TZONE 1068 0 1015 F2 0.895 2580 0.39 2nd Dk08

App B-10CutoutLABEL ID LOCTable B.2 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Bars for Ship B18 MARCH 2001 17:11:02 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.00 (2000 Rules)SHIP : MidshipsLxBxDxd = 162.02x 25.67x 16.61x 6.55(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 883156.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 1958098.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 7.57(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR FLAT-BAR SUPPORT STIFFENERS OF LONGITUDINALSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 83.51m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 180100.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 122681.(tf-m)Dist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Head(m)Local LoadRangeForce(tf)As(cm2)SupportAreasAcCf=0.95 Cw=0.75Stress RangeSCF (kg/cmFATIG2)fs fL fRi CLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)BTM10801 1 1 0.24 0.78 2.362 4.86 9.18 0 57.7 1.5 151 1373 1391 F2 0.885 2631 0.532 0.24 0.78 2.362 4.86 9.18 0 57.7 1 151 1373 1381 F2 0.885 2631 0.52[Weld Throat] 0.24 0.78 2.362 4.86 9.18 [Asw]= 0 1.25 151 0 ***** W 0.885 1897 NaNBTM10802 1 1 0.28 0.764 2.362 4.86 8.99 0 57.7 1.5 148 1360 1378 F2 0.885 2631 0.522 0.28 0.764 2.362 4.86 8.99 0 57.7 1 148 1360 1368 F2 0.885 2631 0.52[Weld Throat] 0.28 0.764 2.362 4.86 8.99 [Asw]= 0 1.25 148 0 ***** W 0.885 1897 NaNBLG10201 1 1 0.73 0.907 2.362 4.81 10.56 0 57.7 1.5 174 1325 1350 F2 0.885 2631 0.512 0.73 0.907 2.362 4.81 10.56 0 57.7 1 174 1325 1336 F2 0.885 2631 0.51[Weld Throat] 0.73 0.907 2.362 4.81 10.56 [Asw]= 0 1.25 174 0 ***** W 0.885 1897 NaNBLG10302 1 1 1.22 0.937 2.362 5.08 11.53 0 57.7 1.5 190 1266 1297 F2 0.885 2631 0.492 1.22 0.937 2.362 5.08 11.53 0 57.7 1 190 1266 1280 F2 0.885 2631 0.49[Weld Throat] 1.22 0.937 2.362 5.08 11.53 [Asw]= 0 1.25 190 0 ***** W 0.885 1897 NaNPSfR/PS

App B-11CutoutLABEL ID LOCDist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Head(m)Local LoadRangeForce(tf)As(cm2)SupportAreasAcCf=0.95 Cw=0.75Stress RangeSCF (kg/cmFATIG2)fs fL fRi CLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)BLG10303 1 1 2.08 0.94 2.362 6.42 14.62 0 57.7 1.5 241 1440 1485 F2 0.885 2631 0.562 2.08 0.94 2.362 6.42 14.62 0 57.7 1 241 1440 1460 F2 0.885 2631 0.55[Weld T 2.08 0.94 2.362 6.42 14.62 [Asw]= 0 1.25 241 0 ***** W 0.885 1897 NaNBLG10304 1 1 2.93 0.944 2.362 8.43 19.26 0 57.7 1.5 317 1561 1632 F2 0.885 2631 0.622 2.93 0.944 2.362 8.43 19.26 0 57.7 1 317 1561 1593 F2 0.885 2631 0.61SHL10101 1 1 3.87 0.797 2.362 9.67 18.66 0 59.4 1.5 298 1632 1692 F2 0.924 2456 0.692 3.87 0.797 2.362 9.67 18.66 0 59.4 1 298 1632 1659 F2 0.924 2456 0.68[Weld T 3.87 0.797 2.362 9.67 18.66 [Asw]= 0 1.25 298 0 ***** W 0.924 1770 NaNSHL10202 2 1 4.51 0.778 2.362 9.94 18.73 0 41 1.5 433 2140 2237 F2 0.924 2456 0.912 4.51 0.778 2.362 9.94 18.73 0 41 1 433 2140 2183 F2 0.924 2456 0.89SHL10203 2 1 5.42 0.91 2.362 11.02 24.29 0 41 1.5 562 2423 2565 F2 0.924 2456 1.042 5.42 0.91 2.362 11.02 24.29 0 41 1 562 2423 2487 F2 0.924 2456 1.01[Weld Throat] 5.42 0.91 2.362 11.02 24.29 [Asw]= 0 1.25 562 0 ***** W 0.924 1770 NaNSHL10204 2 1 6.33 1.008 2.362 12.11 29.54 0 41 1.5 516 2231 2361 F2 0.924 2456 0.962 6.33 1.008 2.362 12.11 29.54 0 41 1 516 2231 2289 F2 0.924 2456 0.93[Weld Throat] 6.33 1.008 2.362 12.11 29.54 [Asw]= 0 1.25 516 0 ***** W 0.924 1770 NaNSHL10305 2 1 7.43 1.028 2.362 11.21 27.91 0 41 1.5 256 1521 1569 F2 0.924 2456 0.642 7.43 1.028 2.362 11.21 27.91 0 41 1 256 1521 1542 F2 0.924 2456 0.63[Weld Throat] 7.43 1.028 2.362 11.21 27.91 [Asw]= 0 1.25 256 0 ***** W 0.924 1770 NaNPSfR/PS

App C-1APPENDIX CFATIGUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SHIP C

App C-2Table C.1 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Longitudinals for Ship C16 APRIL 2001 12:49:49 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.11 (2000 Rules) -- Non Production (Special consideration required for L < 130m)SHIP : with LBP = 124.5 m, updated Cutout DetailsLxBxDxd = 120.77x 14.80x 11.10x 4.99(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 105555.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 181783.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 5.47(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 62.25m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 52100.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 42594.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Local Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75 Long Perm.STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)StressRange(kg/cm 2 )f RGf RL f R FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID1 BTM10101 A/ 1 0.04 99 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2619 92 2189 F2 0.915 2492 0.88 127 x 102 T A Stra01F/ 2 0.04 99 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2619 92 2189 F2 0.915 2492 0.88 A Stra012 BTM10102 A/ 1 0.11 1643 1 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2339 6 1894 F2 0.915 2492 0.76 600 x 200 Girder A Stra02F/ 1 0.11 1643 1 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2339 6 1894 F2 0.915 2492 0.76 A Stra023 BTM10103 A/ 1 0.17 99 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2554 91 2136 F2 0.915 2492 0.86 127 x 102 T A Stra03F/ 2 0.17 99 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2554 91 2136 F2 0.915 2492 0.86 A Stra034 BTM10204 A/ 1 0.24 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2523 101 2119 F2 0.915 2492 0.85 127 x 102 T B Stra04F/ 2 0.24 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2523 101 2119 F2 0.915 2492 0.85 B Stra045 BTM10205 A/ 1 0.29 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2494 102 2097 F2 0.915 2492 0.84 127 x 102 T B Stra05F/ 2 0.29 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2494 102 2097 F2 0.915 2492 0.84 B Stra056 BTM10206 A/ 1 0.35 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2465 102 2073 F2 0.915 2492 0.83 127 x 102 T B Stra06F/ 2 0.35 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2465 102 2073 F2 0.915 2492 0.83 B Stra06

App C-3STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)StressRange(kg/cm 2 )f RGf RL f R FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID7 BTM10207 A/ 1 0.41 997 1 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2197 9 1782 F2 0.915 2492 0.71 600 x 150 Girder B Stra07F/ 1 0.41 997 1 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2197 9 1782 F2 0.915 2492 0.71 B Stra078 BTM10308 A/ 1 0.45 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2415 71 2007 F2 0.915 2492 0.81 127 x 102 T C1 Str08F/ 2 0.45 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2415 71 2007 F2 0.915 2492 0.81 C1 Str089 BTM10309 A/ 1 0.56 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2361 89 1978 F2 0.915 2492 0.79 127 x 102 T C1 Str09F/ 2 0.56 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2361 89 1978 F2 0.915 2492 0.79 C1 Str0910 BTM10310 A/ 1 0.67 527 1 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2211 20 1801 F2 0.915 2492 0.72 310 x 150 Girder C1 Str10F/ 1 0.67 527 1 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2211 20 1801 F2 0.915 2492 0.72 C1 Str1011 BTM10311 A/ 1 0.78 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2252 99 1899 F2 0.915 2492 0.76 127 x 102 T C1 Str11F/ 2 0.78 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2252 99 1899 F2 0.915 2492 0.76 C1 Str1112 BTM10412 A/ 1 0.99 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2151 107 1823 F2 0.915 2492 0.73 127 x 102 T C2 Str12F/ 2 0.99 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2151 107 1823 F2 0.915 2492 0.73 C2 Str1213 BTM10413 A/ 1 1.2 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2046 104 1737 F2 0.915 2492 0.70 127 x 102 T C2 Str13F/ 2 1.2 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2046 104 1737 F2 0.915 2492 0.70 C2 Str1314 BTM10414 A/ 1 1.41 98 1 1 1 1 1&2 3.98 1942 81 1634 F2 0.915 2492 0.66 127 x 102 T C2 Str14F/ 1 1.41 98 1 1 1 1 1&2 3.98 1942 81 1634 F2 0.915 2492 0.66 C2 Str1415 BLG10101 A/ 1 1.77 186 1 1 1 1 TZONE 1981 90 1967 F2 0.915 2492 0.79 203 x 140 T D Stra01F/ 1 1.77 186 1 1 1 1 TZONE 1981 90 1967 F2 0.915 2492 0.79 D Stra0116 BLG10102 A/ 1 2.16 96 1 1 1 1 TZONE 2110 187 2182 F2 0.915 2492 0.88 127 x 102 T D Stra02F/ 1 2.16 96 1 1 1 1 TZONE 2110 187 2182 F2 0.915 2492 0.88 D Stra0217 BLG10103 A/ 1 2.56 96 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 6.48 2126 207 2217 F2 0.915 2492 0.89 127 x 102 T D Stra03F/ 1 2.56 96 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 6.48 2126 207 2217 F2 0.915 2492 0.89 D Stra0318 BLG10104 A/ 1 2.95 96 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.11 2114 227 2225 F2 0.915 2492 0.89 127 x 102 T D Stra04F/ 1 2.95 96 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.11 2114 227 2225 F2 0.915 2492 0.89 D Stra0419 BLG10105 A/ 1 3.34 96 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.75 2102 222 2208 F2 0.915 2492 0.89 127 x 102 T D Stra05F/ 1 3.34 96 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.75 2102 222 2208 F2 0.915 2492 0.89 D Stra0520 SHL10101 A/ 1 3.71 182 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.73 1994 133 2021 F2 0.951 2350 0.86 203 x 140 T E Stra01F/ 1 3.71 182 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.73 1994 133 2021 F2 0.951 2350 0.86 E Stra0121 SHL10102 A/ 1 4.2 47 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 10 1934 671 2475 F2 0.951 2350 1.05 127 x 70 T E Stra02

App C-4STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)StressRange(kg/cm 2 )f RGf RL f R FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 4.2 47 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 10 1934 671 2475 F2 0.951 2350 1.05 E Stra0222 SHL10103 A/ 1 4.68 47 1 1 0.85 1 F1&F2 11.26 1858 650 2383 F2 0.951 2350 1.01 127 x 70 T E Stra03F/ 1 4.68 47 1 1 0.85 1 F1&F2 11.26 1858 650 2383 F2 0.951 2350 1.01 E Stra0323 SHL10204 A/ 1 5.18 45 1 1 0.57 1 F1&F2 11.7 1777 472 2137 F2 0.951 2350 0.91 127 x 70 T F1 Str04F/ 1 5.18 45 1 1 0.57 1 F1&F2 11.7 1777 472 2137 F2 0.951 2350 0.91 F1 Str0424 SHL10205 A/ 1 5.67 45 1 1 0.39 1 F1&F2 10.72 1773 308 1977 F2 0.951 2350 0.84 127 x 70 T F1 Str05F/ 1 5.67 45 1 1 0.39 1 F1&F2 10.72 1773 308 1977 F2 0.951 2350 0.84 F1 Str0525 SHL10406 A/ 1 6.63 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.84 1990 653 2511 F2 0.951 2350 1.07 127 x 70 T G1 Str06F/ 1 6.63 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.84 1990 653 2511 F2 0.951 2350 1.07 G1 Str0626 SHL10407 A/ 1 7.1 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.9 2099 614 2578 F2 0.951 2350 1.10 127 x 70 T G1 Str07F/ 1 7.1 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.9 2099 614 2578 F2 0.951 2350 1.10 G1 Str0727 SHL10408 A/ 1 7.58 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.96 2208 541 2612 F2 0.951 2350 1.11 127 x 70 T G1 Str08F/ 1 7.58 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.96 2208 541 2612 F2 0.951 2350 1.11 G1 Str0828 SHL10409 A/ 1 8.06 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.02 2317 526 2701 F2 0.951 2350 1.15 127 x 70 T G1 Str09F/ 1 8.06 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.02 2317 526 2701 F2 0.951 2350 1.15 G1 Str0929 SHL10610 A/ 1 9.1 49 2 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2199 190 2270 F2 0.917 2482 0.91 127 x 70 T H Stra10F/ 1 9.1 49 2 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2199 190 2270 F2 0.917 2482 0.91 H Stra1030 SHL10611 A/ 1 9.57 49 2 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2183 90 2160 F2 0.897 2569 0.84 127 x 70 T H Stra11F/ 1 9.57 49 2 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2183 90 2160 F2 0.897 2569 0.84 H Stra1131 SHS10101 A/ 1 10.06 50 2 1 1 1 1&2 0.11 2262 27 2175 F2 0.878 2672 0.81 127 x 70 T J Stra01F/ 1 10.06 50 2 1 1 1 1&2 0.11 2262 27 2175 F2 0.878 2672 0.81 J Stra0132 SHS10102 A/ 1 10.53 50 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2498 0 2373 F2 0.878 2672 0.89 127 x 70 T J Stra02F/ 1 10.53 50 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2498 0 2373 F2 0.878 2672 0.89 J Stra0233 DEC10101 A/ 1 11.13 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 127 x 102 T No 1 D01F/ 1 11.13 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 No 1 D0134 DEC10102 A/ 1 11.15 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 127 x 102 T No 1 D02F/ 1 11.15 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 No 1 D0235 DEC10103 A/ 1 11.18 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 127 x 102 T No 1 D03F/ 1 11.18 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 No 1 D03

App C-5STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)StressRange(kg/cm 2 )f RGf RL f R FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID36 DEC10104 A/ 1 11.21 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 127 x 102 T No 1 D04F/ 1 11.21 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 No 1 D0437 DEC10105 A/ 1 11.24 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 127 x 102 T No 1 D05F/ 1 11.24 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 No 1 D0538 DEC10106 A/ 1 11.26 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 127 x 102 T No 1 D06F/ 1 11.26 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 No 1 D0639 DEC10107 A/ 1 11.29 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 127 x 102 T No 1 D07F/ 1 11.29 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 No 1 D0740 DEC10108 A/ 1 11.32 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 127 x 102 T No 1 D08F/ 1 11.32 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 No 1 D0841 DEC10309 A/ 1 11.37 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 127 x 102 T No1 In09F/ 1 11.37 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 No1 In0942 DEC10310 A/ 1 11.38 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 127 x 102 T No1 In10F/ 1 11.38 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 No1 In1043 DEC10311 A/ 1 11.39 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 127 x 102 T No1 In11F/ 1 11.39 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 No1 In1144 DEC10312 A/ 1 11.39 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 127 x 102 T No1 In12F/ 1 11.39 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 No1 In1245 DEC10313 A/ 1 11.4 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 127 x 102 T No1 In13F/ 1 11.4 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F2 0.878 2672 0.97 No1 In1346 NTF10101 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 7&8 0 143 0 136 F2 0.878 2672 0.05 76 x 26T No 3 I01F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 7&8 0 143 0 136 F2 0.878 2672 0.05 No 3 I0147 NTF10102 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 293 0 279 F2 0.878 2672 0.10 76 x 26T No 3 I02F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 293 0 279 F2 0.878 2672 0.10 No 3 I0248 NTF10103 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 443 0 421 F2 0.878 2672 0.16 76 x 26T No 3 I03F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 443 0 421 F2 0.878 2672 0.16 No 3 I0349 NTF10104 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 593 0 564 F2 0.878 2672 0.21 76 x 26T No 3 I04F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 593 0 564 F2 0.878 2672 0.21 No 3 I0450 NTF10105 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 743 0 706 F2 0.878 2672 0.26 76 x 26T No 3 I05

App C-6STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)StressRange(kg/cm 2 )f RGf RL f R FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 743 0 706 F2 0.878 2672 0.26 No 3 I0551 NTF10206 A/ 1 6.2 172 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 893 0 849 F2 0.878 2672 0.32 203 x 140 T No 3 D06F/ 1 6.2 172 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 893 0 849 F2 0.878 2672 0.32 No 3 D0652 NTF10307 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1045 0 993 F2 0.878 2672 0.37 76 x 26T No 3 D07F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1045 0 993 F2 0.878 2672 0.37 No 3 D0753 NTF10308 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1174 0 1116 F2 0.878 2672 0.42 76 x 26T No 3 D08F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1174 0 1116 F2 0.878 2672 0.42 No 3 D0854 NTF10309 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1303 0 1238 F2 0.878 2672 0.46 76 x 26T No 3 D09F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1303 0 1238 F2 0.878 2672 0.46 No 3 D0955 NTF10310 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1432 0 1360 F2 0.878 2672 0.51 76 x 26T No 3 D10F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1432 0 1360 F2 0.878 2672 0.51 No 3 D1056 NTF10311 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1561 0 1483 F2 0.878 2672 0.56 76 x 26T No 3 D11F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1561 0 1483 F2 0.878 2672 0.56 No 3 D1157 NTF10312 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1690 0 1605 F2 0.878 2672 0.60 76 x 26T No 3 D12F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1690 0 1605 F2 0.878 2672 0.60 No 3 D1258 NTF10313 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1819 0 1728 F2 0.878 2672 0.65 76 x 26T No 3 D13F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1819 0 1728 F2 0.878 2672 0.65 No 3 D1359 SDK10101 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 2159 0 2051 F2 0.937 2405 0.85 76 x 26T No 2 D01F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 2159 0 2051 F2 0.937 2405 0.85 No 2 D0160 SDK10102 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 2055 0 1953 F2 0.937 2405 0.81 76 x 26T No 2 D02F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 2055 0 1953 F2 0.937 2405 0.81 No 2 D0261 SDK10103 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1952 0 1854 F2 0.937 2405 0.77 76 x 26T No 2 D03F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1952 0 1854 F2 0.937 2405 0.77 No 2 D0362 SDK10104 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1848 0 1755 F2 0.937 2405 0.73 76 x 26T No 2 D04F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1848 0 1755 F2 0.937 2405 0.73 No 2 D0463 SDK10105 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1744 0 1657 F2 0.937 2405 0.69 76 x 26T No 2 D05F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1744 0 1657 F2 0.937 2405 0.69 No 2 D0564 SDK10106 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1640 0 1558 F2 0.937 2405 0.65 76 x 26T No 2 D06F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1640 0 1558 F2 0.937 2405 0.65 No 2 D06

App C-7STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)StressRange(kg/cm 2 )f RGf RL f R FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID65 SDK10107 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1537 0 1460 F2 0.937 2405 0.61 76 x 26T No 2 D07F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1537 0 1460 F2 0.937 2405 0.61 No 2 D0766 SDK10208 A/ 1 8.65 193 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1414 0 1343 F2 0.937 2405 0.56 203 x 140 T No 2 D08F/ 1 8.65 193 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1414 0 1343 F2 0.937 2405 0.56 No 2 D0867 SDK10309 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1293 0 1229 F2 0.937 2405 0.51 76 x 26T No 2 I09F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1293 0 1229 F2 0.937 2405 0.51 No 2 I0968 SDK10310 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1173 0 1114 F2 0.937 2405 0.46 76 x 26T No 2 I10F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1173 0 1114 F2 0.937 2405 0.46 No 2 I1069 SDK10311 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1052 0 999 F2 0.937 2405 0.42 76 x 26T No 2 I11F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1052 0 999 F2 0.937 2405 0.42 No 2 I1170 SDK10312 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 931 0 885 F2 0.937 2405 0.37 76 x 26T No 2 I12F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 931 0 885 F2 0.937 2405 0.37 No 2 I1271 SDK10313 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 811 0 770 F2 0.937 2405 0.32 76 x 26T No 2 I13F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 811 0 770 F2 0.937 2405 0.32 No 2 I13

App C-8CutoutLABELTable C.2 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Bars for Ship C16 APRIL 2001 12:49:49 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.11 (2000 Rules) -- Non Production (Special consideration required for L < 130m)SHIP : with LBP = 124.5 m, updated Cutout DetailsLxBxDxd = 120.77x 14.80x 11.10x 4.99(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 105555.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 181783.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 5.47(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR FLAT-BAR SUPPORT STIFFENERS OF LONGITUDINALSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 62.25m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 52100.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 42594.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75ID LOCDist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLengt h(m)Local LoadRangeHead(m)Force(tf)SupportAreas(cm 2 )As AcSCFStress Range(kg/cm 2 )fs fL fRiFATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm 2 )PSBTM10101 1 1 0.04 0.425 0.9 4.14 1.62 0 26.9 1.5 57 2189 2191 F2 0.915 2492 0.882 0.04 0.425 0.9 4.14 1.62 0 26.9 1 57 2189 2190 F2 0.915 2492 0.88[Weld Throat} 0.04 0.425 0.9 4.14 1.62 [Asw]= 0 1.25 57 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10103 1 1 0.17 0.423 0.9 4.14 1.62 0 26.9 1.5 57 2136 2138 F2 0.915 2492 0.862 0.17 0.423 0.9 4.14 1.62 0 26.9 1 57 2136 2137 F2 0.915 2492 0.86[Weld Throat} 0.17 0.423 0.9 4.14 1.62 [Asw]= 0 1.25 57 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10204 1 1 0.24 0.453 0.9 4.14 1.73 0 26.9 1.5 61 2119 2121 F2 0.915 2492 0.852 0.24 0.453 0.9 4.14 1.73 0 26.9 1 61 2119 2120 F2 0.915 2492 0.85[Weld Throat} 0.24 0.453 0.9 4.14 1.73 [Asw]= 0 1.25 61 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10205 1 1 0.29 0.46 0.9 4.14 1.76 0 26.9 1.5 62 2097 2099 F2 0.915 2492 0.842 0.29 0.46 0.9 4.14 1.76 0 26.9 1 62 2097 2097 F2 0.915 2492 0.84fR/PS

App C-9CutoutLABELID LOCDist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLengt h(m)Local LoadRangeHead(m)Force(tf)SupportAreas(cm 2 )As AcSCFStress Range(kg/cm 2 )fs fL fRiFATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm 2 )PS[Weld Throat} 0.29 0.46 0.9 4.14 1.76 [Asw]= 0 1.25 62 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10206 1 1 0.35 0.46 0.9 4.14 1.76 0 26.9 1.5 62 2073 2075 F2 0.915 2492 0.832 0.35 0.46 0.9 4.14 1.76 0 26.9 1 62 2073 2074 F2 0.915 2492 0.83[Weld Throat} 0.35 0.46 0.9 4.14 1.76 [Asw]= 0 1.25 62 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10308 1 1 0.45 0.317 0.9 4.14 1.21 0 26.9 1.5 43 2007 2008 F2 0.915 2492 0.812 0.45 0.317 0.9 4.14 1.21 0 26.9 1 43 2007 2007 F2 0.915 2492 0.81[Weld Throat} 0.45 0.317 0.9 4.14 1.21 [Asw]= 0 1.25 43 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10309 1 1 0.56 0.4 0.9 4.14 1.53 0 26.9 1.5 54 1978 1980 F2 0.915 2492 0.792 0.56 0.4 0.9 4.14 1.53 0 26.9 1 54 1978 1979 F2 0.915 2492 0.79[Weld Throat} 0.56 0.4 0.9 4.14 1.53 [Asw]= 0 1.25 54 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10311 1 1 0.78 0.447 0.9 4.14 1.71 0 26.9 1.5 60 1899 1901 F2 0.915 2492 0.762 0.78 0.447 0.9 4.14 1.71 0 26.9 1 60 1899 1900 F2 0.915 2492 0.76[Weld Throat} 0.78 0.447 0.9 4.14 1.71 [Asw]= 0 1.25 60 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10412 1 1 0.99 0.482 0.9 4.14 1.84 0 26.9 1.5 65 1823 1826 F2 0.915 2492 0.732 0.99 0.482 0.9 4.14 1.84 0 26.9 1 65 1823 1824 F2 0.915 2492 0.73[Weld Throat} 0.99 0.482 0.9 4.14 1.84 [Asw]= 0 1.25 65 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10413 1 1 1.2 0.47 0.9 4.14 1.79 0 26.9 1.5 63 1737 1739 F2 0.915 2492 0.72 1.2 0.47 0.9 4.14 1.79 0 26.9 1 63 1737 1738 F2 0.915 2492 0.7[Weld Throat} 1.2 0.47 0.9 4.14 1.79 [Asw]= 0 1.25 63 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNfR/PS

App C-10STF#Table C.3 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F Longitudinals for Ship C16 APRIL 2001 12:58:22 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.11 (2000 Rules) -- Non Production (Special consideration required for L < 130m)SHIP : with LBP = 124.5 m, Class F DetailsLxBxDxd = 120.77x 14.80x 11.10x 4.99(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 105555.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 181783.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 5.47(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 62.25m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 52100.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 42594.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm 2 ) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID1 BTM10101 A/ 1 0.04 99 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2619 92 2189 F 0.915 2833 0.77 127 x 102 T A Stra01F/ 2 0.04 99 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2619 92 2189 F 0.915 2833 0.77 A Stra012 BTM10102 A/ 1 0.11 1643 1 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2339 6 1894 F 0.915 2833 0.67 600 x 200 Girder A Stra02F/ 1 0.11 1643 1 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2339 6 1894 F 0.915 2833 0.67 A Stra023 BTM10103 A/ 1 0.17 99 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2554 91 2136 F 0.915 2833 0.75 127 x 102 T A Stra03F/ 2 0.17 99 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2554 91 2136 F 0.915 2833 0.75 A Stra034 BTM10204 A/ 1 0.24 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2523 101 2119 F 0.915 2833 0.75 127 x 102 T B Stra04F/ 2 0.24 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2523 101 2119 F 0.915 2833 0.75 B Stra045 BTM10205 A/ 1 0.29 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2494 102 2097 F 0.915 2833 0.74 127 x 102 T B Stra05F/ 2 0.29 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2494 102 2097 F 0.915 2833 0.74 B Stra056 BTM10206 A/ 1 0.35 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2465 102 2073 F 0.915 2833 0.73 127 x 102 T B Stra06F/ 2 0.35 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2465 102 2073 F 0.915 2833 0.73 B Stra06

App C-11STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm 2 ) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID7 BTM10207 A/ 1 0.41 997 1 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2197 9 1782 F 0.915 2833 0.63 600 x 150 Girder B Stra07F/ 1 0.41 997 1 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2197 9 1782 F 0.915 2833 0.63 B Stra078 BTM10308 A/ 1 0.45 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2415 71 2007 F 0.915 2833 0.71 127 x 102 T C1 Str08F/ 2 0.45 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2415 71 2007 F 0.915 2833 0.71 C1 Str089 BTM10309 A/ 1 0.56 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2361 89 1978 F 0.915 2833 0.7 127 x 102 T C1 Str09F/ 2 0.56 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2361 89 1978 F 0.915 2833 0.7 C1 Str0910 BTM10310 A/ 1 0.67 527 1 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2211 20 1801 F 0.915 2833 0.64 310 x 150 Girder C1 Str10F/ 1 0.67 527 1 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2211 20 1801 F 0.915 2833 0.64 C1 Str1011 BTM10311 A/ 1 0.78 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2252 99 1899 F 0.915 2833 0.67 127 x 102 T C1 Str11F/ 2 0.78 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2252 99 1899 F 0.915 2833 0.67 C1 Str1112 BTM10412 A/ 1 0.99 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2151 107 1823 F 0.915 2833 0.64 127 x 102 T C2 Str12F/ 2 0.99 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2151 107 1823 F 0.915 2833 0.64 C2 Str1213 BTM10413 A/ 1 1.2 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2046 104 1737 F 0.915 2833 0.61 127 x 102 T C2 Str13F/ 2 1.2 97 0.9 1 1 1 1&2 4.14 2046 104 1737 F 0.915 2833 0.61 C2 Str1314 BTM10414 A/ 1 1.41 98 1 1 1 1 1&2 3.98 1942 81 1634 F 0.915 2833 0.58 127 x 102 T C2 Str14F/ 1 1.41 98 1 1 1 1 1&2 3.98 1942 81 1634 F 0.915 2833 0.58 C2 Str1415 BLG10101 A/ 1 1.77 186 1 1 1 1 TZONE 1981 90 1967 F 0.915 2833 0.69 203 x 140 T D Stra01F/ 1 1.77 186 1 1 1 1 TZONE 1981 90 1967 F 0.915 2833 0.69 D Stra0116 BLG10102 A/ 1 2.16 96 1 1 1 1 TZONE 2110 187 2182 F 0.915 2833 0.77 127 x 102 T D Stra02F/ 1 2.16 96 1 1 1 1 TZONE 2110 187 2182 F 0.915 2833 0.77 D Stra0217 BLG10103 A/ 1 2.56 96 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 6.48 2126 207 2217 F 0.915 2833 0.78 127 x 102 T D Stra03F/ 1 2.56 96 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 6.48 2126 207 2217 F 0.915 2833 0.78 D Stra0318 BLG10104 A/ 1 2.95 96 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.11 2114 227 2225 F 0.915 2833 0.79 127 x 102 T D Stra04F/ 1 2.95 96 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.11 2114 227 2225 F 0.915 2833 0.79 D Stra0419 BLG10105 A/ 1 3.34 96 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.75 2102 222 2208 F 0.915 2833 0.78 127 x 102 T D Stra05F/ 1 3.34 96 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.75 2102 222 2208 F 0.915 2833 0.78 D Stra0520 SHL10101 A/ 1 3.71 182 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.73 1994 133 2021 F 0.951 2669 0.76 203 x 140 T E Stra01F/ 1 3.71 182 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.73 1994 133 2021 F 0.951 2669 0.76 E Stra0121 SHL10102 A/ 1 4.2 47 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 10 1934 671 2475 F 0.951 2669 0.93 127 x 70 T E Stra02

App C-12STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm 2 ) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 4.2 47 1 1 1 1 F1&F2 10 1934 671 2475 F 0.951 2669 0.93 E Stra0222 SHL10103 A/ 1 4.68 47 1 1 0.85 1 F1&F2 11.26 1858 650 2383 F 0.951 2669 0.89 127 x 70 T E Stra03F/ 1 4.68 47 1 1 0.85 1 F1&F2 11.26 1858 650 2383 F 0.951 2669 0.89 E Stra0323 SHL10204 A/ 1 5.18 45 1 1 0.57 1 F1&F2 11.7 1777 472 2137 F 0.951 2669 0.8 127 x 70 T F1 Str04F/ 1 5.18 45 1 1 0.57 1 F1&F2 11.7 1777 472 2137 F 0.951 2669 0.8 F1 Str0424 SHL10205 A/ 1 5.67 45 1 1 0.39 1 F1&F2 10.72 1773 308 1977 F 0.951 2669 0.74 127 x 70 T F1 Str05F/ 1 5.67 45 1 1 0.39 1 F1&F2 10.72 1773 308 1977 F 0.951 2669 0.74 F1 Str0525 SHL10406 A/ 1 6.63 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.84 1990 653 2511 F 0.951 2669 0.94 127 x 70 T G1 Str06F/ 1 6.63 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.84 1990 653 2511 F 0.951 2669 0.94 G1 Str0626 SHL10407 A/ 1 7.1 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.9 2099 614 2578 F 0.951 2669 0.97 127 x 70 T G1 Str07F/ 1 7.1 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.9 2099 614 2578 F 0.951 2669 0.97 G1 Str0727 SHL10408 A/ 1 7.58 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.96 2208 541 2612 F 0.951 2669 0.98 127 x 70 T G1 Str08F/ 1 7.58 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.96 2208 541 2612 F 0.951 2669 0.98 G1 Str0828 SHL10409 A/ 1 8.06 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.02 2317 526 2701 F 0.951 2669 1.01 127 x 70 T G1 Str09F/ 1 8.06 47 2 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.02 2317 526 2701 F 0.951 2669 1.01 G1 Str0929 SHL10610 A/ 1 9.1 49 2 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2199 190 2270 F 0.917 2821 0.8 127 x 70 T H Stra10F/ 1 9.1 49 2 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2199 190 2270 F 0.917 2821 0.8 H Stra1030 SHL10611 A/ 1 9.57 49 2 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2183 90 2160 F 0.897 2922 0.74 127 x 70 T H Stra11F/ 1 9.57 49 2 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2183 90 2160 F 0.897 2922 0.74 H Stra1131 SHS10101 A/ 1 10.06 50 2 1 1 1 1&2 0.11 2262 27 2175 F 0.878 3037 0.72 127 x 70 T J Stra01F/ 1 10.06 50 2 1 1 1 1&2 0.11 2262 27 2175 F 0.878 3037 0.72 J Stra0132 SHS10102 A/ 1 10.53 50 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2498 0 2373 F 0.878 3037 0.78 127 x 70 T J Stra02F/ 1 10.53 50 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2498 0 2373 F 0.878 3037 0.78 J Stra0233 DEC10101 A/ 1 11.13 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 127 x 102 T No 1 D01F/ 1 11.13 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 No 1 D0134 DEC10102 A/ 1 11.15 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 127 x 102 T No 1 D02F/ 1 11.15 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 No 1 D0235 DEC10103 A/ 1 11.18 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 127 x 102 T No 1 D03F/ 1 11.18 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 No 1 D03

App C-13STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm 2 ) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID36 DEC10104 A/ 1 11.21 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 127 x 102 T No 1 D04F/ 1 11.21 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 No 1 D0437 DEC10105 A/ 1 11.24 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 127 x 102 T No 1 D05F/ 1 11.24 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 No 1 D0538 DEC10106 A/ 1 11.26 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 127 x 102 T No 1 D06F/ 1 11.26 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 No 1 D0639 DEC10107 A/ 1 11.29 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 127 x 102 T No 1 D07F/ 1 11.29 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 No 1 D0740 DEC10108 A/ 1 11.32 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 127 x 102 T No 1 D08F/ 1 11.32 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 No 1 D0841 DEC10309 A/ 1 11.37 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 127 x 102 T No1 In09F/ 1 11.37 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 No1 In0942 DEC10310 A/ 1 11.38 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 127 x 102 T No1 In10F/ 1 11.38 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 No1 In1043 DEC10311 A/ 1 11.39 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 127 x 102 T No1 In11F/ 1 11.39 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 No1 In1144 DEC10312 A/ 1 11.39 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 127 x 102 T No1 In12F/ 1 11.39 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 No1 In1245 DEC10313 A/ 1 11.4 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 127 x 102 T No1 In13F/ 1 11.4 108 2 1 1 1 1&2 0 2714 0 2579 F 0.878 3037 0.85 No1 In1346 NTF10101 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 7&8 0 143 0 136 F 0.878 3037 0.04 76 x 26T No 3 I01F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 7&8 0 143 0 136 F 0.878 3037 0.04 No 3 I0147 NTF10102 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 293 0 279 F 0.878 3037 0.09 76 x 26T No 3 I02F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 293 0 279 F 0.878 3037 0.09 No 3 I0248 NTF10103 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 443 0 421 F 0.878 3037 0.14 76 x 26T No 3 I03F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 443 0 421 F 0.878 3037 0.14 No 3 I0349 NTF10104 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 593 0 564 F 0.878 3037 0.19 76 x 26T No 3 I04F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 593 0 564 F 0.878 3037 0.19 No 3 I0450 NTF10105 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 743 0 706 F 0.878 3037 0.23 76 x 26T No 3 I05

App C-14STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm 2 ) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 743 0 706 F 0.878 3037 0.23 No 3 I0551 NTF10206 A/ 1 6.2 172 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 893 0 849 F 0.878 3037 0.28 203 x 140 T No 3 D06F/ 1 6.2 172 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 893 0 849 F 0.878 3037 0.28 No 3 D0652 NTF10307 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1045 0 993 F 0.878 3037 0.33 76 x 26T No 3 D07F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1045 0 993 F 0.878 3037 0.33 No 3 D0753 NTF10308 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1174 0 1116 F 0.878 3037 0.37 76 x 26T No 3 D08F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1174 0 1116 F 0.878 3037 0.37 No 3 D0854 NTF10309 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1303 0 1238 F 0.878 3037 0.41 76 x 26T No 3 D09F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1303 0 1238 F 0.878 3037 0.41 No 3 D0955 NTF10310 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1432 0 1360 F 0.878 3037 0.45 76 x 26T No 3 D10F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1432 0 1360 F 0.878 3037 0.45 No 3 D1056 NTF10311 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1561 0 1483 F 0.878 3037 0.49 76 x 26T No 3 D11F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1561 0 1483 F 0.878 3037 0.49 No 3 D1157 NTF10312 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1690 0 1605 F 0.878 3037 0.53 76 x 26T No 3 D12F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1690 0 1605 F 0.878 3037 0.53 No 3 D1258 NTF10313 A/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1819 0 1728 F 0.878 3037 0.57 76 x 26T No 3 D13F/ 1 6.2 13 2 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1819 0 1728 F 0.878 3037 0.57 No 3 D1359 SDK10101 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 2159 0 2051 F 0.937 2733 0.75 76 x 26T No 2 D01F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 2159 0 2051 F 0.937 2733 0.75 No 2 D0160 SDK10102 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 2055 0 1953 F 0.937 2733 0.71 76 x 26T No 2 D02F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 2055 0 1953 F 0.937 2733 0.71 No 2 D0261 SDK10103 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1952 0 1854 F 0.937 2733 0.68 76 x 26T No 2 D03F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1952 0 1854 F 0.937 2733 0.68 No 2 D0362 SDK10104 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1848 0 1755 F 0.937 2733 0.64 76 x 26T No 2 D04F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1848 0 1755 F 0.937 2733 0.64 No 2 D0463 SDK10105 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1744 0 1657 F 0.937 2733 0.61 76 x 26T No 2 D05F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1744 0 1657 F 0.937 2733 0.61 No 2 D0564 SDK10106 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1640 0 1558 F 0.937 2733 0.57 76 x 26T No 2 D06F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1640 0 1558 F 0.937 2733 0.57 No 2 D06

App C-15STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm 2 ) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID65 SDK10107 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1537 0 1460 F 0.937 2733 0.53 76 x 26T No 2 D07F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1537 0 1460 F 0.937 2733 0.53 No 2 D0766 SDK10208 A/ 1 8.65 193 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1414 0 1343 F 0.937 2733 0.49 203 x 140 T No 2 D08F/ 1 8.65 193 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1414 0 1343 F 0.937 2733 0.49 No 2 D0867 SDK10309 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1293 0 1229 F 0.937 2733 0.45 76 x 26T No 2 I09F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1293 0 1229 F 0.937 2733 0.45 No 2 I0968 SDK10310 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1173 0 1114 F 0.937 2733 0.41 76 x 26T No 2 I10F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1173 0 1114 F 0.937 2733 0.41 No 2 I1069 SDK10311 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1052 0 999 F 0.937 2733 0.37 76 x 26T No 2 I11F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 1052 0 999 F 0.937 2733 0.37 No 2 I1170 SDK10312 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 931 0 885 F 0.937 2733 0.32 76 x 26T No 2 I12F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 931 0 885 F 0.937 2733 0.32 No 2 I1271 SDK10313 A/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 811 0 770 F 0.937 2733 0.28 76 x 26T No 2 I13F/ 1 8.65 14 2 1 1 1 TZONE 811 0 770 F 0.937 2733 0.28 No 2 I13

App C-16CutoutLABELTable C.4 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F Flat Bars for Ship C16 APRIL 2001 12:58:23 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.11 (2000 Rules) -- Non Production (Special consideration required for L < 130m)SHIP : with LBP = 124.5 m, Class F DetailsLxBxDxd = 120.77x 14.80x 11.10x 4.99(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 105555.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 181783.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 5.47(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR FLAT-BAR SUPPORT STIFFENERS OF LONGITUDINALSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 62.25m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 52100.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 42594.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75ID LOC Dist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead(m)Force(tf)SupportAreas(cm 2 )As AcSCFStress Range(kg/cm 2 )fs fL fRiFATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm 2 )PSBTM10204 1 1 0.24 0.453 0.9 4.14 1.73 0 26.9 1.5 61 2119 2121 F 0.915 2833 0.752 0.24 0.453 0.9 4.14 1.73 0 26.9 1 61 2119 2120 F 0.915 2833 0.75[Weld Throat] 0.24 0.453 0.9 4.14 1.73 [Asw]= 0 1.25 61 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10205 1 1 0.29 0.46 0.9 4.14 1.76 0 26.9 1.5 62 2097 2099 F 0.915 2833 0.742 0.29 0.46 0.9 4.14 1.76 0 26.9 1 62 2097 2097 F 0.915 2833 0.74[Weld Throat] 0.29 0.46 0.9 4.14 1.76 [Asw]= 0 1.25 62 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10206 1 1 0.35 0.46 0.9 4.14 1.76 0 26.9 1.5 62 2073 2075 F 0.915 2833 0.732 0.35 0.46 0.9 4.14 1.76 0 26.9 1 62 2073 2074 F 0.915 2833 0.73[Weld Throat] 0.35 0.46 0.9 4.14 1.76 [Asw]= 0 1.25 62 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10308 1 1 0.45 0.317 0.9 4.14 1.21 0 26.9 1.5 43 2007 2008 F 0.915 2833 0.712 0.45 0.317 0.9 4.14 1.21 0 26.9 1 43 2007 2007 F 0.915 2833 0.71fR/PS

App C-17CutoutLABELID LOC Dist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead(m)Force(tf)SupportAreas(cm 2 )As AcSCFStress Range(kg/cm 2 )fs fL fRiFATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm 2 )PS[Weld Throat] 0.45 0.317 0.9 4.14 1.21 [Asw]= 0 1.25 43 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10309 1 1 0.56 0.4 0.9 4.14 1.53 0 26.9 1.5 54 1978 1980 F 0.915 2833 0.72 0.56 0.4 0.9 4.14 1.53 0 26.9 1 54 1978 1979 F 0.915 2833 0.7[Weld Throat] 0.56 0.4 0.9 4.14 1.53 [Asw]= 0 1.25 54 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10311 1 1 0.78 0.447 0.9 4.14 1.71 0 26.9 1.5 60 1899 1901 F 0.915 2833 0.672 0.78 0.447 0.9 4.14 1.71 0 26.9 1 60 1899 1900 F 0.915 2833 0.67[Weld Throat] 0.78 0.447 0.9 4.14 1.71 [Asw]= 0 1.25 60 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10412 1 1 0.99 0.482 0.9 4.14 1.84 0 26.9 1.5 65 1823 1826 F 0.915 2833 0.642 0.99 0.482 0.9 4.14 1.84 0 26.9 1 65 1823 1824 F 0.915 2833 0.64[Weld Throat] 0.99 0.482 0.9 4.14 1.84 [Asw]= 0 1.25 65 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNBTM10413 1 1 1.2 0.47 0.9 4.14 1.79 0 26.9 1.5 63 1737 1739 F 0.915 2833 0.612 1.2 0.47 0.9 4.14 1.79 0 26.9 1 63 1737 1738 F 0.915 2833 0.61[Weld Throat] 1.2 0.47 0.9 4.14 1.79 [Asw]= 0 1.25 63 0 ***** W 0.915 1797 NaNfR/PS

App D-1APPENDIX DFATIGUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SHIP D

App D-2Table D.1 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Longitudinals for Ship D15 MARCH 2001 15:10:29 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.11 (2000 Rules) -- Non Production (Special consideration required for L < 130m)SHIP : with L 117.66LxBxDxd = 117.66x 15.24x 11.50x 4.94(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 108103.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 222700.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 5.35(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 60.65m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 52115.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 42070.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup .Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm 2 )FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID1 BTM10101 A/ 1 0.08 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2420 222 2133 F2 0.917 2482 0.86 10 x 4 T A Stra01F/ 1 0.08 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2420 222 2133 F2 0.917 2482 0.86 A Stra012 BTM10102 A/ 1 0.18 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2373 233 2105 F2 0.917 2482 0.85 10 x 4 T A Stra02F/ 1 0.18 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2373 233 2105 F2 0.917 2482 0.85 A Stra023 BTM10103 A/ 1 0.27 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2327 238 2071 F2 0.917 2482 0.83 10 x 4 T A Stra03F/ 1 0.27 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2327 238 2071 F2 0.917 2482 0.83 A Stra034 BTM10204 A/ 1 0.39 1108 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2142 55 1774 F2 0.917 2482 0.71 Mn Eng Seat B Stra04F/ 1 0.39 1108 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2142 55 1774 F2 0.917 2482 0.71 B Stra045 BTM10205 A/ 1 0.51 1108 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2083 53 1725 F2 0.917 2482 0.69 Mn Eng Seat B Stra05F/ 1 0.51 1108 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2083 53 1725 F2 0.917 2482 0.69 B Stra056 BTM10306 A/ 1 0.63 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2153 228 1922 F2 0.917 2482 0.77 10 x 4 T C1 Str06

App D-3STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup .Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm 2 ) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 0.63 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2153 228 1922 F2 0.917 2482 0.77 C1 Str067 BTM10407 A/ 1 0.89 253 1.702 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2030 176 1781 F2 0.917 2482 0.72 10 x 4 T C2 Str07F/ 3 0.89 253 1.702 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2030 176 1781 F2 0.917 2482 0.72 C2 Str078 BLG10101 A/ 1 1.14 253 1.702 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 1909 173 1681 F2 0.917 2482 0.68 10 x 4 T D Stra01F/ 3 1.14 253 1.702 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 1909 173 1681 F2 0.917 2482 0.68 D Stra019 BLG10102 A/ 1 1.51 254 1.727 1 1 1 TZONE 1793 209 1902 F2 0.917 2482 0.77 10 x 4 T D Stra02F/ 2 1.51 254 1.727 1 1 1 TZONE 1793 209 1902 F2 0.917 2482 0.77 D Stra0210 BLG10103 A/ 1 1.87 188 1.727 1 1 1 TZONE 1811 329 2033 F2 0.917 2482 0.82 8 x 4 T D Stra03F/ 2 1.87 188 1.727 1 1 1 TZONE 1811 329 2033 F2 0.917 2482 0.82 D Stra0311 SHL10101 A/ 1 2.39 201 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 5.83 1880 406 2171 F2 0.954 2341 0.93 8 x 4 T E Stra01F/ 1 2.39 201 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 5.83 1880 406 2171 F2 0.954 2341 0.93 E Stra0112 SHL10102 A/ 1 3 201 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 6.85 1796 467 2149 F2 0.954 2341 0.92 8 x 4 T E Stra02F/ 1 3 201 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 6.85 1796 467 2149 F2 0.954 2341 0.92 E Stra0213 SHL10103 A/ 1 3.61 201 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.19 1712 542 2142 F2 0.954 2341 0.91 8 x 4 T E Stra03F/ 1 3.61 201 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.19 1712 542 2142 F2 0.954 2341 0.91 E Stra0314 SHL10204 A/ 1 4.21 204 1.727 1 1 1 F1&F2 9.78 1612 538 2042 F2 0.954 2341 0.87 8 x 4 T F Stra04F/ 2 4.21 204 1.727 1 1 1 F1&F2 9.78 1612 538 2042 F2 0.954 2341 0.87 F Stra0415 SHL10205 A/ 1 4.78 205 1.829 1 0.75 1 F1&F2 11.29 1508 505 1913 F2 0.954 2341 0.82 8 x 4 T F Stra05F/ 1 4.78 205 1.829 1 0.75 1 F1&F2 11.29 1508 505 1913 F2 0.954 2341 0.82 F Stra0516 SHL10306 A/ 1 5.35 192 1.829 1 0.48 1 F1&F2 10.99 1401 337 1652 F2 0.954 2341 0.71 8 x 4 T G1 Str06F/ 1 5.35 192 1.829 1 0.48 1 F1&F2 10.99 1401 337 1652 F2 0.954 2341 0.71 G1 Str0617 SHL10307 A/ 1 5.93 192 1.829 1 0.32 1 F1&F2 9.95 1512 211 1637 F2 0.954 2341 0.7 8 x 4 T G1 Str07F/ 1 5.93 192 1.829 1 0.32 1 F1&F2 9.95 1512 211 1637 F2 0.954 2341 0.7 G1 Str0718 SHL10508 A/ 1 7.12 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.83 1747 194 1843 F2 0.954 2341 0.79 7 x 4 T H Stra08F/ 1 7.12 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.83 1747 194 1843 F2 0.954 2341 0.79 H Stra0819 SHL10509 A/ 1 7.72 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.75 1862 172 1933 F2 0.954 2341 0.83 7 x 4 T H Stra09F/ 1 7.72 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.75 1862 172 1933 F2 0.954 2341 0.83 H Stra0920 SHL10510 A/ 1 8.32 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 5.68 1978 157 2028 F2 0.954 2341 0.87 7 x 4 T H Stra10F/ 1 8.32 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 5.68 1978 157 2028 F2 0.954 2341 0.87 H Stra10

App D-4STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup .Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm 2 ) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGS21 SHL10711 A/ 1 9.61 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2127 41 2060 F2 0.912 2503 0.82 7 x 4 T I2 Str11F/ 1 9.61 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2127 41 2060 F2 0.912 2503 0.82 I2 Str1122 SHL10812 A/ 1 10.21 158 1.829 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2341 5 2228 F2 0.887 2623 0.85 7 x 4 T J Stra12F/ 1 10.21 158 1.829 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2341 5 2228 F2 0.887 2623 0.85 J Stra1223 SHL10813 A/ 1 10.8 158 1.829 1 0.3 1 1&2 0 2625 0 2494 F2 0.881 2656 0.94 7 x 4 T J Stra13USERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 10.8 158 1.829 1 0.3 1 1&2 0 2625 0 2494 F2 0.881 2656 0.94 J Stra1324 DEC10101 A/ 1 11.52 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F2 0.881 2656 1.02 8 x 4 T No 1 D01F/ 1 11.52 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F2 0.881 2656 1.02 No 1 D0125 DEC10102 A/ 1 11.56 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F2 0.881 2656 1.02 8 x 4 T No 1 D02F/ 1 11.56 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F2 0.881 2656 1.02 No 1 D0226 DEC10103 A/ 1 11.59 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F2 0.881 2656 1.02 8 x 4 T No 1 D03F/ 1 11.59 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F2 0.881 2656 1.02 No 1 D0327 DEC10104 A/ 1 11.62 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F2 0.881 2656 1.02 8 x 4 T No 1 D04F/ 1 11.62 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F2 0.881 2656 1.02 No 1 D0428 DEC10105 A/ 1 11.65 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F2 0.881 2656 1.02 8 x 4 T No 1 D05F/ 1 11.65 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F2 0.881 2656 1.02 No 1 D0529 NTF10101 A/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1010 0 959 F2 0.881 2656 0.36 5 x 4 T No 3 D01F/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1010 0 959 F2 0.881 2656 0.36 No 3 D0130 NTF10102 A/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1142 0 1085 F2 0.881 2656 0.41 5 x 4 T No 3 D02F/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1142 0 1085 F2 0.881 2656 0.41 No 3 D0231 NTF10103 A/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1274 0 1210 F2 0.881 2656 0.46 5 x 4 T No 3 D03F/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1274 0 1210 F2 0.881 2656 0.46 No 3 D0332 NTF10104 A/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1406 0 1336 F2 0.881 2656 0.5 5 x 4 T No 3 D04F/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1406 0 1336 F2 0.881 2656 0.5 No 3 D0433 NTF10105 A/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1538 0 1462 F2 0.881 2656 0.55 5 x 4 T No 3 D05F/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1538 0 1462 F2 0.881 2656 0.55 No 3 D0534 SDK10101 A/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1958 0 1860 F2 0.937 2406 0.77 5 x 4 T No 2 D01F/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1958 0 1860 F2 0.937 2406 0.77 No 2 D0135 SDK10102 A/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1856 0 1763 F2 0.937 2406 0.73 5 x 4 T No 2 D02

App D-5STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup .Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm 2 ) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1856 0 1763 F2 0.937 2406 0.73 No 2 D0236 SDK10103 A/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1754 0 1667 F2 0.937 2406 0.69 5 x 4 T No 2 D03F/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1754 0 1667 F2 0.937 2406 0.69 No 2 D0337 SDK10104 A/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1652 0 1570 F2 0.937 2406 0.65 5 x 4 T No 2 D04F/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1652 0 1570 F2 0.937 2406 0.65 No 2 D0438 SDK10105 A/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1551 0 1473 F2 0.937 2406 0.61 5 x 4 T No 2 D05F/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1551 0 1473 F2 0.937 2406 0.61 No 2 D05

App D-6Table D.2 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Bars for Ship D15 MARCH 2001 15:10:29 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.11 (2000 Rules) -- Non Production (Special consideration required for L < 130m)SHIP : with L 117.66LxBxDxd = 117.66x 15.24x 11.50x 4.94(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 108103.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 222700.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 5.35(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR FLAT-BAR SUPPORT STIFFENERS OF LONGITUDINALSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 60.65m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 52115.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 42070.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75CutoutLABELID LOC Dist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead(m)Force(tf)SupportAreas(cm 2 )As AcSCFStress Range(kg/cm 2 )fs fL fRiFATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm 2 )PSfR/PSBLG10102 1 1 1.51 0.6 1.727 4.63 4.91 0 25 1.5 187 1902 1922 F2 0.917 2482 0.772 1.51 0.6 1.727 4.63 4.91 0 25 1 187 1902 1911 F2 0.917 2482 0.77[Weld Throat] 1.51 0.6 1.727 4.63 4.91 [Asw]= 0 1.25 187 0 ***** W 0.917 1790 NaNBLG10103 1 1 1.87 0.634 1.727 5.11 5.74 0 18.6 1.5 293 2033 2080 F2 0.917 2482 0.842 1.87 0.634 1.727 5.11 5.74 0 18.6 1 293 2033 2054 F2 0.917 2482 0.83[Weld Throat] 1.87 0.634 1.727 5.11 5.74 [Asw]= 0 1.25 293 0 ***** W 0.917 1790 NaNSHL10204 1 1 4.21 0.587 1.727 9.78 10.16 0 18.6 1.5 518 2042 2185 F2 0.954 2341 0.932 4.21 0.587 1.727 9.78 10.16 0 18.6 1 518 2042 2107 F2 0.954 2341 0.9[Weld Throat] 4.21 0.587 1.727 9.78 10.16 [Asw]= 0 1.25 518 0 ***** W 0.954 1684 NaN

App D-7Table D.3 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F Longitudinals for Ship D15 MARCH 2001 15:19:20 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.11 (2000 Rules) -- Non Production (Special consideration required for L < 130m)SHIP : with Class F Details, L = 117.66LxBxDxd = 117.66x 15.24x 11.50x 4.94(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 108103.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 222700.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 5.35(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSSpecial Location at 60.65m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 52115.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 42070.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm 2 )FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID1 BTM10101 A/ 1 0.08 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2420 222 2133 F 0.917 2822 0.76 10 x 4 T A Stra01F/ 1 0.08 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2420 222 2133 F 0.917 2822 0.76 A Stra012 BTM10102 A/ 1 0.18 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2373 233 2105 F 0.917 2822 0.75 10 x 4 T A Stra02F/ 1 0.18 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2373 233 2105 F 0.917 2822 0.75 A Stra023 BTM10103 A/ 1 0.27 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2327 238 2071 F 0.917 2822 0.73 10 x 4 T A Stra03F/ 1 0.27 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2327 238 2071 F 0.917 2822 0.73 A Stra034 BTM 10204 A/ 1 0.39 1108 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2142 55 1774 F 0.917 2822 0.63 Mn Eng Seat B Stra04F/ 1 0.39 1108 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2142 55 1774 F 0.917 2822 0.63 B Stra045 BTM10205 A/ 1 0.51 1108 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2083 53 1725 F 0.917 2822 0.61 Mn Eng Seat B Stra05F/ 1 0.51 1108 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2083 53 1725 F 0.917 2822 0.61 B Stra05

App D-8STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm 2 ) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID6 BTM10306 A/ 1 0.63 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2153 228 1922 F 0.917 2822 0.68 10 x 4 T C1 Str06F/ 1 0.63 255 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2153 228 1922 F 0.917 2822 0.68 C1 Str067 BTM10407 A/ 1 0.89 253 1.702 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2030 176 1781 F 0.917 2822 0.63 10 x 4 T C2 Str07F/ 3 0.89 253 1.702 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 2030 176 1781 F 0.917 2822 0.63 C2 Str078 BLG10101 A/ 1 1.14 253 1.702 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 1909 173 1681 F 0.917 2822 0.6 10 x 4 T D Stra01F/ 3 1.14 253 1.702 1 1 1 1&2 4.02 1909 173 1681 F 0.917 2822 0.6 D Stra019 BLG10102 A/ 1 1.51 254 1.727 1 1 1 TZONE 1793 209 1902 F 0.917 2822 0.67 10 x 4 T D Stra02F/ 2 1.51 254 1.727 1 1 1 TZONE 1793 209 1902 F 0.917 2822 0.67 D Stra0210 BLG10103 A/ 1 1.87 188 1.727 1 1 1 TZONE 1811 329 2033 F 0.917 2822 0.72 8 x 4 T D Stra03F/ 2 1.87 188 1.727 1 1 1 TZONE 1811 329 2033 F 0.917 2822 0.72 D Stra0311 SHL10101 A/ 1 2.39 201 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 5.83 1880 406 2171 F 0.954 2658 0.82 8 x 4 T E Stra01F/ 1 2.39 201 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 5.83 1880 406 2171 F 0.954 2658 0.82 E Stra0112 SHL10102 A/ 1 3 201 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 6.85 1796 467 2149 F 0.954 2658 0.81 8 x 4 T E Stra02F/ 1 3 201 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 6.85 1796 467 2149 F 0.954 2658 0.81 E Stra0213 SHL10103 A/ 1 3.61 201 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.19 1712 542 2142 F 0.954 2658 0.81 8 x 4 T E Stra03F/ 1 3.61 201 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.19 1712 542 2142 F 0.954 2658 0.81 E Stra0314 SHL10204 A/ 1 4.21 204 1.727 1 1 1 F1&F2 9.78 1612 538 2042 F 0.954 2658 0.77 8 x 4 T F Stra04F/ 2 4.21 204 1.727 1 1 1 F1&F2 9.78 1612 538 2042 F 0.954 2658 0.77 F Stra0415 SHL10205 A/ 1 4.78 205 1.829 1 0.75 1 F1&F2 11.29 1508 505 1913 F 0.954 2658 0.72 8 x 4 T F Stra05F/ 1 4.78 205 1.829 1 0.75 1 F1&F2 11.29 1508 505 1913 F 0.954 2658 0.72 F Stra0516 SHL10306 A/ 1 5.35 192 1.829 1 0.48 1 F1&F2 10.99 1401 337 1652 F 0.954 2658 0.62 8 x 4 T G1 Str06F/ 1 5.35 192 1.829 1 0.48 1 F1&F2 10.99 1401 337 1652 F 0.954 2658 0.62 G1 Str0617 SHL10307 A/ 1 5.93 192 1.829 1 0.32 1 F1&F2 9.95 1512 211 1637 F 0.954 2658 0.62 8 x 4 T G1 Str07F/ 1 5.93 192 1.829 1 0.32 1 F1&F2 9.95 1512 211 1637 F 0.954 2658 0.62 G1 Str0718 SHL10508 A/ 1 7.12 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.83 1747 194 1843 F 0.954 2658 0.69 7 x 4 T H Stra08F/ 1 7.12 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.83 1747 194 1843 F 0.954 2658 0.69 H Stra0819 SHL10509 A/ 1 7.72 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.75 1862 172 1933 F 0.954 2658 0.73 7 x 4 T H Stra09F/ 1 7.72 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.75 1862 172 1933 F 0.954 2658 0.73 H Stra0920 SHL10510 A/ 1 8.32 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 5.68 1978 157 2028 F 0.954 2658 0.76 7 x 4 T H Stra10

App D-9STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm 2 ) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 8.32 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 5.68 1978 157 2028 F 0.954 2658 0.76 H Stra1021 SHL10711 A/ 1 9.61 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2127 41 2060 F 0.912 2846 0.72 7 x 4 T I2 Str11F/ 1 9.61 151 1.829 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2127 41 2060 F 0.912 2846 0.72 I2 Str1122 SHL10812 A/ 1 10.21 158 1.829 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2341 5 2228 F 0.887 2982 0.75 7 x 4 T J Stra12F/ 1 10.21 158 1.829 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2341 5 2228 F 0.887 2982 0.75 J Stra1223 SHL10813 A/ 1 10.8 158 1.829 1 0.3 1 1&2 0 2625 0 2494 F 0.881 3020 0.83 7 x 4 T J Stra13F/ 1 10.8 158 1.829 1 0.3 1 1&2 0 2625 0 2494 F 0.881 3020 0.83 J Stra1324 DEC10101 A/ 1 11.52 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F 0.881 3020 0.9 8 x 4 T No 1 D01F/ 1 11.52 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F 0.881 3020 0.9 No 1 D0125 DEC10102 A/ 1 11.56 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F 0.881 3020 0.9 8 x 4 T No 1 D02F/ 1 11.56 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F 0.881 3020 0.9 No 1 D0226 DEC10103 A/ 1 11.59 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F 0.881 3020 0.9 8 x 4 T No 1 D03F/ 1 11.59 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F 0.881 3020 0.9 No 1 D0327 DEC10104 A/ 1 11.62 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F 0.881 3020 0.9 8 x 4 T No 1 D04F/ 1 11.62 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F 0.881 3020 0.9 No 1 D0428 DEC10105 A/ 1 11.65 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F 0.881 3020 0.9 8 x 4 T No 1 D05F/ 1 11.65 185 1.829 1 1 1 1&2 0 2864 0 2721 F 0.881 3020 0.9 No 1 D0529 NTF10101 A/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1010 0 959 F 0.881 3020 0.32 5 x 4 T No 3 D01F/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1010 0 959 F 0.881 3020 0.32 No 3 D0130 NTF10102 A/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1142 0 1085 F 0.881 3020 0.36 5 x 4 T No 3 D02F/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1142 0 1085 F 0.881 3020 0.36 No 3 D0231 NTF10103 A/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1274 0 1210 F 0.881 3020 0.4 5 x 4 T No 3 D03F/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1274 0 1210 F 0.881 3020 0.4 No 3 D0332 NTF10104 A/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1406 0 1336 F 0.881 3020 0.44 5 x 4 T No 3 D04F/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1406 0 1336 F 0.881 3020 0.44 No 3 D0433 NTF10105 A/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1538 0 1462 F 0.881 3020 0.48 5 x 4 T No 3 D05F/ 1 6.55 63 1.829 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1538 0 1462 F 0.881 3020 0.48 No 3 D0534 SDK10101 A/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1958 0 1860 F 0.937 2734 0.68 5 x 4 T No 2 D01F/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1958 0 1860 F 0.937 2734 0.68 No 2 D01

App D-10STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)FATIG.Stress Rangef RG f RL f R(kg/cm 2 ) CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID35 SDK10102 A/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1856 0 1763 F 0.937 2734 0.65 5 x 4 T No 2 D02F/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1856 0 1763 F 0.937 2734 0.65 No 2 D0236 SDK10103 A/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1754 0 1667 F 0.937 2734 0.61 5 x 4 T No 2 D03F/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1754 0 1667 F 0.937 2734 0.61 No 2 D0337 SDK10104 A/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1652 0 1570 F 0.937 2734 0.57 5 x 4 T No 2 D04F/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1652 0 1570 F 0.937 2734 0.57 No 2 D0438 SDK10105 A/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1551 0 1473 F 0.937 2734 0.54 5 x 4 T No 2 D05F/ 1 9.02 71 1.829 1 1 1 TZONE 1551 0 1473 F 0.937 2734 0.54 No 2 D05

App D-11Table D.4 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F Flat Bars for Ship D15 MARCH 2001 15:19:21 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.11 (2000 Rules) -- Non Production (Special consideration required for L < 130m)SHIP : with Class F Details, L = 117.66LxBxDxd = 117.66x 15.24x 11.50x 4.94(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 108103.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 222700.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 5.35(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR FLAT-BAR SUPPORT STIFFENERS OF LONGITUDINALSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 60.65m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 52115.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 42070.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75CutoutLABELID LOC Dist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead(m)Force(tf)AsSupportAreas(cm 2 )AcSCFStress Range(kg/cm 2 )fs fL fRiFATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm 2 )PSfR/PSBLG10102 1 1 1.51 0.6 1.727 4.63 4.91 0 25 1.5 187 1902 1922 F 0.917 2822 0.682 1.51 0.6 1.727 4.63 4.91 0 25 1 187 1902 1911 F 0.917 2822 0.68[Weld Throat] 1.51 0.6 1.727 4.63 4.91 [Asw]= 0 1.25 187 0 ***** W 0.917 1790 NaNBLG10103 1 1 1.87 0.634 1.727 5.11 5.74 0 18.6 1.5 293 2033 2080 F 0.917 2822 0.742 1.87 0.634 1.727 5.11 5.74 0 18.6 1 293 2033 2054 F 0.917 2822 0.73[Weld Throat] 1.87 0.634 1.727 5.11 5.74 [Asw]= 0 1.25 293 0 ***** W 0.917 1790 NaNSHL10204 1 1 4.21 0.587 1.727 9.78 10.16 0 18.6 1.5 518 2042 2185 F 0.954 2658 0.822 4.21 0.587 1.727 9.78 10.16 0 18.6 1 518 2042 2107 F 0.954 2658 0.79[Weld Throat] 4.21 0.587 1.727 9.78 10.16 [Asw]= 0 1.25 518 0 ***** W 0.954 1684 NaN

App E-1APPENDIX EFATIGUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SHIP E

App E-2STF#Table E.1 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Longitudinals for Ship ENote: There are no flat bar stiffeners on this class16 APRIL 2001 10:16:14 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.11 (2000 Rules) -- Non Production (Special consideration required for L < 130m)SHIP : with True LBP = 108.51 mLxBxDxd = 105.25x 12.74x 8.74x 4.18(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 52395.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 87721.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 4.55(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 59.00m from AP (0.530 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 32783.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 24574.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Local Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75 Long Perm.SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)StressRange(kg/cm2)f RGf RL f R FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID1 KPL10101 A/ 1 0 106 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2771 328 2502 F2 0.928 2441 1.03 2.5x5x8.5# T FPK 01F/ 1 0 106 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2771 328 2502 F2 0.928 2441 1.03 FPK 012 KPL10202 A/ 1 0.09 152 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2698 236 2369 F2 0.928 2441 0.97 3x6x10.9# T FPK 02F/ 1 0.09 152 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2698 236 2369 F2 0.928 2441 0.97 FPK 023 BTM10201 A/ 1 0.19 2647 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2209 14 1795 F2 0.928 2441 0.74 30x12x20#/20# T A Stra01F/ 1 0.19 2647 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2209 14 1795 F2 0.928 2441 0.74 A Stra014 BTM10202 A/ 1 0.33 146 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2547 252 2260 F2 0.928 2441 0.93 3x6x10.9# T A Stra02F/ 1 0.33 146 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2547 252 2260 F2 0.928 2441 0.93 A Stra025 BTM10203 A/ 1 0.48 1250 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2203 32 1804 F2 0.928 2441 0.74 21x9x17#/20# T A Stra03F/ 1 0.48 1250 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2203 32 1804 F2 0.928 2441 0.74 A Stra03

App E-3STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)StressRange(kg/cm2)f RGf RL f R FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID6 BTM10304 A/ 1 0.66 146 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2344 273 2113 F2 0.928 2441 0.87 3x6x10.9# T B Stra04F/ 1 0.66 146 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2344 273 2113 F2 0.928 2441 0.87 B Stra047 BTM10305 A/ 1 0.84 502 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 3.96 2144 73 1790 F2 0.928 2441 0.73 11x9 T B Stra05F/ 1 0.84 502 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 3.96 2144 73 1790 F2 0.928 2441 0.73 B Stra058 BTM10306 A/ 1 1.02 146 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 3.77 2116 186 1859 F2 0.928 2441 0.76 3x6x10.9# T B Stra06F/ 1 1.02 146 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 3.77 2116 186 1859 F2 0.928 2441 0.76 B Stra069 BLG10101 A/ 1 1.31 141 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 2040 299 2223 F2 0.928 2441 0.91 3x6x10.9# T BlgStr01F/ 1 1.31 141 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 2040 299 2223 F2 0.928 2441 0.91 BlgStr0110 BLG10102 A/ 1 1.74 99 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 2143 495 2506 F2 0.928 2441 1.03 2.5x5x8.5# T BlgStr02F/ 1 1.74 99 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 2143 495 2506 F2 0.928 2441 1.03 BlgStr0211 BLG10103 A/ 1 2.17 99 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 6.52 2146 785 2784 F2 0.928 2441 1.14 2.5x5x8.5# T BlgStr03F/ 1 2.17 99 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 6.52 2146 785 2784 F2 0.928 2441 1.14 BlgStr0312 SHL10101 A/ 1 3.03 102 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.37 2037 971 2857 F2 0.964 2302 1.24 2.5x5x8.5# T DStrak01F/ 1 3.03 102 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.37 2037 971 2857 F2 0.964 2302 1.24 DStrak0113 SHL10102 A/ 1 3.57 102 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 9.95 1933 816 2612 F2 0.964 2302 1.13 2.5x5x8.5# T DStrak02F/ 1 3.57 102 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 9.95 1933 816 2612 F2 0.964 2302 1.13 DStrak0214 SHL10103 A/ 1 4.12 102 1.524 1 0.7 1 F1&F2 11.53 1829 666 2370 F2 0.964 2302 1.03 2.5x5x8.5# T DStrak03F/ 1 4.12 102 1.524 1 0.7 1 F1&F2 11.53 1829 666 2370 F2 0.964 2302 1.03 DStrak0315 SHL10204 A/ 1 4.69 102 1.524 1 0.42 1 F1&F2 10.42 1770 363 2027 F2 0.964 2302 0.88 2.5x5x8.5# T EStrak04F/ 1 4.69 102 1.524 1 0.42 1 F1&F2 10.42 1770 363 2027 F2 0.964 2302 0.88 EStrak0416 SHL10205 A/ 1 5.26 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.94 1917 225 2034 F2 0.964 2302 0.88 2.5x5x8.5# T EStrak05F/ 1 5.26 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.94 1917 225 2034 F2 0.964 2302 0.88 EStrak0517 SHL10206 A/ 1 5.83 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.47 2063 188 2138 F2 0.964 2302 0.93 2.5x5x8.5# T EStrak06F/ 1 5.83 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.47 2063 188 2138 F2 0.964 2302 0.93 EStrak0618 SHL10407 A/ 1 6.97 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2083 95 2069 F2 0.941 2392 0.86 2.5x5x8.5# T FStrak07F/ 1 6.97 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2083 95 2069 F2 0.941 2392 0.86 FStrak0719 SHL10408 A/ 1 7.57 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2024 48 1968 F2 0.909 2517 0.78 2.5x5x8.5# T FStrak08F/ 1 7.57 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2024 48 1968 F2 0.909 2517 0.78 FStrak0820 SHL10509 A/ 1 8.27 108 1.524 1 0.3 1 1&2 0.51 2325 16 2224 F2 0.892 2592 0.86 2.5x5x8.5# T GStrak09

App E-4STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)StressRange(kg/cm2)f RGf RL f R FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 8.27 108 1.524 1 0.3 1 1&2 0.51 2325 16 2224 F2 0.892 2592 0.86 GStrak0921 DEC10101 A/ 1 8.74 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F2 0.892 2592 0.93 2.5x5x8.5# T Gunl 01F/ 1 8.74 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F2 0.892 2592 0.93 Gunl 0122 DEC10202 A/ 1 8.76 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F2 0.892 2592 0.93 2.5x5x8.5# T Dk1 02F/ 1 8.76 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F2 0.892 2592 0.93 Dk1 0223 DEC10203 A/ 1 8.77 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F2 0.892 2592 0.93 2.5x5 x8.5# T Dk1 03F/ 1 8.77 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F2 0.892 2592 0.93 Dk1 0324 DEC10304 A/ 1 8.79 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F2 0.892 2592 0.93 2.5x5x8.5# T Dk1 04F/ 1 8.79 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F2 0.892 2592 0.93 Dk1 0425 DEC10305 A/ 1 8.82 251 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2506 0 2381 F2 0.892 2592 0.92 3.5x7x13.7# T Dk1 05F/ 1 8.82 251 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2506 0 2381 F2 0.892 2592 0.92 Dk1 0526 DEC10306 A/ 1 8.85 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F2 0.892 2592 0.93 2.5x5x8.5# T Dk1 06F/ 1 8.85 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F2 0.892 2592 0.93 Dk1 0627 DEC10407 A/ 1 8.87 101 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F2 0.892 2592 0.93 2.5x5x8.5# T Dk1 07F/ 1 8.87 101 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F2 0.892 2592 0.93 Dk1 0728 DEC10408 A/ 1 8.89 175 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2506 0 2381 F2 0.892 2592 0.92 3.5x7x13.7# T Dk1 08F/ 1 8.89 175 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2506 0 2381 F2 0.892 2592 0.92 Dk1 0829 DEC10409 A/ 1 8.9 175 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2506 0 2381 F2 0.892 2592 0.92 3.5x7x13.7# T Dk1 09F/ 1 8.9 175 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2506 0 2381 F2 0.892 2592 0.92 Dk1 0930 SDK10101 A/ 1 6.42 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 2104 0 1999 F2 0.964 2302 0.87 1.75x4.5x5# T Dk3 01F/ 1 6.42 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 2104 0 1999 F2 0.964 2302 0.87 Dk3 0131 SDK10102 A/ 1 6.45 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1936 0 1839 F2 0.964 2302 0.80 1.75x4.5x5# T Dk3 02F/ 1 6.45 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1936 0 1839 F2 0.964 2302 0.80 Dk3 0232 SDK10103 A/ 1 6.48 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1767 0 1679 F2 0.964 2302 0.73 1.75x4.5x5# T Dk3 03F/ 1 6.48 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1767 0 1679 F2 0.964 2302 0.73 Dk3 0333 SDK10104 A/ 1 6.5 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1598 0 1518 F2 0.964 2302 0.66 1.75x4.5x5# T Dk3 04F/ 1 6.5 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1598 0 1518 F2 0.964 2302 0.66 Dk3 0434 SDK10105 A/ 1 6.53 168 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1430 0 1358 F2 0.964 2302 0.59 3.5x7x13.7# T Dk3 05F/ 1 6.53 168 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1430 0 1358 F2 0.964 2302 0.59 Dk3 05

App E-5STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocalLoadRange(m)StressRange(kg/cm2)f RGf RL f R FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID35 SDK10106 A/ 1 6.55 58 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 1261 0 1198 F2 0.963 2303 0.52 1.75x4.5x5# T Dk3 06F/ 1 6.55 58 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 1261 0 1198 F2 0.963 2303 0.52 Dk3 0636 SDK10107 A/ 1 6.58 168 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 1096 0 1041 F2 0.962 2308 0.45 3.5x7x13.7# T Dk3 07F/ 1 6.58 168 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 1096 0 1041 F2 0.962 2308 0.45 Dk3 07

App E-6STF#Table E.2 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F Longitudinals for Ship ENote: There are no flat bar stiffeners on this class16 APRIL 2001 13:07:00 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.11 (2000 Rules) -- Non Production (Special consideration required for L < 130m)SHIP : with True LBP = 108.51 m, Class F DetailsLxBxDxd = 105.25x 12.74x 8.74x 4.18(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 52395.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 87721.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 4.55(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 59.00m from AP (0.530 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 32783.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 24574.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Local Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75 Long Perm.SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LoadRange(m)StressRange(kg/cm2)f RGf RL f R FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID1 KPL10101 A/ 1 0 106 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2771 328 2502 F 0.928 2774 0.90 2.5x5x8.5# T FPK 01F/ 1 0 106 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2771 328 2502 F 0.928 2774 0.90 FPK 012 KPL10202 A/ 1 0.09 152 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2698 236 2369 F 0.928 2774 0.85 3x6x10.9# T FPK 02F/ 1 0.09 152 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2698 236 2369 F 0.928 2774 0.85 FPK 023 BTM10201 A/ 1 0.19 2647 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2209 14 1795 F 0.928 2774 0.65 30x12x20#/20# T A Stra01F/ 1 0.19 2647 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2209 14 1795 F 0.928 2774 0.65 A Stra014 BTM10202 A/ 1 0.33 146 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2547 252 2260 F 0.928 2774 0.81 3x6x10.9# T A Stra02F/ 1 0.33 146 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2547 252 2260 F 0.928 2774 0.81 A Stra025 BTM10203 A/ 1 0.48 1250 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2203 32 1804 F 0.928 2774 0.65 21x9x17#/20# T A Stra03F/ 1 0.48 1250 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2203 32 1804 F 0.928 2774 0.65 A Stra03

App E-7STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LoadRange(m)StressRange(kg/cm2)f RGf RL f R FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID6 BTM10304 A/ 1 0.66 146 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2344 273 2113 F 0.928 2774 0.76 3x6x10.9# T B Stra04F/ 1 0.66 146 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 4.01 2344 273 2113 F 0.928 2774 0.76 B Stra047 BTM10305 A/ 1 0.84 502 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 3.96 2144 73 1790 F 0.928 2774 0.65 11x9 T B Stra05F/ 1 0.84 502 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 3.96 2144 73 1790 F 0.928 2774 0.65 B Stra058 BTM10306 A/ 1 1.02 146 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 3.77 2116 186 1859 F 0.928 2774 0.67 3x6x10.9# T B Stra06F/ 1 1.02 146 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 3.77 2116 186 1859 F 0.928 2774 0.67 B Stra069 BLG10101 A/ 1 1.31 141 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 2040 299 2223 F 0.928 2774 0.80 3x6x10.9# T BlgStr01F/ 1 1.31 141 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 2040 299 2223 F 0.928 2774 0.80 BlgStr0110 BLG10102 A/ 1 1.74 99 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 2143 495 2506 F 0.928 2774 0.90 2.5x5x8.5# T BlgStr02F/ 1 1.74 99 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 2143 495 2506 F 0.928 2774 0.90 BlgStr0211 BLG10103 A/ 1 2.17 99 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 6.52 2146 785 2784 F 0.928 2774 1.00 2.5x5x8.5# T BlgStr03F/ 1 2.17 99 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 6.52 2146 785 2784 F 0.928 2774 1.00 BlgStr0312 SHL10101 A/ 1 3.03 102 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.37 2037 971 2857 F 0.964 2614 1.09 2.5x5x8.5# T DStrak01F/ 1 3.03 102 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.37 2037 971 2857 F 0.964 2614 1.09 DStrak0113 SHL10102 A/ 1 3.57 102 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 9.95 1933 816 2612 F 0.964 2614 1.00 2.5x5x8.5# T DStrak02F/ 1 3.57 102 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 9.95 1933 816 2612 F 0.964 2614 1.00 DStrak0214 SHL10103 A/ 1 4.12 102 1.524 1 0.7 1 F1&F2 11.53 1829 666 2370 F 0.964 2614 0.91 2.5x5x8.5# T DStrak03F/ 1 4.12 102 1.524 1 0.7 1 F1&F2 11.53 1829 666 2370 F 0.964 2614 0.91 DStrak0315 SHL10204 A/ 1 4.69 102 1.524 1 0.42 1 F1&F2 10.42 1770 363 2027 F 0.964 2614 0.78 2.5x5x8.5# T EStrak04F/ 1 4.69 102 1.524 1 0.42 1 F1&F2 10.42 1770 363 2027 F 0.964 2614 0.78 EStrak0416 SHL10205 A/ 1 5.26 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.94 1917 225 2034 F 0.964 2614 0.78 2.5x5x8.5# T EStrak05F/ 1 5.26 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.94 1917 225 2034 F 0.964 2614 0.78 EStrak0517 SHL10206 A/ 1 5.83 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.47 2063 188 2138 F 0.964 2614 0.82 2.5x5x8.5# T EStrak06F/ 1 5.83 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.47 2063 188 2138 F 0.964 2614 0.82 EStrak0618 SHL10407 A/ 1 6.97 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2083 95 2069 F 0.941 2717 0.76 2.5x5x8.5# T FStrak07F/ 1 6.97 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2083 95 2069 F 0.941 2717 0.76 FStrak0719 SHL10408 A/ 1 7.57 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2024 48 1968 F 0.909 2861 0.69 2.5x5x8.5# T FStrak08F/ 1 7.57 102 1.524 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2024 48 1968 F 0.909 2861 0.69 FStrak0820 SHL10509 A/ 1 8.27 108 1.524 1 0.3 1 1&2 0.51 2325 16 2224 F 0.892 2948 0.75 2.5x5x8.5# T GStrak09F/ 1 8.27 108 1.524 1 0.3 1 1&2 0.51 2325 16 2224 F 0.892 2948 0.75 GStrak09

App E-8STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LoadRange(m)StressRange(kg/cm2)f RGf RL f R FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID21 DEC10101 A/ 1 8.74 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F 0.892 2948 0.82 2.5x5x8.5# T Gunl 01F/ 1 8.74 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F 0.892 2948 0.82 Gunl 0122 DEC10202 A/ 1 8.76 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F 0.892 2948 0.82 2.5x5x8.5# T Dk1 02F/ 1 8.76 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F 0.892 2948 0.82 Dk1 0223 DEC10203 A/ 1 8.77 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F 0.892 2948 0.82 2.5x5x8.5# T Dk1 03F/ 1 8.77 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F 0.892 2948 0.82 Dk1 0324 DEC10304 A/ 1 8.79 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F 0.892 2948 0.82 2.5x5x8.5# T Dk1 04F/ 1 8.79 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F 0.892 2948 0.82 Dk1 0425 DEC10305 A/ 1 8.82 251 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2506 0 2381 F 0.892 2948 0.81 3.5x7x13.7# T Dk1 05F/ 1 8.82 251 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2506 0 2381 F 0.892 2948 0.81 Dk1 0526 DEC10306 A/ 1 8.85 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F 0.892 2948 0.82 2.5x5x8.5# T Dk1 06F/ 1 8.85 108 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F 0.892 2948 0.82 Dk1 0627 DEC10407 A/ 1 8.87 101 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F 0.892 2948 0.82 2.5x5x8.5# T Dk1 07F/ 1 8.87 101 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2538 0 2411 F 0.892 2948 0.82 Dk1 0728 DEC10408 A/ 1 8.89 175 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2506 0 2381 F 0.892 2948 0.81 3.5x7x13.7# T Dk1 08F/ 1 8.89 175 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2506 0 2381 F 0.892 2948 0.81 Dk1 0829 DEC10409 A/ 1 8.9 175 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2506 0 2381 F 0.892 2948 0.81 3.5x7x13.7# T Dk1 09F/ 1 8.9 175 1.524 1 1 1 1&2 0 2506 0 2381 F 0.892 2948 0.81 Dk1 0930 SDK10101 A/ 1 6.42 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 2104 0 1999 F 0.964 2614 0.76 1.75x4.5x5# T Dk3 01F/ 1 6.42 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 2104 0 1999 F 0.964 2614 0.76 Dk3 0131 SDK10102 A/ 1 6.45 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1936 0 1839 F 0.964 2614 0.70 1.75x4.5x5# T Dk3 02F/ 1 6.45 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1936 0 1839 F 0.964 2614 0.70 Dk3 0232 SDK10103 A/ 1 6.48 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1767 0 1679 F 0.964 2614 0.64 1.75x4.5x5# T Dk3 03F/ 1 6.48 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1767 0 1679 F 0.964 2614 0.64 Dk3 0333 SDK10104 A/ 1 6.5 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1598 0 1518 F 0.964 2614 0.58 1.75x4.5x5# T Dk3 04F/ 1 6.5 58 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1598 0 1518 F 0.964 2614 0.58 Dk3 0434 SDK10105 A/ 1 6.53 168 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1430 0 1358 F 0.964 2614 0.52 3.5x7x13.7# T Dk3 05F/ 1 6.53 168 1.524 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1430 0 1358 F 0.964 2614 0.52 Dk3 0535 SDK10106 A/ 1 6.55 58 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 1261 0 1198 F 0.963 2614 0.46 1.75x4.5x5# T Dk3 06F/ 1 6.55 58 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 1261 0 1198 F 0.963 2614 0.46 Dk3 06

App E-9STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOE IDDist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LoadRange(m)StressRange(kg/cm2)f RGf RL f R FATIG.CLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)P SfR/PS SCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID36 SDK10107 A/ 1 6.58 168 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 1096 0 1041 F 0.962 2621 0.40 3.5x7x13.7# T Dk3 07F/ 1 6.58 168 1.524 1 1 1 TZONE 1096 0 1041 F 0.962 2621 0.40 Dk3 07

App F-1APPENDIX FFATIGUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SHIP F

App F-2Table F.1 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Longitudinals for Ship F13 APRIL 2001 17:37:58 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.00 (2000 Rules)SHIP : MidshipLxBxDxd = 156.40x 16.76x 12.81x 5.50(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 283835.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 477734.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 6.23(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 80.62m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 111311.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 92024.(tf-m)FatigueSTF Stiffener " ID Dist. SM Span Ct Cy LP# LC# Local Stress RangeLong Perm. fR/P SCANTLINGS(m) f RG f RL f R Factor P S#TOE fromBL(m)(cm 3 ) (m)LoadRange(kg/cm2) Class TermDistrStress(kg/cm2)S1 Bottom Long'l 1 A/ 1 0 268 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.24 2324 471 2257 F2 0.889 2611 0.86 12 X 4 X 16# I/TF/ 2 0 268 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.24 2324 471 2257 F2 0.889 2611 0.862 Bottom Long'l 3 A/ 1 0.19 265 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.21 2250 462 2189 F2 0.889 2611 0.84 12 X 4 X 16# I/TF/ 2 0.19 265 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.21 2250 462 2189 F2 0.889 2611 0.843 Bottom Long'l 5 A/ 1 0.47 265 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.18 2140 464 2102 F2 0.889 2611 0.81 12 X 4 X 16# I/TF/ 2 0.47 265 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.18 2140 464 2102 F2 0.889 2611 0.814 Bottom Long'l 7 A/ 2 0.84 262 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.13 1996 477 1997 F2 0.889 2611 0.76 12 X 4 X 16# I/TF/ 1 0.84 262 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.13 1996 477 1997 F2 0.889 2611 0.765 Bottom Long'l 9 A/ 1 1.41 265 2.44 1 1 2 TZONE 1887 527 2293 F2 0.893 2590 0.89 12 X 4 X 16# I/TF/ 1 1.41 265 2.44 1 1 2 TZONE 1887 527 2293 F2 0.893 2590 0.896 Bottom Long'l 10 A/ 1 1.83 236 2.44 1 1 2 TZONE 1789 624 2292 F2 0.906 2528 0.91 12 X 4 X 16# I/TF/ 1 1.83 236 2.44 1 1 2 TZONE 1789 624 2292 F2 0.906 2528 0.917 Bottom Long'l 11 A/ 1 2.26 136 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1719 1342 2908 F2 0.918 2478 1.17 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 1 2.26 136 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1719 1342 2908 F2 0.918 2478 1.178 Side Long'l 13 A/ 1 3.2 171 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.53 1920 1112 2881 F2 0.928 2443 1.18 10 X 4 X 12# I/T

App F-3FatigueSTF Stiffener " ID Dist. SM Span Ct Cy LP# LC# Local Stress RangeLong Perm. fR/P SCANTLINGS(m) f RG f RL f R Factor P S#TOE fromBL(m)(cm 3 ) (m)LoadRange(kg/cm2) Class TermDistrStress(kg/cm2)SF/ 1 3.2 171 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.53 1920 1112 2881 F2 0.928 2443 1.189 Side Long'l 14 A/ 1 3.9 171 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.96 1860 1418 3114 F2 0.928 2443 1.27 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 1 3.9 171 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.96 1860 1418 3114 F2 0.928 2443 1.2710 Side Long'l 16 A/ 1 5.35 169 2.44 1 0.7 1 F1&F2 12.9 1683 1484 3008 F2 0.928 2443 1.23 10 X 4 X 12# I/T3F/ 1 5.35 169 2.44 1 0.7 1 F1&F2 12.9 1683 1484 3008 F2 0.928 2443 1.23311 Side Long'l 17 A/ 1 5.94 157 2.44 1 0.4 1 F1&F2 12.5 1609 925 2408 F2 0.928 2443 0.99 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T8F/ 1 5.94 157 2.44 1 0.4 1 F1&F2 12.5 1609 925 2408 F2 0.928 2443 0.99812 Side Long'l 18 A/ 1 6.61 157 2.44 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 11.28 1629 595 2113 F2 0.928 2443 0.87 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T1F/ 1 6.61 157 2.44 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 11.28 1629 595 2113 F2 0.928 2443 0.87113 Side Long'l 21 A/ 1 8 120 2.44 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.74 1852 573 2303 F2 0.928 2443 0.94 8 X 4 X 10# I/TF/ 1 8 120 2.44 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.74 1852 573 2303 F2 0.928 2443 0.9414 Side Long'l 22 A/ 1 8.69 120 2.44 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.5 1960 491 2329 F2 0.928 2443 0.95 8 X 4 X 10# I/TF/ 1 8.69 120 2.44 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.5 1960 491 2329 F2 0.928 2443 0.9515 Side Long'l 23 A/ 1 9.37 120 2.44 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.25 2069 410 2354 F2 0.928 2443 0.96 8 X 4 X 10# I/TF/ 1 9.37 120 2.44 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.25 2069 410 2354 F2 0.928 2443 0.9616 Side Long'l 26 A/ 1 10.75 98 2.44 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1983 144 2020 F2 0.882 2652 0.76 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 10.75 98 2.44 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1983 144 2020 F2 0.882 2652 0.7617 Side Long'l 27 A/ 1 11.43 99 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2057 32 1985 F2 0.854 2805 0.71 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 11.43 99 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2057 32 1985 F2 0.854 2805 0.7118 Side Long'l 28 A/ 1 12.11 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2308 0 2193 F2 0.851 2827 0.78 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 12.11 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2308 0 2193 F2 0.851 2827 0.7819 01 Lvl Long'l 12 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.85 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.8520 01 Lvl Long'l 11 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.85 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.8521 01 Lvl Long'l 10 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.85 6 X 4 X 7.0# T

App F-4FatigueSTF Stiffener " ID Dist. SM Span Ct Cy LP# LC# Local Stress RangeLong Perm. fR/P SCANTLINGS(m) f RG f RL f R Factor P S#TOE fromBL(m)(cm 3 ) (m)LoadRange(kg/cm2) Class TermDistrStress(kg/cm2)SF/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.8522 01 Lvl Long'l 9 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.85 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.8523 01 Lvl Long'l 8 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.85 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.8524 01 Lvl Long'l 7 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.85 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.8525 01 Lvl Long'l 6 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.85 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.8526 01 Lvl Long'l 5 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.85 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.8527 01 Lvl Long'l 4 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.85 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.8528 01 Lvl Long'l 3 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.85 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.8529 01 Lvl Long'l 2 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.85 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.8530 01 Lvl Long'l 1 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.85 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 12.8 99 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2520 0 2394 F2 0.851 2827 0.8531 01 Lvl Long'l Cl A/ 1 12.8 1415 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2400 0 2280 F2 0.851 2827 0.81 18 X 7-1/2 X 50# I/TF/ 1 12.8 1415 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2400 0 2280 F2 0.851 2827 0.8132 I.B. Long'l 1 A/ 1 1.4 156 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.49 1992 75 1964 F2 0.889 2611 0.75 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 1.4 156 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.49 1992 75 1964 F2 0.889 2611 0.7533 I.B. Long'l 3 A/ 1 1.65 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.45 1893 79 1874 F2 0.889 2611 0.72 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 1.65 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.45 1893 79 1874 F2 0.889 2611 0.7234 I.B. Long'l 5 A/ 1 1.98 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.4 1764 71 1744 F2 0.889 2611 0.67 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 1.98 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.4 1764 71 1744 F2 0.889 2611 0.6735 I.B. Long'l 7 A/ 1 2.39 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.34 1603 63 1583 F2 0.889 2611 0.61 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 2.39 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.34 1603 63 1583 F2 0.889 2611 0.6136 I.B. Long'l 9 A/ 1 2.81 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.28 1439 36 1400 F2 0.889 2611 0.54 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 2.81 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.28 1439 36 1400 F2 0.889 2611 0.5437 1st Plat Long'l CL A/ 1 7.32 846 2.44 1 1 1 7&8 0 171 0 163 F2 0.889 2611 0.06 18x7.5x55# I-T

App F-5FatigueSTF Stiffener " ID Dist. SM Span Ct Cy LP# LC# Local Stress RangeLong Perm. fR/P SCANTLINGS(m) f RG f RL f R Factor P S#TOE fromBL(m)(cm 3 ) (m)LoadRange(kg/cm2) Class TermDistrStress(kg/cm2)SF/ 1 7.32 846 2.44 1 1 1 7&8 0 171 0 163 F2 0.889 2611 0.0638 1st Plat Long'l 1 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 295 0 280 F2 0.889 2611 0.11 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 295 0 280 F2 0.889 2611 0.1139 1st Plat Long'l 2 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 417 0 396 F2 0.889 2611 0.15 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 417 0 396 F2 0.889 2611 0.1540 1st Plat Long'l 3 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 541 0 514 F2 0.889 2611 0.2 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 541 0 514 F2 0.889 2611 0.241 1st Plat Long'l 4 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 665 0 632 F2 0.889 2611 0.24 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 665 0 632 F2 0.889 2611 0.2442 1st Plat Long'l 5 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 789 0 750 F2 0.889 2611 0.29 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 789 0 750 F2 0.889 2611 0.2943 1st Plat Long'l 6 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 913 0 867 F2 0.889 2611 0.33 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 913 0 867 F2 0.889 2611 0.3344 1st Plat Long'l 7 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1037 0 985 F2 0.889 2611 0.38 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1037 0 985 F2 0.889 2611 0.3845 1st Plat Long'l 8 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1161 0 1103 F2 0.889 2611 0.42 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1161 0 1103 F2 0.889 2611 0.4246 1st Plat Long'l 9 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1288 0 1223 F2 0.889 2611 0.47 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1288 0 1223 F2 0.889 2611 0.4747 1st Plat Long'l 10 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1412 0 1341 F2 0.889 2611 0.51 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1412 0 1341 F2 0.889 2611 0.5148 1st Plat Long'l 11 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1536 0 1459 F2 0.889 2611 0.56 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1536 0 1459 F2 0.889 2611 0.5649 1st Plat Long'l 12 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1660 0 1577 F2 0.889 2611 0.6 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1660 0 1577 F2 0.889 2611 0.650 2nd Plat Long'l CL A/ 1 4.57 998 2.44 1 1 1 7&8 0 260 0 247 F2 0.889 2611 0.09 18 X 7-1/2 X 50# I/TF/ 1 4.57 998 2.44 1 1 1 7&8 0 260 0 247 F2 0.889 2611 0.0951 2nd Plat Long'l 1 A/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 380 0 361 F2 0.889 2611 0.14 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 380 0 361 F2 0.889 2611 0.1452 2nd Plat Long'l 2 A/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 500 0 475 F2 0.889 2611 0.18 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 500 0 475 F2 0.889 2611 0.1853 2nd Plat Long'l 3 A/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 620 0 589 F2 0.889 2611 0.23 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T

App F-6FatigueSTF Stiffener " ID Dist. SM Span Ct Cy LP# LC# Local Stress RangeLong Perm. fR/P SCANTLINGS(m) f RG f RL f R Factor P S#TOE fromBL(m)(cm 3 ) (m)LoadRange(kg/cm2) Class TermDistrStress(kg/cm2)SF/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 620 0 589 F2 0.889 2611 0.2354 2nd Plat Long'l 4 A/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 740 0 703 F2 0.889 2611 0.27 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 740 0 703 F2 0.889 2611 0.2755 2nd Plat Long'l 5 A/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 859 0 816 F2 0.889 2611 0.31 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 859 0 816 F2 0.889 2611 0.3156 2nd Plat Long'l 6 A/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 979 0 930 F2 0.889 2611 0.36 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 979 0 930 F2 0.889 2611 0.3657 2nd Plat Long'l 7 A/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1098 0 1043 F2 0.889 2611 0.4 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1098 0 1043 F2 0.889 2611 0.458 2nd Plat Long'l 8 A/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1218 0 1157 F2 0.889 2611 0.44 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1218 0 1157 F2 0.889 2611 0.4459 2nd Plat Long'l 9 A/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1337 0 1271 F2 0.889 2611 0.49 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1337 0 1271 F2 0.889 2611 0.4960 2nd Plat Long'l 10 A/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1457 0 1384 F2 0.889 2611 0.53 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1457 0 1384 F2 0.889 2611 0.5361 2nd Plat Long'l 11 A/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1577 0 1498 F2 0.889 2611 0.57 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1577 0 1498 F2 0.889 2611 0.5762 2nd Plat Long'l 12 A/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1697 0 1612 F2 0.889 2611 0.62 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 1 4.57 142 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1697 0 1612 F2 0.889 2611 0.6263 I.B. Girder 2 A/ 1 0.8 62 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2129 0 2023 F2 0.889 2611 0.77 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 0.8 62 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2129 0 2023 F2 0.889 2611 0.7764 I.B. Girder 4 A/ 1 1.06 62 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2027 0 1926 F2 0.889 2611 0.74 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 1.06 62 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2027 0 1926 F2 0.889 2611 0.7465 I.B. Girder 6 A/ 1 1.38 62 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1873 0 1779 F2 0.889 2611 0.68 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 1.38 62 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1873 0 1779 F2 0.889 2611 0.6866 I.B. Girder 8 A/ 1 1.86 54 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1713 0 1627 F2 0.889 2611 0.62 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 1.86 54 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1713 0 1627 F2 0.889 2611 0.6267 CVK A/ 1 0.69 149 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2174 0 2066 F2 0.889 2611 0.79 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 1 0.69 149 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2174 0 2066 F2 0.889 2611 0.7968 Margin Plate A/ 1 2.85 136 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.28 1327 45 1303 F2 0.889 2611 0.5 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 2.85 136 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.28 1327 45 1303 F2 0.889 2611 0.569 Main Dk Long'l 13 A/ 1 10.06 70 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1951 0 1854 F2 0.909 2514 0.74 5 X 4 X 6.0# T

App F-7FatigueSTF Stiffener " ID Dist. SM Span Ct Cy LP# LC# Local Stress RangeLong Perm. fR/P SCANTLINGS(m) f RG f RL f R Factor P S#TOE fromBL(m)(cm 3 ) (m)LoadRange(kg/cm2) Class TermDistrStress(kg/cm2)SF/ 1 10.06 70 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1951 0 1854 F2 0.909 2514 0.7470 Main Dk Long'l 12 A/ 1 10.06 70 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1857 0 1764 F2 0.909 2514 0.7 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 10.06 70 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1857 0 1764 F2 0.909 2514 0.771 Main Dk Long'l 11 A/ 1 10.06 70 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1762 0 1674 F2 0.909 2514 0.67 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 10.06 70 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1762 0 1674 F2 0.909 2514 0.6772 Main Dk Long'l 10 A/ 1 10.06 70 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1667 0 1584 F2 0.909 2514 0.63 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 10.06 70 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1667 0 1584 F2 0.909 2514 0.6373 Main Dk Long'l 9 A/ 1 10.06 *** 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1573 0 1494 F2 0.909 2514 0.59 Cross Deck at C.L.F/ 1 10.06 *** 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1573 0 1494 F2 0.909 2514 0.5974 Main Dk Long'l 8 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1572 0 1493 F2 0.909 2514 0.59 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1572 0 1493 F2 0.909 2514 0.5975 Main Dk Long'l 7 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1477 0 1403 F2 0.909 2514 0.56 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1477 0 1403 F2 0.909 2514 0.5676 Main Dk Long'l 6 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1382 0 1313 F2 0.909 2514 0.52 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1382 0 1313 F2 0.909 2514 0.5277 Main Dk Long'l 5 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1288 0 1224 F2 0.909 2514 0.49 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1288 0 1224 F2 0.909 2514 0.4978 Main Dk Long'l 4 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1193 0 1134 F2 0.909 2514 0.45 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1193 0 1134 F2 0.909 2514 0.4579 Main Dk Long'l 3 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1099 0 1044 F2 0.909 2514 0.42 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1099 0 1044 F2 0.909 2514 0.4280 Main Dk Long'l 2 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1004 0 954 F2 0.909 2514 0.38 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1004 0 954 F2 0.909 2514 0.3881 Main Dk Long'l 1 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 910 0 864 F2 0.909 2514 0.34 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 10.06 67 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 910 0 864 F2 0.909 2514 0.3482 Main Dk Long'l Cl A/ 1 10.06 922 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 815 0 774 F2 0.909 2514 0.31 18 X 7-1/2 X 50# I/TF/ 1 10.06 922 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 815 0 774 F2 0.909 2514 0.31

App F-8Table F.2 Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Flat Bars for Ship FCf=0.95 Cw=0.7513 APRIL 2001 17:37:58 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.00 (2000 Rules)SHIP : MidshipLxBxDxd = 156.40x 16.76x 12.81x 5.50(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 283835.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 477734.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 6.23(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR FLAT-BAR SUPPORT STIFFENERS OF LONGITUDINALSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 80.62m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 111311.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 92024.(tf-m)CutoutLABELID LOC Dist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Range Areas SCF Stress RangeHead Force As Ac(kg/cm2)(m) (tf) (cm2) (cm2) fs fL fRiFATIGCLASSTermDistr.FactorStress(kg/cm2)PSfR/PSBTM10101 1 1 0 0.688 2.34 5.24 8.64 0 31.1 1.5 264 2257 2292 F2 0.889 2611 0.882 0 0.688 2.34 5.24 8.64 0 31.1 1 264 2257 2272 F2 0.889 2611 0.87[Weld Throat] 0 0.688 2.34 5.24 8.64 [Asw]= 0 1.25 264 0 ***** W 0.889 1883 NaNBTM10302 1 1 0.19 0.67 2.34 5.21 8.38 0 31.1 1.5 256 2189 2223 F2 0.889 2611 0.852 0.19 0.67 2.34 5.21 8.38 0 31.1 1 256 2189 2204 F2 0.889 2611 0.84[Weld Throat] 0.19 0.67 2.34 5.21 8.38 [Asw]= 0 1.25 256 0 ***** W 0.889 1883 NaNBTM10503 1 1 0.47 0.678 2.34 5.18 8.42 0 31.1 1.5 257 2102 2137 F2 0.889 2611 0.822 0.47 0.678 2.34 5.18 8.42 0 31.1 1 257 2102 2118 F2 0.889 2611 0.81[Weld Throat] 0.47 0.678 2.34 5.18 8.42 [Asw]= 0 1.25 257 0 ***** W 0.889 1883 NaNBTM10604 1 1 0.84 0.696 2.34 5.13 8.55 9.5 31.1 1.5 200 1997 2019 F2 0.889 2611 0.772 0.84 0.696 2.34 5.13 8.55 9.5 31.1 1.25 200 1997 2013 F2 0.889 2611 0.77[Weld Throat] 0.84 0.696 2.34 5.13 8.55 [Asw]= 8 1.25 200 0 297 W 0.889 1883 0.16

App G-1APPENDIX GFATIGUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SHIP G

App G-2ST#StiffenerTable G.1 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Longitudinals for Ship G14 FEBRUARY 2001 22:41:34 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.00 (2000 Rules)LxBxDxd = 156.40x 16.76x 12.81x 6.80(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 303713.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 517550.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 6.45(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSSpecial Location at 80.62m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 111187.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 91964.(tf-m)"Net" Ship Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75TOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Span(m)C t C y LP#LoadCase#FatigueLocal Stress Range(m) f RG f RL f RLoad (kg/cm2) ClassRngLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)Ratiof R /PSSCANTLINGS1 Bottom Long'l 1 A/ 1 0 268 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.23 2249 470 2196 F2 0.889 2611 0.84 12 X 4 X 16# I/TF/ 2 0 268 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.23 2249 470 2196 F2 0.889 2611 0.842 Bottom Long'l 3 A/ 1 0.19 265 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.21 2179 461 2132 F2 0.889 2611 0.82 12 X 4 X 16# I/TF/ 2 0.19 265 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.21 2179 461 2132 F2 0.889 2611 0.823 Bottom Long'l 5 A/ 1 0.47 265 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.17 2077 463 2051 F2 0.889 2611 0.79 12 X 4 X 16# I/TF/ 2 0.47 265 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.17 2077 463 2051 F2 0.889 2611 0.794 Bottom Long'l 7 A/ 2 0.84 262 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.12 1942 476 1953 F2 0.889 2611 0.75 12 X 4 X 16# I/TF/ 1 0.84 262 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.12 1942 476 1953 F2 0.889 2611 0.755 Bottom Long'l 9 A/ 2 1.41 264 2.34 1 1 2 TZONE 1834 491 2209 F2 0.893 2590 0.85 12 X 4 X 16# I/TF/ 1 1.41 264 2.34 1 1 2 TZONE 1834 491 2209 F2 0.893 2590 0.856 Bottom Long'l 10 A/ 2 1.83 236 2.34 1 1 2 TZONE 1723 634 2240 F2 0.906 2528 0.89 12 X 4 X 16# I/TF/ 1 1.83 236 2.34 1 1 2 TZONE 1723 634 2240 F2 0.906 2528 0.897 Bottom Long'l 11 A/ 2 2.26 136 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1631 1385 2865 F2 0.918 2478 1.16 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 1 2.26 136 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1631 1385 2865 F2 0.918 2478 1.168 Side Long'l 13 A/ 1 3.2 171 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.86 1808 1072 2736 F2 0.928 2443 1.12 10 X 4 X 12# I/T

App G-3ST#StiffenerTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Span(m)C t C y LP#LoadCase#FatigueLocal Stress Range(m) f RG f RL f RLoad (kg/cm2) ClassRngLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)Ratiof R /PSSCANTLINGSF/ 2 3.2 171 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.86 1808 1072 2736 F2 0.928 2443 1.129 Side Long'l 14 A/ 1 3.9 171 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.48 1752 1238 2840 F2 0.928 2443 1.16 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 3.9 171 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.48 1752 1238 2840 F2 0.928 2443 1.1610 Side Long'l 16 A/ 1 5.35 169 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 10.58 1586 1532 2962 F2 0.928 2443 1.21 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 5.35 169 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 10.58 1586 1532 2962 F2 0.928 2443 1.2111 Side Long'l 17 A/ 1 5.94 156 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 11.69 1517 1655 3013 F2 0.928 2443 1.23 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 2 5.94 156 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 11.69 1517 1655 3013 F2 0.928 2443 1.2312 Side Long'l 18 A/ 1 6.61 156 2.34 1 0.7 1 F1&F2 12.95 1472 1473 2798 F2 0.928 2443 1.15 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T3F/ 2 6.61 156 2.34 1 0.7 1 F1&F2 12.95 1472 1473 2798 F2 0.928 2443 1.15313 Side Long'l 21 A/ 2 8 119 2.34 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 10.64 1679 732 2291 F2 0.928 2443 0.94 8 X 4 X 10# I/T4F/ 1 8 119 2.34 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 10.64 1679 732 2291 F2 0.928 2443 0.94414 Side Long'l 22 A/ 2 8.69 119 2.34 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 9.12 1781 551 2215 F2 0.928 2443 0.91 8 X 4 X 10# I/TF/ 1 8.69 119 2.34 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 9.12 1781 551 2215 F2 0.928 2443 0.9115 Side Long'l 23 A/ 2 9.37 119 2.34 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.6 1882 459 2224 F2 0.928 2443 0.91 8 X 4 X 10# I/TF/ 1 9.37 119 2.34 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.6 1882 459 2224 F2 0.928 2443 0.9116 Side Long'l 26 A/ 2 10.75 98 2.34 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1784 214 1898 F2 0.882 2652 0.72 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 10.75 98 2.34 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1784 214 1898 F2 0.882 2652 0.7217 Side Long'l 27 A/ 2 11.43 101 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1843 278 2014 F2 0.854 2805 0.72 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 11.43 101 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1843 278 2014 F2 0.854 2805 0.7218 Side Long'l 28 A/ 2 12.11 101 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0.39 2076 92 2059 F2 0.851 2827 0.73 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 1 12.11 101 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0.39 2076 92 2059 F2 0.851 2827 0.7319 01 Lvl Long'l 12 A/ 1 12.8 101 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 2 12.8 101 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.7620 01 Lvl Long'l 11 A/ 1 12.8 101 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 2 12.8 101 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.7621 01 Lvl Long'l 10 A/ 1 12.8 101 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 2 12.8 101 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.7622 01 Lvl Long'l 9 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 6 X 4 X 7.0# T

App G-4ST#StiffenerTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Span(m)C t C y LP#LoadCase#FatigueLocal Stress Range(m) f RG f RL f RLoad (kg/cm2) ClassRngLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)Ratiof R /PSSCANTLINGSF/ 2 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.7623 01 Lvl Long'l 8 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 2 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.7624 01 Lvl Long'l 7 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 2 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.7625 01 Lvl Long'l 6 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 2 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.7626 01 Lvl Long'l 5 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 2 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.7627 01 Lvl Long'l 4 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 2 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.7628 01 Lvl Long'l 3 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 2 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.7629 01 Lvl Long'l 2 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 2 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.7630 01 Lvl Long'l 1 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 6 X 4 X 7.0# TF/ 2 12.8 99 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.7631 01 Lvl Long'l Cl A/ 1 12.8 1408 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2161 0 2053 F2 0.851 2827 0.73 18 X 7-1/2 X 50# I/TF/ 2 12.8 1408 2.34 1 1 1 1&2 0 2161 0 2053 F2 0.851 2827 0.7332 I.B. Long'l 1 A/ 1 1.4 156 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.48 1938 75 1912 F2 0.889 2611 0.73 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 1.4 156 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.48 1938 75 1912 F2 0.889 2611 0.7333 I.B. Long'l 3 A/ 1 1.65 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.45 1847 78 1829 F2 0.889 2611 0.70 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 1.65 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.45 1847 78 1829 F2 0.889 2611 0.7034 I.B. Long'l 5 A/ 1 1.98 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.4 1726 71 1707 F2 0.889 2611 0.65 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 1.98 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.4 1726 71 1707 F2 0.889 2611 0.6535 I.B. Long'l 7 A/ 1 2.39 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.34 1576 63 1557 F2 0.889 2611 0.60 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 2.39 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.34 1576 63 1557 F2 0.889 2611 0.6036 I.B. Long'l 9 A/ 1 2.81 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.28 1422 36 1385 F2 0.889 2611 0.53 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 2.81 135 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.28 1422 36 1385 F2 0.889 2611 0.5337 IB Margin Plate A/ 1 2.85 135 2.34 1 1 2 F1&F2 0.43 1743 71 1723 F2 0.889 2611 0.66 10 X 4 X 12# I/TF/ 2 2.85 135 2.34 1 1 2 F1&F2 0.43 1743 71 1723 F2 0.889 2611 0.6638 1st Plat Long'l Cl A/ 1 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 240 0 228 F2 0.889 2611 0.09 5 X 4 X 6.0# T

App G-5ST#StiffenerTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Span(m)C t C y LP#LoadCase#FatigueLocal Stress Range(m) f RG f RL f RLoad (kg/cm2) ClassRngLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)Ratiof R /PSSCANTLINGSF/ 2 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 240 0 228 F2 0.889 2611 0.0939 1st Plat Long'l 1 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 469 0 446 F2 0.889 2611 0.17 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 469 0 446 F2 0.889 2611 0.1740 1st Plat Long'l 2 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 584 0 554 F2 0.889 2611 0.21 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 584 0 554 F2 0.889 2611 0.2141 1st Plat Long'l 3 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 698 0 663 F2 0.889 2611 0.25 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 698 0 663 F2 0.889 2611 0.2542 1st Plat Long'l 4 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 813 0 772 F2 0.889 2611 0.30 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 813 0 772 F2 0.889 2611 0.3043 1st Plat Long'l 5 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 927 0 881 F2 0.889 2611 0.34 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 927 0 881 F2 0.889 2611 0.3444 1st Plat Long'l 6 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1156 0 1098 F2 0.889 2611 0.42 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1156 0 1098 F2 0.889 2611 0.4245 1st Plat Long'l 7 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1270 0 1207 F2 0.889 2611 0.46 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1270 0 1207 F2 0.889 2611 0.4646 1st Plat Long'l 8 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1385 0 1315 F2 0.889 2611 0.50 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1385 0 1315 F2 0.889 2611 0.5047 1st Plat Long'l 9 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1499 0 1424 F2 0.889 2611 0.55 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 7.32 52 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1499 0 1424 F2 0.889 2611 0.5548 2nd Plat Long'l Cl A/ 1 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 384 0 365 F2 0.889 2611 0.14 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 2 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 384 0 365 F2 0.889 2611 0.1449 2nd Plat Long'l 1 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 495 0 470 F2 0.889 2611 0.18 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 2 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 495 0 470 F2 0.889 2611 0.1850 2nd Plat Long'l 2 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 606 0 575 F2 0.889 2611 0.22 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 2 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 606 0 575 F2 0.889 2611 0.2251 2nd Plat Long'l 3 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 716 0 680 F2 0.889 2611 0.26 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 2 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 716 0 680 F2 0.889 2611 0.2652 2nd Plat Long'l 4 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 827 0 785 F2 0.889 2611 0.30 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 2 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 827 0 785 F2 0.889 2611 0.3053 2nd Plat Long'l 5 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 937 0 890 F2 0.889 2611 0.34 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 2 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 937 0 890 F2 0.889 2611 0.3454 2nd Plat Long'l 6 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1158 0 1100 F2 0.889 2611 0.42 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T

App G-6ST#StiffenerTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Span(m)C t C y LP#LoadCase#FatigueLocal Stress Range(m) f RG f RL f RLoad (kg/cm2) ClassRngLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)Ratiof R /PSSCANTLINGSF/ 2 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1158 0 1100 F2 0.889 2611 0.4255 2nd Plat Long'l 7 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1268 0 1205 F2 0.889 2611 0.46 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 2 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1268 0 1205 F2 0.889 2611 0.4656 2nd Plat Long'l 8 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1379 0 1310 F2 0.889 2611 0.50 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 2 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1379 0 1310 F2 0.889 2611 0.5057 2nd Plat Long'l 9 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1489 0 1415 F2 0.889 2611 0.54 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 2 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1489 0 1415 F2 0.889 2611 0.5458 2nd Plat Long'l 10 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1600 0 1520 F2 0.889 2611 0.58 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 2 4.57 141 2.34 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1600 0 1520 F2 0.889 2611 0.5859 I.B. Girder 2 A/ 1 0.8 62 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2067 0 1963 F2 0.889 2611 0.75 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 0.8 62 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2067 0 1963 F2 0.889 2611 0.7560 I.B. Girder 4 A/ 1 1.06 62 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 1972 0 1873 F2 0.889 2611 0.72 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 1.06 62 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 1972 0 1873 F2 0.889 2611 0.7261 I.B. Girder 6 A/ 1 1.38 62 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1823 0 1732 F2 0.889 2611 0.66 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 1.38 62 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1823 0 1732 F2 0.889 2611 0.6662 I.B. Girder 8 A/ 1 1.86 54 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1652 0 1569 F2 0.889 2611 0.60 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 1.86 54 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1652 0 1569 F2 0.889 2611 0.6063 CVK A/ 1 0.69 149 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2109 0 2003 F2 0.889 2611 0.77 8 X 4 X 10 # I/TF/ 1 0.69 149 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2109 0 2003 F2 0.889 2611 0.7764 Main Dk Long'l 12 A/ 1 10.06 70 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1766 0 1678 F2 0.909 2514 0.67 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 10.06 70 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1766 0 1678 F2 0.909 2514 0.6765 Main Dk Long'l 11 A/ 1 10.06 70 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1679 0 1595 F2 0.909 2514 0.63 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 10.06 70 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1679 0 1595 F2 0.909 2514 0.6366 Main Dk Long'l 10 A/ 1 10.06 70 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1591 0 1512 F2 0.909 2514 0.60 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 10.06 70 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1591 0 1512 F2 0.909 2514 0.6067 Main Dk Long'l 9 A/ 1 10.06 ***** 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1504 0 1429 F2 0.909 2514 0.57 Cross Deck at C.L.F/ 2 10.06 ***** 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1504 0 1429 F2 0.909 2514 0.5768 Main Dk Long'l 8 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1417 0 1346 F2 0.909 2514 0.54 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1417 0 1346 F2 0.909 2514 0.5469 Main Dk Long'l 7 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1330 0 1263 F2 0.909 2514 0.50 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1330 0 1263 F2 0.909 2514 0.5070 Main Dk Long'l 6 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1242 0 1180 F2 0.909 2514 0.47 5 X 4 X 6.0# T

App G-7ST#StiffenerTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Span(m)C t C y LP#LoadCase#FatigueLocal Stress Range(m) f RG f RL f RLoad (kg/cm2) ClassRngLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)Ratiof R /PSSCANTLINGSF/ 2 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1242 0 1180 F2 0.909 2514 0.4771 Main Dk Long'l 5 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1155 0 1097 F2 0.909 2514 0.44 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1155 0 1097 F2 0.909 2514 0.4472 Main Dk Long'l 4 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1068 0 1015 F2 0.909 2514 0.40 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 1068 0 1015 F2 0.909 2514 0.4073 Main Dk Long'l 3 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 981 0 932 F2 0.909 2514 0.37 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 981 0 932 F2 0.909 2514 0.3774 Main Dk Long'l 2 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 893 0 849 F2 0.909 2514 0.34 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 893 0 849 F2 0.909 2514 0.3475 Main Dk Long'l 1 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 806 0 766 F2 0.909 2514 0.30 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 2 10.06 67 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 806 0 766 F2 0.909 2514 0.3076 Main Dk Long'l Cl A/ 1 10.06 901 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 719 0 683 F2 0.909 2514 0.27 18 X 7-1/2 X 50# I/TF/ 2 10.06 901 2.34 1 1 1 TZONE 719 0 683 F2 0.909 2514 0.27

App G-8CutoutTable G.2 Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Flat Bars for Ship G14 FEBRUARY 2001 22:41:34 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.00 (2000 Rules)LxBxDxd = 156.40x 16.76x 12.81x 6.80(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 303713.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 517550.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 6.45(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR FLAT-BAR SUPPORT STIFFENERS OF LONGITUDINALSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 80.62m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 111187.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 91964.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75Dist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead(m)Force(tf)SupportAreasA s(cm 2 )A c SCF Stress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSLABEL ID LOC f s f L f RiBTM10604 2 1 0.84 0.696 2.34 5.12 8.54 7.1 51.8 1.5 138 1953 1964 F2 0.889 2611 0.752 0.84 0.696 2.34 5.12 8.54 7.1 51.8 1.25 138 1953 1961 F2 0.889 2611 0.75[Weld0.84 0.696 2.34 5.12 8.54 [Asw]= 4.5 1.25 138 0 273 W 0.889 1883 0.14Throat]SHL10101 2 1 1.41 0.685 2.34 5.39 8.86 9.5 51.8 1.5 137 2209 2219 F2 0.893 2590 0.862 1.41 0.685 2.34 5.39 8.86 9.5 51.8 1.25 137 2209 2216 F2 0.893 2590 0.86[Weld1.41 0.685 2.34 5.39 8.86 [Asw]= 6 1.25 137 0 272 W 0.893 1868 0.15Throat]SHL10102 2 1 1.83 0.653 2.34 6.52 10.22 9.5 51.8 1.5 158 2240 2252 F2 0.906 2528 0.892 1.83 0.653 2.34 6.52 10.22 9.5 51.8 1.25 158 2240 2248 F2 0.906 2528 0.89[Weld 1.83 0.653 2.34 6.52 10.22 [Asw]= 6 1.25 158 0 314 W 0.906 1824 0.17f R /PS

App G-9CutoutDist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead(m)Force(tf)SupportAreasA s(cm 2 )A c SCF Stress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSLABEL ID LOC f s f L f RiThroat]SHL10103 2 1 2.26 0.665 2.34 8.06 12.85 9.5 41.8 1.5 238 2865 2887 F2 0.918 2478 1.162 2.26 0.665 2.34 8.06 12.85 9.5 41.8 1.25 238 2865 2880 F2 0.918 2478 1.16[Weld2.26 0.665 2.34 8.06 12.85 [Asw]= 6 1.25 238 0 471 W 0.918 1786 0.26Throat]SHL10404 2 1 3.2 0.663 2.34 7.86 12.51 0 41.8 1.5 284 2736 2769 F2 0.928 2443 1.132 3.2 0.663 2.34 7.86 12.51 0 41.8 1 284 2736 2751 F2 0.928 2443 1.13[Weld3.2 0.663 2.34 7.86 12.51 [Asw]= 0 1.25 284 0 ***** W 0.928 1760 NaNThroat]SHL10505 2 1 3.9 0.71 2.34 8.48 14.44 0 41.8 1.5 328 2840 2883 F2 0.928 2443 1.182 3.9 0.71 2.34 8.48 14.44 0 41.8 1 328 2840 2859 F2 0.928 2443 1.17[Weld3.9 0.71 2.34 8.48 14.44 [Asw]= 0 1.25 328 0 ***** W 0.928 1760 NaNThroat]SHL10706 2 1 5.35 0.697 2.34 10.58 17.69 0 41.8 1.5 402 2962 3023 F2 0.928 2443 1.242 5.35 0.697 2.34 10.58 17.69 0 41.8 1 402 2962 2989 F2 0.928 2443 1.22[Weld5.35 0.697 2.34 10.58 17.69 [Asw]= 0 1.25 402 0 ***** W 0.928 1760 NaNThroat]SHL10807 2 1 5.94 0.631 2.34 11.69 17.7 0 32.3 1.5 521 3013 3113 F2 0.928 2443 1.272 5.94 0.631 2.34 11.69 17.7 0 32.3 1 521 3013 3058 F2 0.928 2443 1.25[Weld5.94 0.631 2.34 11.69 17.7 [Asw]= 0 1.25 521 0 ***** W 0.928 1760 NaNThroat]SHL10908 1 1 6.61 0.69 2.34 12.95 21.44 0 27.4 1.5 546 2798 2915 F2 0.928 2443 1.192 6.61 0.69 2.34 12.95 21.44 0 27.4 1 546 2798 2851 F2 0.928 2443 1.17[Weld6.61 0.69 2.34 12.95 21.44 [Asw]= 0 1.25 546 0 ***** W 0.928 1760 NaNThroat]SHL11009 1 1 8 0.685 2.34 10.64 17.48 9.5 27.5 1.5 153 2291 2302 F2 0.928 2443 0.942 8 0.685 2.34 10.64 17.48 9.5 27.5 1.25 153 2291 2299 F2 0.928 2443 0.94[WeldThroat]8 0.685 2.34 10.64 17.48 [Asw]= 6 1.25 153 0 303 W 0.928 1760 0.17f R /PS

App G-10CutoutDist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead(m)Force(tf)SupportAreasA s(cm 2 )A c SCF Stress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSLABEL ID LOC f s f L f RiSHL11010 1 1 8.69 0.685 2.34 9.12 14.98 9.5 27.5 1.5 115 2215 2222 F2 0.928 2443 0.912 8.69 0.685 2.34 9.12 14.98 9.5 27.5 1.25 115 2215 2220 F2 0.928 2443 0.91[Weld8.69 0.685 2.34 9.12 14.98 [Asw]= 6 1.25 115 0 228 W 0.928 1760 0.13Throat]SHL11011 1 1 9.37 0.685 2.34 7.6 12.49 9.5 27.5 1.5 96 2224 2229 F2 0.928 2443 0.912 9.37 0.685 2.34 7.6 12.49 9.5 27.5 1.25 96 2224 2228 F2 0.928 2443 0.91[Weld9.37 0.685 2.34 7.6 12.49 [Asw]= 6 1.25 96 0 190 W 0.928 1760 0.11Throat]SHL11212 1 1 10.75 0.685 2.34 2.9 4.76 9.5 18 1.5 49 1898 1900 F2 0.882 2652 0.722 10.75 0.685 2.34 2.9 4.76 9.5 18 1.25 49 1898 1899 F2 0.882 2652 0.72[Weld10.75 0.685 2.34 2.9 4.76 [Asw]= 6 1.25 49 0 98 W 0.882 1911 0.05Throat]SHS10101 1 1 11.43 0.685 2.34 1.17 1.92 4.7 11.9 1.5 110 2014 2021 F2 0.854 2805 0.722 11.43 0.685 2.34 1.17 1.92 4.7 11.9 1.25 110 2014 2019 F2 0.854 2805 0.72[Weld11.43 0.685 2.34 1.17 1.92 [Asw]= 4.5 1.25 110 0 144 W 0.854 2018 0.07Throat]SHS10102 1 1 12.11 0.685 2.34 0.39 0.64 4.7 11.9 1.5 36 2059 2060 F2 0.851 2827 0.732 12.11 0.685 2.34 0.39 0.64 4.7 11.9 1.25 36 2059 2060 F2 0.851 2827 0.73[WeldThroat]12.11 0.685 2.34 0.39 0.64 [Asw]= 4.5 1.25 36 0 48 W 0.851 2033 0.02f R /PS

App G-11Table G-3 Comparison of SafeHull Phase A and Phase B Analyses for Ship GSTF#Stiffener TOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )UnsupSpan(m)LoadCase#C mLocalLoadRngStress Range(kg/cm2)PHASE A ANALYSISFATIGCLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)RatioofStressGlobalStressRangePHASE BANALYSISCombinedStressRangeRatioofStress(m) f RG f RL f R P S f R /PS f RG f R f R /PS1 Bottom Long'l 1 A/ 1 0 268 2.3 1&2 0.85 5.23 2249 470 2196 F2 0.889 2611 0.84 960 1155 0.44F/ 2 0 268 2.3 1&2 0.85 5.23 2249 470 2196 F2 0.889 2611 0.84 1155 0.442 Bottom Long'l 3 A/ 1 0.19 265 2.3 1&2 0.85 5.21 2179 461 2132 F2 0.889 2611 0.82 1123 1279 0.49F/ 2 0.19 265 2.3 1&2 0.85 5.21 2179 461 2132 F2 0.889 2611 0.82 1279 0.493 Bottom Long'l 5 A/ 1 0.47 265 2.3 1&2 0.85 5.17 2077 463 2051 F2 0.889 2611 0.79 1225 1363 0.52F/ 2 0.47 265 2.3 1&2 0.85 5.17 2077 463 2051 F2 0.889 2611 0.79 1363 0.524 Bottom Long'l 7 A/ 2 0.84 262 2.3 1&2 0.85 5.12 1942 476 1953 F2 0.889 2611 0.75 1323 1453 0.56F/ 1 0.84 262 2.3 1&2 0.85 5.12 1942 476 1953 F2 0.889 2611 0.75 1453 0.565 Bottom Long'l 9 A/ 2 1.41 264 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1834 491 2209 F2 0.893 2590 0.85 1212 1618 0.62F/ 1 1.41 264 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1834 491 2209 F2 0.893 2590 0.85 1618 0.626 Bottom Long'l 10 A/ 2 1.83 236 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1723 634 2240 F2 0.906 2528 0.89 1103 1651 0.65F/ 1 1.83 236 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1723 634 2240 F2 0.906 2528 0.89 1651 0.657 Bottom Long'l 11 A/ 2 2.26 136 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1631 1385 2865 F2 0.918 2478 1.16 1103 2363 0.95F/ 1 2.26 136 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1631 1385 2865 F2 0.918 2478 1.16 2363 0.958 Side Long'l 13 A/ 1 3.2 171 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 7.86 1808 1072 2736 F2 0.928 2443 1.12 1082 2046 0.84F/ 2 3.2 171 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 7.86 1808 1072 2736 F2 0.928 2443 1.12 2046 0.849 Side Long'l 14 A/ 1 3.9 171 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 8.48 1752 1238 2840 F2 0.928 2443 1.16 1104 2225 0.91F/ 2 3.9 171 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 8.48 1752 1238 2840 F2 0.928 2443 1.16 2225 0.9110 Side Long'l 16 A/ 1 5.35 169 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 10.6 1586 1532 2962 F2 0.928 2443 1.21 1209 2604 1.07F/ 2 5.35 169 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 10.6 1586 1532 2962 F2 0.928 2443 1.21 2604 1.0711 Side Long'l 17 A/ 1 5.94 156 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 11.7 1517 1655 3013 F2 0.928 2443 1.23 1191 2703 1.11F/ 2 5.94 156 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 11.7 1517 1655 3013 F2 0.928 2443 1.23 2703 1.11

App G-12STF#Stiffener TOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )UnsupSpan(m)LoadCase#C mLocalLoadRngStress Range(kg/cm2)PHASE A ANALYSISFATIGCLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)RatioofStressGlobalStressRangePHASE BANALYSISCombinedStressRangeRatioofStress(m) f RG f RL f R P S f R /PS f RG f R f R /PS12 Side Long'l 18 A/ 1 6.61 156 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 13 1472 1473 2798 F2 0.928 2443 1.15 1185 2525 1.03F/ 2 6.61 156 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 13 1472 1473 2798 F2 0.928 2443 1.15 2525 1.0313 Side Long'l 21 A/ 2 8 119 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 10.6 1679 732 2291 F2 0.928 2443 0.94 1195 1831 0.75F/ 1 8 119 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 10.6 1679 732 2291 F2 0.928 2443 0.94 1831 0.7514 Side Long'l 22 A/ 2 8.69 119 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 9.12 1781 551 2215 F2 0.928 2443 0.91 1195 1658 0.68F/ 1 8.69 119 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 9.12 1781 551 2215 F2 0.928 2443 0.91 1658 0.6815 Side Long'l 23 A/ 2 9.37 119 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 7.6 1882 459 2224 F2 0.928 2443 0.91 1289 1661 0.68F/ 1 9.37 119 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 7.6 1882 459 2224 F2 0.928 2443 0.91 1661 0.6816 Side Long'l 26 A/ 2 10.75 98 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1784 214 1898 F2 0.882 2652 0.72 1795 1908 0.72F/ 1 10.75 98 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1784 214 1898 F2 0.882 2652 0.72 1908 0.7217 Side Long'l 27 A/ 2 11.43 101 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1843 278 2014 F2 0.854 2805 0.72 2201 2354 0.84F/ 1 11.43 101 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1843 278 2014 F2 0.854 2805 0.72 2354 0.8418 Side Long'l 28 A/ 2 12.11 101 2.3 1&2 1.00 0.39 2076 92 2059 F2 0.851 2827 0.73 2201 2178 0.77F/ 1 12.11 101 2.3 1&2 1.00 0.39 2076 92 2059 F2 0.851 2827 0.73 2178 0.7719 01 Lvl Long'l 12 A/ 1 12.8 101 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2580 2451 0.87F/ 2 12.8 101 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2451 0.8720 01 Lvl Long'l 11 A/ 1 12.8 101 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2545 2417 0.86F/ 2 12.8 101 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2417 0.8621 01 Lvl Long'l 10 A/ 1 12.8 101 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2535 2408 0.85F/ 2 12.8 101 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2408 0.8522 01 Lvl Long'l 9 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2526 2399 0.85F/ 2 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2399 0.8523 01 Lvl Long'l 8 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2523 2397 0.85F/ 2 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2397 0.8524 01 Lvl Long'l 7 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2521 2394 0.85F/ 2 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2394 0.85

App G-13STF#Stiffener TOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )UnsupSpan(m)LoadCase#C mLocalLoadRngStress Range(kg/cm2)PHASE A ANALYSISFATIGCLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)RatioofStressGlobalStressRangePHASE BANALYSISCombinedStressRangeRatioofStress(m) f RG f RL f R P S f R /PS f RG f R f R /PS25 01 Lvl Long'l 6 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2518 2392 0.85F/ 2 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2392 0.8526 01 Lvl Long'l 5 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2515 2389 0.85F/ 2 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2389 0.8527 01 Lvl Long'l 4 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2513 2387 0.84F/ 2 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2387 0.8428 01 Lvl Long'l 3 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2510 2384 0.84F/ 2 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2384 0.8429 01 Lvl Long'l 2 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2507 2381 0.84F/ 2 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2381 0.8430 01 Lvl Long'l 1 A/ 1 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2504 2378 0.84F/ 2 12.8 99 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2273 0 2159 F2 0.851 2827 0.76 2378 0.8431 01 Lvl Long'l Cl A/ 1 12.8 1408 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2161 0 2053 F2 0.851 2827 0.73 2502 2377 0.84F/ 2 12.8 1408 2.3 1&2 1.00 0 2161 0 2053 F2 0.851 2827 0.73 2377 0.8432 I.B. Long'l 1 A/ 1 1.4 156 2.3 1&2 1.00 0.48 1938 75 1912 F2 0.889 2611 0.73 209 270 0.10F/ 2 1.4 156 2.3 1&2 1.00 0.48 1938 75 1912 F2 0.889 2611 0.73 270 0.1033 I.B. Long'l 3 A/ 1 1.65 135 2.3 1&2 1.00 0.45 1847 78 1829 F2 0.889 2611 0.70 541 588 0.23F/ 2 1.65 135 2.3 1&2 1.00 0.45 1847 78 1829 F2 0.889 2611 0.70 588 0.2334 I.B. Long'l 5 A/ 1 1.98 135 2.3 1&2 1.00 0.4 1726 71 1707 F2 0.889 2611 0.65 666 700 0.27F/ 2 1.98 135 2.3 1&2 1.00 0.4 1726 71 1707 F2 0.889 2611 0.65 700 0.2735 I.B. Long'l 7 A/ 1 2.39 135 2.3 1&2 1.00 0.34 1576 63 1557 F2 0.889 2611 0.60 688 713 0.27F/ 2 2.39 135 2.3 1&2 1.00 0.34 1576 63 1557 F2 0.889 2611 0.60 713 0.2736 I.B. Long'l 9 A/ 1 2.81 135 2.3 1&2 1.00 0.28 1422 36 1385 F2 0.889 2611 0.53 901 890 0.34F/ 2 2.81 135 2.3 1&2 1.00 0.28 1422 36 1385 F2 0.889 2611 0.53 890 0.34

App G-14STF#Stiffener TOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )UnsupSpan(m)LoadCase#C mLocalLoadRngStress Range(kg/cm2)PHASE A ANALYSISFATIGCLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)RatioofStressGlobalStressRangePHASE BANALYSISCombinedStressRangeRatioofStress(m) f RG f RL f R P S f R /PS f RG f R f R /PS37 IB Margin Plate A/ 1 2.85 135 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0.43 1743 71 1723 F2 0.889 2611 0.66 1050 1065 0.41F/ 2 2.85 135 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0.43 1743 71 1723 F2 0.889 2611 0.66 1065 0.4138 1st Plat Long'l Cl A/ 1 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 240 0 228 F2 0.889 2611 0.09 501 476 0.18F/ 2 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 240 0 228 F2 0.889 2611 0.09 476 0.1839 1st Plat Long'l 1 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 469 0 446 F2 0.889 2611 0.17 503 478 0.18F/ 2 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 469 0 446 F2 0.889 2611 0.17 478 0.1840 1st Plat Long'l 2 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 584 0 554 F2 0.889 2611 0.21 505.6 480 0.18F/ 2 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 584 0 554 F2 0.889 2611 0.21 480 0.1841 1st Plat Long'l 3 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 698 0 663 F2 0.889 2611 0.25 509.7 484 0.19F/ 2 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 698 0 663 F2 0.889 2611 0.25 484 0.1942 1st Plat Long'l 4 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 813 0 772 F2 0.889 2611 0.30 513.8 488 0.19F/ 2 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 813 0 772 F2 0.889 2611 0.30 488 0.1943 1st Plat Long'l 5 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 927 0 881 F2 0.889 2611 0.34 517.9 492 0.19F/ 2 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 927 0 881 F2 0.889 2611 0.34 492 0.1944 1st Plat Long'l 6 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1156 0 1098 F2 0.889 2611 0.42 522 496 0.19F/ 2 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1156 0 1098 F2 0.889 2611 0.42 496 0.1945 1st Plat Long'l 7 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1270 0 1207 F2 0.889 2611 0.46 526.1 500 0.19F/ 2 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1270 0 1207 F2 0.889 2611 0.46 500 0.1946 1st Plat Long'l 8 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1385 0 1315 F2 0.889 2611 0.50 530 503 0.19F/ 2 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1385 0 1315 F2 0.889 2611 0.50 503 0.1947 1st Plat Long'l 9 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1499 0 1424 F2 0.889 2611 0.55 532 505 0.19F/ 2 7.32 52 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1499 0 1424 F2 0.889 2611 0.55 505 0.1948 2nd Plat Long'l Cl A/ 1 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 384 0 365 F2 0.889 2611 0.14 407 387 0.15F/ 2 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 384 0 365 F2 0.889 2611 0.14 387 0.1549 2nd Plat Long'l 1 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 495 0 470 F2 0.889 2611 0.18 430.2 409 0.16F/ 2 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 495 0 470 F2 0.889 2611 0.18 409 0.16

App G-15STF#Stiffener TOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )UnsupSpan(m)LoadCase#C mLocalLoadRngStress Range(kg/cm2)PHASE A ANALYSISFATIGCLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)RatioofStressGlobalStressRangePHASE BANALYSISCombinedStressRangeRatioofStress(m) f RG f RL f R P S f R /PS f RG f R f R /PS50 2nd Plat Long'l 2 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 606 0 575 F2 0.889 2611 0.22 459.4 436 0.17F/ 2 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 606 0 575 F2 0.889 2611 0.22 436 0.1751 2nd Plat Long'l 3 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 716 0 680 F2 0.889 2611 0.26 484.5 460 0.18F/ 2 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 716 0 680 F2 0.889 2611 0.26 460 0.1852 2nd Plat Long'l 4 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 827 0 785 F2 0.889 2611 0.30 509.7 484 0.19F/ 2 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 827 0 785 F2 0.889 2611 0.30 484 0.1953 2nd Plat Long'l 5 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 937 0 890 F2 0.889 2611 0.34 535 508 0.19F/ 2 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 937 0 890 F2 0.889 2611 0.34 508 0.1954 2nd Plat Long'l 6 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1158 0 1100 F2 0.889 2611 0.42 560.1 532 0.20F/ 2 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1158 0 1100 F2 0.889 2611 0.42 532 0.2055 2nd Plat Long'l 7 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1268 0 1205 F2 0.889 2611 0.46 615.7 585 0.22F/ 2 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1268 0 1205 F2 0.889 2611 0.46 585 0.2256 2nd Plat Long'l 8 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1379 0 1310 F2 0.889 2611 0.50 702.6 667 0.26F/ 2 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1379 0 1310 F2 0.889 2611 0.50 667 0.2657 2nd Plat Long'l 9 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1489 0 1415 F2 0.889 2611 0.54 783 744 0.28F/ 2 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1489 0 1415 F2 0.889 2611 0.54 744 0.2858 2nd Plat Lg'l 10 A/ 1 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1600 0 1520 F2 0.889 2611 0.58 863.2 820 0.31F/ 2 4.57 141 2.3 F1&F2 1.00 0 1600 0 1520 F2 0.889 2611 0.58 820 0.3159 I.B. Girder 2 A/ 1 0.8 62 2.4 1&2 1.00 0 2067 0 1963 F2 0.889 2611 0.75 786 746 0.29F/ 1 0.8 62 2.4 1&2 1.00 0 2067 0 1963 F2 0.889 2611 0.75 746 0.2960 I.B. Girder 4 A/ 1 1.06 62 2.4 1&2 1.00 0 1972 0 1873 F2 0.889 2611 0.72 943 896 0.34F/ 1 1.06 62 2.4 1&2 1.00 0 1972 0 1873 F2 0.889 2611 0.72 896 0.3461 I.B. Girder 6 A/ 1 1.38 62 2.4 TZONE 1.00 1823 0 1732 F2 0.889 2611 0.66 1018 967 0.37F/ 1 1.38 62 2.4 TZONE 1.00 1823 0 1732 F2 0.889 2611 0.66 967 0.3762 I.B. Girder 8 A/ 1 1.86 54 2.4 TZONE 1.00 1652 0 1569 F2 0.889 2611 0.60 982 933 0.36F/ 1 1.86 54 2.4 TZONE 1.00 1652 0 1569 F2 0.889 2611 0.60 933 0.36

App G-16STF#Stiffener TOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )UnsupSpan(m)LoadCase#C mLocalLoadRngStress Range(kg/cm2)PHASE A ANALYSISFATIGCLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)RatioofStressGlobalStressRangePHASE BANALYSISCombinedStressRangeRatioofStress(m) f RG f RL f R P S f R /PS f RG f R f R /PS63 CVK A/ 1 0.69 149 2.4 1&2 1.00 0 2109 0 2003 F2 0.889 2611 0.77 500 475 0.18F/ 1 0.69 149 2.4 1&2 1.00 0 2109 0 2003 F2 0.889 2611 0.77 475 0.1864 Mn Dk Long'l 12 A/ 1 10.06 70 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1766 0 1678 F2 0.909 2514 0.67 1503 1429 0.57F/ 2 10.06 70 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1766 0 1678 F2 0.909 2514 0.67 1429 0.5765 Mn Dk Long'l 11 A/ 1 10.06 70 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1679 0 1595 F2 0.909 2514 0.63 1500 1425 0.57F/ 2 10.06 70 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1679 0 1595 F2 0.909 2514 0.63 1425 0.5766 Mn Dk Long'l 10 A/ 1 10.06 70 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1591 0 1512 F2 0.909 2514 0.60 1496 1422 0.57F/ 2 10.06 70 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1591 0 1512 F2 0.909 2514 0.60 1422 0.5767 Mn Dk Long'l 9 A/ 1 10.06 **** 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1504 0 1429 F2 0.909 2514 0.57 1493 1419 0.56F/ 2 10.06 **** 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1504 0 1429 F2 0.909 2514 0.57 1419 0.5668 Mn Dk Long'l 8 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1417 0 1346 F2 0.909 2514 0.54 1489 1415 0.56F/ 2 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1417 0 1346 F2 0.909 2514 0.54 1415 0.5669 Mn Dk Long'l 7 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1330 0 1263 F2 0.909 2514 0.50 1486 1411 0.56F/ 2 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1330 0 1263 F2 0.909 2514 0.50 1411 0.5670 Mn Dk Long'l 6 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1242 0 1180 F2 0.909 2514 0.47 1483 1409 0.56F/ 2 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1242 0 1180 F2 0.909 2514 0.47 1409 0.5671 Mn Dk Long'l 5 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1155 0 1097 F2 0.909 2514 0.44 1480 1405 0.56F/ 2 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1155 0 1097 F2 0.909 2514 0.44 1405 0.5672 Mn Dk Long'l 4 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1068 0 1015 F2 0.909 2514 0.40 1476 1403 0.56F/ 2 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 1068 0 1015 F2 0.909 2514 0.40 1403 0.5673 Mn Dk Long'l 3 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 981 0 932 F2 0.909 2514 0.37 1473 1399 0.56F/ 2 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 981 0 932 F2 0.909 2514 0.37 1399 0.5674 Mn Dk Long'l 2 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 893 0 849 F2 0.909 2514 0.34 1470 1397 0.56F/ 2 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 893 0 849 F2 0.909 2514 0.34 1397 0.5675 Mn Dk Long'l 1 A/ 1 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 806 0 766 F2 0.909 2514 0.30 1466 1394 0.55F/ 2 10.06 67 2.3 TZONE 1.00 806 0 766 F2 0.909 2514 0.30 1394 0.55

App G-17STF#Stiffener TOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm 3 )UnsupSpan(m)LoadCase#C mLocalLoadRngStress Range(kg/cm2)PHASE A ANALYSISFATIGCLASSLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)RatioofStressGlobalStressRangePHASE BANALYSISCombinedStressRangeRatioofStress(m) f RG f RL f R P S f R /PS f RG f R f R /PS76 Mn Dk Long'l Cl A/ 1 10.06 901 2.3 TZONE 1.00 719 0 683 F2 0.909 2514 0.27 1463 1390 0.55F/ 2 10.06 901 2.3 TZONE 1.00 719 0 683 F2 0.909 2514 0.27 1390 0.55

App G-18Table G.4 Phase B Analysis of Fatigue of Flat Bars for Ship GFATIG Long PermissiblePhase A AnalysisPhase B AnalysisCLASS Term Stress SCFStress RangefR/PSStress RangefR/PSCutoutDistr. (kg/cm2)(kg/cm2)(kg/cm2)FactorLABEL ID LOCPS fs fL fRifs fL fRiBTM10604 2 1 F2 0.889 2611 1.5 138 1953 1964 0.75 138 1453 1468 0.562 F2 0.889 2611 1.25 138 1953 1961 0.75 138 1453 1463 0.56[Weld Throat] W 0.889 1883 1.25 138 0 273 0.14 138 0 173 0.09SHL10101 2 1 F2 0.893 2590 1.5 137 2209 2219 0.86 137 1618 1631 0.632 F2 0.893 2590 1.25 137 2209 2216 0.86 137 1618 1627 0.63[Weld Throat] W 0.893 1868 1.25 137 0 272 0.15 137 0 171 0.09SHL10102 2 1 F2 0.906 2528 1.5 158 2240 2252 0.89 158 1651 1668 0.662 F2 0.906 2528 1.25 158 2240 2248 0.89 158 1651 1663 0.66[Weld Throat] W 0.906 1824 1.25 158 0 314 0.17 158 0 198 0.11SHL10103 2 1 F2 0.918 2478 1.5 238 2865 2887 1.16 238 2363 2390 0.962 F2 0.918 2478 1.25 238 2865 2880 1.16 238 2363 2382 0.96[Weld Throat] W 0.918 1786 1.25 238 0 471 0.26 238 0 298 0.17SHL10404 2 1 F2 0.928 2443 1.5 284 2736 2769 1.13 284 2046 2090 0.862 F2 0.928 2443 1 284 2736 2751 1.13 284 2046 2066 0.85[Weld Throat] W 0.928 1760 1.25 284 0 ***** NaN 284 0 ***** NaNSHL10505 2 1 F2 0.928 2443 1.5 328 2840 2883 1.18 328 2225 2278 0.932 F2 0.928 2443 1 328 2840 2859 1.17 328 2225 2249 0.92[Weld Throat] W 0.928 1760 1.25 328 0 ***** NaN 328 0 ***** NaNSHL10706 2 1 F2 0.928 2443 1.5 402 2962 3023 1.24 402 2604 2673 1.092 F2 0.928 2443 1 402 2962 2989 1.22 402 2604 2635 1.08[Weld Throat] W 0.928 1760 1.25 402 0 ***** NaN 402 0 ***** NaNSHL10807 2 1 F2 0.928 2443 1.5 521 3013 3113 1.27 521 2703 2814 1.152 F2 0.928 2443 1 521 3013 3058 1.25 521 2703 2753 1.13[Weld Throat] W 0.928 1760 1.25 521 0 ***** NaN 521 0 ***** NaNSHL10908 1 1 F2 0.928 2443 1.5 546 2798 2915 1.19 546 2525 2655 1.092 F2 0.928 2443 1 546 2798 2851 1.17 546 2525 2584 1.06

App G-19[Weld Throat] W 0.928 1760 1.25 546 0 ***** NaN 546 0 ***** NaNSHL11009 1 1 F2 0.928 2443 1.5 153 2291 2302 0.94 153 1831 1845 0.762 F2 0.928 2443 1.25 153 2291 2299 0.94 153 1831 1841 0.75[Weld Throat] W 0.928 1760 1.25 153 0 303 0.17 153 0 191 0.11SHL11010 1 1 F2 0.928 2443 1.5 115 2215 2222 0.91 115 1658 1667 0.682 F2 0.928 2443 1.25 115 2215 2220 0.91 115 1658 1665 0.68[Weld Throat] W 0.928 1760 1.25 115 0 228 0.13 115 0 144 0.08SHL11011 1 1 F2 0.928 2443 1.5 96 2224 2229 0.91 96 1661 1667 0.682 F2 0.928 2443 1.25 96 2224 2228 0.91 96 1661 1665 0.68[Weld Throat] W 0.928 1760 1.25 96 0 190 0.11 96 0 120 0.07SHL11212 1 1 F2 0.882 2652 1.5 49 1898 1900 0.72 49 1908 1910 0.722 F2 0.882 2652 1.25 49 1898 1899 0.72 49 1908 1909 0.72[Weld Throat] W 0.882 1911 1.25 49 0 98 0.05 49 0 61 0.03SHS10101 1 1 F2 0.854 2805 1.5 110 2014 2021 0.72 110 2354 2360 0.842 F2 0.854 2805 1.25 110 2014 2019 0.72 110 2354 2358 0.84[Weld Throat] W 0.854 2018 1.25 110 0 144 0.07 110 0 138 0.07SHS10102 1 1 F2 0.851 2827 1.5 36 2059 2060 0.73 36 2178 2178 0.772 F2 0.851 2827 1.25 36 2059 2060 0.73 36 2178 2178 0.77[Weld Throat] W 0.851 2033 1.25 36 0 48 0.02 36 0 45 0.02

App H-1APPENDIX HFATIGUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SHIP H

App H-2ST#StiffenerTable H.1 SafeHull Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Longitudinals for Ship H4 APRIL 2001 22:20:33 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.00 (2000 Rules)SHIP : MidshipsLxBxDxd = 156.40x 16.76x 12.81x 6.65(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 262097.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 332646.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 6.04(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 80.62m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 108994.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 90355.(tf-m)SafeHullSTF ID"Net" Ship Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75TOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)smcm3Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocaLoadRange(m)Stress Range FAT.(kg/cm2) CLASSf RG f RL f RLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)fR/PSP SSCANTLINGS1 Bottom Long'l 1 BTM10101 A/ 1 0 271 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.16 2384 459 2296 F2 0.889 2611 0.88 12 X 4 X 16# I/T A1 01F/ 2 0 271 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.16 2384 459 2296 F2 0.889 2611 0.88 A1 012 Bottom Long'l 3 BTM10302 A/ 1 0.19 266 2.44 1 1 2 1&2 5.13 2305 493 2260 F2 0.889 2611 0.87 12 X 4 X 16# I/T B1 02F/ 1 0.19 266 2.44 1 1 2 1&2 5.13 2305 493 2260 F2 0.889 2611 0.87 B1 023 Bottom Long'l 5 BTM10503 A/ 1 0.47 265 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.1 2189 457 2136 F2 0.889 2611 0.82 12 X 4 X 16# I/T B3 03F/ 2 0.47 265 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.1 2189 457 2136 F2 0.889 2611 0.82 B3 034 Bottom Long'l 7 BTM10604 A/ 1 0.84 262 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.05 2036 470 2024 F2 0.889 2611 0.78 12 X 4 X 16# I/T C1 04F/ 2 0.84 262 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 5.05 2036 470 2024 F2 0.889 2611 0.78 C1 045 Bottom Long'l 9 SHL10101 A/ 1 1.41 260 2.34 1 1 2 TZONE 1963 491 2331 F2 0.893 2590 0.9 12 X 4 X 16# I/T D1 01F/ 2 1.41 260 2.34 1 1 2 TZONE 1963 491 2331 F2 0.893 2590 0.9 D1 016 Bottom Long'l 10 SHL10102 A/ 1 1.83 233 2.44 1 1 2 TZONE 2016 686 2567 F2 0.906 2528 1.02 12 X 4 X 16# I/T D1 02F/ 1 1.83 233 2.44 1 1 2 TZONE 2016 686 2567 F2 0.906 2528 1.02 D1 027 Bottom Long'l 11 SHL10103 A/ 1 2.26 233 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2230 788 2866 F2 0.918 2478 1.16 12 X 4 X 16# I/T D1 03F/ 1 2.26 233 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2230 788 2866 F2 0.918 2478 1.16 D1 038 Side Long'l 13 SHL10404 A/ 1 3.2 237 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.72 2495 822 3151 F2 0.928 2443 1.29 12 X 4 X 14# I/T S14 04F/ 1 3.2 237 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 7.72 2495 822 3151 F2 0.928 2443 1.29 S14 04USERDEFINEDID

App H-3ST#StiffenerSafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)smcm3Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocaLoadRange(m)Stress Range FAT.(kg/cm2) CLASSf RG f RL f RLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)fR/PSP SSCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID9 Side Long'l 14 SHL10505 A/ 1 3.9 237 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.36 2449 954 3233 F2 0.928 2443 1.32 12 X 4 X 14# I/T 2ND_PL05F/ 1 3.9 237 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.36 2449 954 3233 F2 0.928 2443 1.32 2ND_PL0510 Side Long'l 16 SHL10706 A/ 1 5.35 169 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 10.62 2293 1668 3763 F2 0.928 2443 1.54 10 X 4 X 12# I/T S17 06F/ 1 5.35 169 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 10.62 2293 1668 3763 F2 0.928 2443 1.54 S17 0611 Side Long'l 17 SHL10807 A/ 1 5.94 157 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 11.76 2221 1804 3824 F2 0.928 2443 1.57 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T S18 07F/ 1 5.94 157 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 11.76 2221 1804 3824 F2 0.928 2443 1.57 S18 0712 Side Long'l 18 SHL10908 A/ 1 6.61 157 2.44 1 0.6 1 F1&F2 13.05 2309 1471 3591 F2 0.928 2443 1.47 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T 1ST_PL087F/ 1 6.61 157 2.44 1 0.6 1 F1&F2 13.05 2309 1471 3591 F2 0.928 2443 1.47 1ST_PL08713 Side Long'l 21 SHL11009 A/ 1 8 119 2.44 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 10.24 2546 705 3088 F2 0.928 2443 1.26 8 X 4 X 10# I/T G2 091F/ 1 8 119 2.44 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 10.24 2546 705 3088 F2 0.928 2443 1.26 G2 09114 Side Long'l 22 SHL11010 A/ 1 8.69 119 2.44 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.78 2661 580 3079 F2 0.928 2443 1.26 8 X 4 X 10# I/T G2 10F/ 1 8.69 119 2.44 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.78 2661 580 3079 F2 0.928 2443 1.26 G2 1015 Side Long'l 23 SHL11011 A/ 1 9.37 119 2.44 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.32 2777 484 3097 F2 0.928 2443 1.27 8 X 4 X 10# I/T G2 11F/ 1 9.37 119 2.44 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.32 2777 484 3097 F2 0.928 2443 1.27 G2 1116 Side Long'l 26 SHL11212 A/ 1 10.75 159 2.44 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2383 133 2390 F2 0.882 2652 0.9 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T H2 12F/ 1 10.75 159 2.44 1 0.3 1 TZONE 2383 133 2390 F2 0.882 2652 0.9 H2 1217 Side Long'l 27 SHS10101 A/ 1 11.43 101 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2287 246 2407 F2 0.854 2805 0.86 5.96x4.3x.141/.231 T J 01F/ 1 11.43 101 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2287 246 2407 F2 0.854 2805 0.86 J 0118 Side Long'l 28 SHS10102 A/ 1 12.11 101 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0.16 2528 42 2441 F2 0.851 2827 0.86 5.96x4.3x.141/.231 T J 02F/ 1 12.11 101 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0.16 2528 42 2441 F2 0.851 2827 0.86 J 0219 01 Lvl Long'l 12 DEC10101 A/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 5.96x4.3x.141/.231 T 01LVL_01F/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 01LVL_0120 01 Lvl Long'l 11 DEC10102 A/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 5.96x4.3x.141/.231 T 01LVL_02F/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 01LVL_0221 01 Lvl Long'l 10 DEC10103 A/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 5.96x4.3x.141/.231 T 01LVL_03F/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 01LVL_0322 01 Lvl Long'l 9 DEC10104 A/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 5.96x4.3x.141/.231 T 01LVL_04F/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 01LVL_0423 01 Lvl Long'l 8 DEC10205 A/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 5.96x4.3x.141/.231 T 01LVL_05F/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 01LVL_0524 01 Lvl Long'l 7 DEC10206 A/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 5.96x4.3x.141/.231 T 01LVL_06F/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 01LVL_06

App H-4ST#StiffenerSafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)smcm3Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocaLoadRange(m)Stress Range FAT.(kg/cm2) CLASSf RG f RL f RLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)fR/PSP SSCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID25 01 Lvl Long'l 6 DEC10207 A/ 1 12.8 102 2.315 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 5.96x4.3x.141/.231 T 01LVL_07F/ 3 12.8 102 2.315 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 01LVL_0726 01 Lvl Long'l 5 DEC10208 A/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 5.96x4.3x.141/.231 T 01LVL_08F/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 01LVL_0827 01 Lvl Long'l 4 DEC10209 A/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 5.96x4.3x.141/.231 T 01LVL_09F/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 01LVL_0928 01 Lvl Long'l 3 DEC10210 A/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 5.96x4.3x.141/.231 T 01LVL_10F/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 01LVL_1029 01 Lvl Long'l 2 DEC10211 A/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 5.96x4.3x.141/.231 T 01LVL_11F/ 1 12.8 102 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 01LVL_1130 01 Lvl Long'l 1 DEC10412 A/ 1 12.8 101 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 5.96x4.3x.141/.231 T 01LVL_12F/ 1 12.8 101 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2750 0 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92 01LVL_1231 01 Lvl Long'l Cl DEC10413 A/ 1 12.8 1390 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2625 0 2494 F2 0.851 2827 0.88 18 X 7-1/2 X 50# I/T 01LVL_13F/ 1 12.8 1390 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2625 0 2494 F2 0.851 2827 0.88 01LVL_1332 I.B. Long'l 1 INB10301 A/ 1 1.4 154 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.47 2032 75 2001 F2 0.889 2611 0.77 10 X 4 X 12# I/T Long2 01F/ 2 1.4 154 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.47 2032 75 2001 F2 0.889 2611 0.77 Long2 0133 I.B. Long'l 3 INB10502 A/ 1 1.65 133 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.44 1927 78 1905 F2 0.889 2611 0.73 10 X 4 X 12# I/T Long4 02F/ 2 1.65 133 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.44 1927 78 1905 F2 0.889 2611 0.73 Long4 0234 I.B. Long'l 5 INB10703 A/ 1 1.98 133 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.4 1790 71 1768 F2 0.889 2611 0.68 10 X 4 X 12# I/T Long6 03F/ 2 1.98 133 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.4 1790 71 1768 F2 0.889 2611 0.68 Long6 0335 I.B. Long'l 7 INB10904 A/ 1 2.39 133 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.34 1620 63 1599 F2 0.889 2611 0.61 10 X 4 X 12# I/T Long8 04F/ 2 2.39 133 2.34 1 1 2 1&2 0.34 1620 63 1599 F2 0.889 2611 0.61 Long8 0436 I.B. Long'l 9 INB11105 A/ 1 2.81 134 2.44 1 1 2 1&2 0.28 1445 39 1410 F2 0.889 2611 0.54 10 X 4 X 12# I/T Long1005F/ 1 2.81 134 2.44 1 1 2 1&2 0.28 1445 39 1410 F2 0.889 2611 0.54 Long100537 1st Plat Long'l 1 WTF10101 A/ 1 7.32 828 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 385 0 366 F2 0.889 2611 0.14 18 X 7-1/2 X 50# I/TF/ 1 7.32 828 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 385 0 366 F2 0.889 2611 0.1438 1st Plat Long'l 2 WTF10202 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 735 0 698 F2 0.889 2611 0.27 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 735 0 698 F2 0.889 2611 0.2739 1st Plat Long'l 3 WTF10203 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 910 0 864 F2 0.889 2611 0.33 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 910 0 864 F2 0.889 2611 0.3340 1st Plat Long'l 4 WTF10204 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1085 0 1031 F2 0.889 2611 0.39 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1085 0 1031 F2 0.889 2611 0.3941 1st Plat Long'l 5 WTF10205 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1260 0 1197 F2 0.889 2611 0.46 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1260 0 1197 F2 0.889 2611 0.4642 1st Plat Long'l 6 WTF10206 A/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1435 0 1363 F2 0.889 2611 0.52 5 X 4 X 6.0# TF/ 1 7.32 52 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1435 0 1363 F2 0.889 2611 0.52

App H-5ST#StiffenerSafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)smcm3Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocaLoadRange(m)Stress Range FAT.(kg/cm2) CLASSf RG f RL f RLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)fR/PSP SSCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID43 1st Plat Long'l 7 WTF10307 A/ 1 7.32 54 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1785 0 1695 F2 0.889 2611 0.65 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T 1st_Pl07F/ 1 7.32 54 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1785 0 1695 F2 0.889 2611 0.65 1st_Pl0744 1st Plat Long'l 8 WTF10308 A/ 1 7.32 54 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1960 0 1862 F2 0.889 2611 0.71 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T 1st_Pl08F/ 1 7.32 54 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1960 0 1862 F2 0.889 2611 0.71 1st_Pl0845 1st Plat Long'l 9 WTF10309 A/ 1 7.32 54 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 2134 0 2028 F2 0.889 2611 0.78 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T 1st_Pl09F/ 1 7.32 54 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 2134 0 2028 F2 0.889 2611 0.78 1st_Pl0946 1st Plat Long'l 10 WTF10310 A/ 1 7.32 54 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 2309 0 2194 F2 0.889 2611 0.84 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T 1st_Pl10F/ 1 7.32 54 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 2309 0 2194 F2 0.889 2611 0.84 1st_Pl1047 2nd Plat Long'l 1 NTF10101 A/ 1 4.57 852 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 412 0 391 F2 0.889 2611 0.15 18 X 7-1/2 X 50# I/T 2nd Pl01F/ 1 4.57 852 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 412 0 391 F2 0.889 2611 0.15 2nd Pl0148 2nd Plat Long'l 2 NTF10102 A/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 581 0 552 F2 0.889 2611 0.21 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T 2nd Pl02F/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 581 0 552 F2 0.889 2611 0.21 2nd Pl0249 2nd Plat Long'l 3 NTF10103 A/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 750 0 712 F2 0.889 2611 0.27 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T 2nd Pl03F/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 750 0 712 F2 0.889 2611 0.27 2nd Pl0350 2nd Plat Long'l 4 NTF10104 A/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 919 0 873 F2 0.889 2611 0.33 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T 2nd Pl04F/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 919 0 873 F2 0.889 2611 0.33 2nd Pl0451 2nd Plat Long'l 5 NTF10105 A/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1088 0 1033 F2 0.889 2611 0.4 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T 2nd Pl05F/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1088 0 1033 F2 0.889 2611 0.4 2nd Pl0552 2nd Plat Long'l 6 NTF10106 A/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1257 0 1194 F2 0.889 2611 0.46 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T 2nd Pl06F/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1257 0 1194 F2 0.889 2611 0.46 2nd Pl0653 2nd Plat Long'l 7 NTF10207 A/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1594 0 1514 F2 0.889 2611 0.58 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T 2ndPla07F/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1594 0 1514 F2 0.889 2611 0.58 2ndPla0754 2nd Plat Long'l 8 NTF10208 A/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1763 0 1675 F2 0.889 2611 0.64 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T 2ndPla08F/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1763 0 1675 F2 0.889 2611 0.64 2ndPla0855 2nd Plat Long'l 9 NTF10209 A/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1932 0 1835 F2 0.889 2611 0.7 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T 2ndPla09F/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1932 0 1835 F2 0.889 2611 0.7 2ndPla0956 2nd Plat Long'l NTF10210 A/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 2101 0 1996 F2 0.889 2611 0.76 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T 2ndPla101057 2nd Plat Long'lCLF/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 2101 0 1996 F2 0.889 2611 0.76 2ndPla10NTF10211 A/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 2270 0 2156 F2 0.889 2611 0.83 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T 2ndPla11F/ 1 4.57 138 2.44 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 2270 0 2156 F2 0.889 2611 0.83 2ndPla1158 I.B. Girder 2 NBG10101 A/ 1 0.8 61 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2178 0 2069 F2 0.889 2611 0.79 5 X 4 X 6.0# T G2 01F/ 1 0.8 61 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2178 0 2069 F2 0.889 2611 0.79 G2 0159 I.B. Girder 4 NBG20201 A/ 1 1.06 61 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2069 0 1966 F2 0.889 2611 0.75 5 X 4 X 6.0# T G3 01F/ 1 1.06 61 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2069 0 1966 F2 0.889 2611 0.75 G3 01

App H-6ST#StiffenerSafeHullSTF IDTOE ID Dist.fromBL(m)smcm3Unsup.Span(m)Ct Cy LP# LC# LocaLoadRange(m)Stress Range FAT.(kg/cm2) CLASSf RG f RL f RLongTermDistrFactorPerm.Stress(kg/cm2)fR/PSP SSCANTLINGSUSERDEFINEDID60 I.B. Girder 6 NBG30301 A/ 1 1.38 61 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1931 0 1834 F2 0.889 2611 0.7 5 X 4 X 6.0# T G4 01F/ 1 1.38 61 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1931 0 1834 F2 0.889 2611 0.7 G4 0161 I.B. Girder 8 NBG40401 A/ 1 1.86 53 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1920 0 1824 F2 0.889 2611 0.7 5 X 4 X 6.0# T G5 01F/ 1 1.86 53 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1920 0 1824 F2 0.889 2611 0.7 G5 0162 CVK BGR10101 A/ 1 0.69 147 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2225 0 2114 F2 0.889 2611 0.81 8 X 4 X 10 # I/T CVK 01F/ 1 0.69 147 2.44 1 1 1 1&2 0 2225 0 2114 F2 0.889 2611 0.81 CVK 0163 Margin Plate BGR20201 A/ 1 2.85 55 2.44 1 1 2 1&2 0.28 1326 121 1375 F2 0.889 2611 0.53 5 X 4 X 6.0# T Margin01F/ 1 2.85 55 2.44 1 1 2 1&2 0.28 1326 121 1375 F2 0.889 2611 0.53 Margin0164 Mn Dk Lg'l 12 SDK10101 A/ 1 10.06 72 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2538 0 2411 F2 0.909 2514 0.96 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T Main_D01F/ 1 10.06 72 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2538 0 2411 F2 0.909 2514 0.96 Main_D0165 Mn Dk Lg'l 11 SDK10102 A/ 1 10.06 72 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2412 0 2291 F2 0.909 2514 0.91 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T Main_D02F/ 1 10.06 72 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2412 0 2291 F2 0.909 2514 0.91 Main_D0266 Mn Dk Lg'l 10 SDK10203 A/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2286 0 2172 F2 0.909 2514 0.86 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T Main_D03F/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2286 0 2172 F2 0.909 2514 0.86 Main_D0367 Mn Dk Long'l 9 SDK10204 A/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2160 0 2052 F2 0.909 2514 0.82 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T Main_D04F/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2160 0 2052 F2 0.909 2514 0.82 Main_D0468 Mn Dk Long'l 8 SDK10305 A/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2034 0 1932 F2 0.909 2514 0.77 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T Main_D05F/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 2034 0 1932 F2 0.909 2514 0.77 Main_D0569 Mn Dk Long'l 7 SDK10306 A/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1897 0 1802 F2 0.909 2514 0.72 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T Main_D06F/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1897 0 1802 F2 0.909 2514 0.72 Main_D0670 Mn Dk Long'l 6 SDK10307 A/ 1 10.06 71 2.315 1 1 1 TZONE 1760 0 1672 F2 0.909 2514 0.67 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T Main_D07F/ 3 10.06 71 2.315 1 1 1 TZONE 1760 0 1672 F2 0.909 2514 0.67 Main_D0771 Mn Dk Long'l 5 SDK10308 A/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1624 0 1542 F2 0.909 2514 0.61 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T Main_D08F/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1624 0 1542 F2 0.909 2514 0.61 Main_D0872 Mn Dk Long'l 4 SDK10309 A/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1487 0 1413 F2 0.909 2514 0.56 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T Main_D09F/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1487 0 1413 F2 0.909 2514 0.56 Main_D0973 Mn Dk Long'l 3 SDK10310 A/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1350 0 1283 F2 0.909 2514 0.51 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T Main_D10F/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1350 0 1283 F2 0.909 2514 0.51 Main_D1074 Mn Dk Long'l 2 SDK10411 A/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1193 0 1133 F2 0.909 2514 0.45 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T Main_D11F/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1193 0 1133 F2 0.909 2514 0.45 Main_D1175 Mn Dk Long'l 1 SDK10512 A/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1050 0 997 F2 0.909 2514 0.4 4.94x4.2x.125/.22T MDInef12F/ 1 10.06 71 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 1050 0 997 F2 0.909 2514 0.4 MDInef1276 Main Dk Lg'l Cl SDK10613 A/ 1 10.06 848 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 908 0 862 F2 0.909 2514 0.34 18 X 7-1/2 X 50# I/T Main_D13F/ 1 10.06 848 2.44 1 1 1 TZONE 908 0 862 F2 0.909 2514 0.34 Main_D13

App H-7CutoutTable H.2 Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Flat Bars for Ship H14 FEBRUARY 2001 22:41:34 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.00 (2000 Rules)LxBxDxd = 156.40x 16.76x 12.81x 6.80(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 303713.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 517550.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 6.45(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR FLAT-BAR SUPPORT STIFFENERS OF LONGITUDINALSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 80.62m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 111187.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 91964.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75Dist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead Force(m) (tf)SupportAreasA s(cm 2 )A cSCFStress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSLABEL ID LOCf s f L f RiBTM10101 2 1 0 0.688 2.34 5.16 8.51 0 60.5 1.5 134 2296 2305 F2 0.889 2611 0.882 0 0.688 2.34 5.16 8.51 0 60.5 1 134 2296 2300 F2 0.889 2611 0.88[Weld Throat] 0 0.688 2.34 5.16 8.51 [Asw]= 0 1.25 134 0 ***** W 0.889 1883 NaNBTM10503 2 1 0.47 0.678 2.34 5.1 8.29 0 60.5 1.5 130 2136 2145 F2 0.889 2611 0.822 0.47 0.678 2.34 5.1 8.29 0 60.5 1 130 2136 2140 F2 0.889 2611 0.82[Weld Throat] 0.47 0.678 2.34 5.1 8.29 [Asw]= 0 1.25 130 0 ***** W 0.889 1883 NaNBTM10604 2 1 0.84 0.696 2.34 5.05 8.43 0 60.5 1.5 132 2024 2034 F2 0.889 2611 0.782 0.84 0.696 2.34 5.05 8.43 0 60.5 1 132 2024 2028 F2 0.889 2611 0.78[Weld Throat] 0.84 0.696 2.34 5.05 8.43 [Asw]= 0 1.25 132 0 ***** W 0.889 1883 NaNDEC10207 2 1 12.8 0.66 2.315 0 0 0 17.4 1.5 0 2612 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.922 12.8 0.66 2.315 0 0 0 17.4 1 0 2612 2612 F2 0.851 2827 0.92[Weld Throat] 12.8 0.66 2.315 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.851 2033 NaNf R /PS

App H-8CutoutDist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead Force(m) (tf)SupportAreasA s(cm 2 )A cSCFStress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSLABEL ID LOCf s f L f RiINB10301 1 1 1.4 0.691 2.34 0.47 0.79 0 43.2 1.5 17 2001 2001 F2 0.889 2611 0.772 1.4 0.691 2.34 0.47 0.79 0 43.2 1 17 2001 2001 F2 0.889 2611 0.77[Weld Throat] 1.4 0.691 2.34 0.47 0.79 [Asw]= 0 1.25 17 0 ***** W 0.889 1883 NaNINB10502 1 1 1.65 0.675 2.34 0.44 0.71 0 43.2 1.5 16 1905 1906 F2 0.889 2611 0.732 1.65 0.675 2.34 0.44 0.71 0 43.2 1 16 1905 1905 F2 0.889 2611 0.73[Weld Throat] 1.65 0.675 2.34 0.44 0.71 [Asw]= 0 1.25 16 0 ***** W 0.889 1883 NaNINB10703 1 1 1.98 0.682 2.34 0.4 0.65 0 43.2 1.5 14 1768 1768 F2 0.889 2611 0.682 1.98 0.682 2.34 0.4 0.65 0 43.2 1 14 1768 1768 F2 0.889 2611 0.68[Weld Throat] 1.98 0.682 2.34 0.4 0.65 [Asw]= 0 1.25 14 0 ***** W 0.889 1883 NaNINB10904 1 1 2.39 0.708 2.34 0.34 0.58 0 43.2 1.5 13 1599 1599 F2 0.889 2611 0.612 2.39 0.708 2.34 0.34 0.58 0 43.2 1 13 1599 1599 F2 0.889 2611 0.61[Weld Throat] 2.39 0.708 2.34 0.34 0.58 [Asw]= 0 1.25 13 0 ***** W 0.889 1883 NaNSDK10307 2 1 10.06 0.66 2.315 0 0 0 13.8 1.5 0 1672 1672 F2 0.909 2514 0.672 10.06 0.66 2.315 0 0 0 13.8 1 0 1672 1672 F2 0.909 2514 0.67[Weld Throat] 10.06 0.66 2.315 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.909 1813 NaNf R /PS

App I-1APPENDIX IFATIGUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SHIP I

App I-2Table I.1 Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Longitudinals for Ship I5 APRIL 2001 13:05:39 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.00 (2000 Rules)SHIP : MidshipLxBxDxd = 194.00x 29.50x 21.60x 7.00(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 2449110.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 3991371.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 9.06(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 100.00m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 286082.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 208664.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Local Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75 Long Perm.STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Unsup.Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#Local Stress f R FATIG Long Perm. StressLoad Range. Term (kg/cm2)Range (kg/cm2) CLASS Distr(m) f RG f RL Factor P S fR/PSSCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDID1 BTM10801 A/ 1 0.08 522 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 3.95 1023 178 969 F2 0.867 2737 0.35 WT 265x33 IB Bhd01F/ 3 0.08 522 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 3.95 1023 178 969 F2 0.867 2737 0.35 IB Bhd012 BTM10802 A/ 1 0.16 522 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 3.95 1013 178 962 F2 0.867 2737 0.35 WT 265x33 IB Bhd02F/ 3 0.16 522 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 3.95 1013 178 962 F2 0.867 2737 0.35 IB Bhd023 BTM10803 A/ 1 0.24 522 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 3.94 1004 180 956 F2 0.867 2737 0.35 WT 265x33 IB Bhd03F/ 3 0.24 522 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 3.94 1004 180 956 F2 0.867 2737 0.35 IB Bhd034 BLG10101 A/ 1 0.67 317 2.3 1 1 1 1&2 3.92 960 293 1011 F2 0.867 2737 0.37 WT 205x23 Bilge 01F/ 5 0.67 317 2.3 1 1 1 1&2 3.92 960 293 1011 F2 0.867 2737 0.37 Bilge 015 BLG10102 A/ 1 1.28 317 2.3 1 1 1 1&2 3.89 888 304 963 F2 0.867 2737 0.35 WT 205x23 Bilge 02F/ 5 1.28 317 2.3 1 1 1 1&2 3.89 888 304 963 F2 0.867 2737 0.35 Bilge 026 BLG10103 A/ 1 1.88 318 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 3.86 817 355 946 F2 0.867 2737 0.35 WT 205x23 Bilge 03

App I-3STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Unsup.Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#Local Stress f R FATIG Long Perm. StressLoad Range. Term (kg/cm2)Range (kg/cm2) CLASS Distr(m) f RG f RL Factor P S fR/PSSCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 1.88 318 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 3.86 817 355 946 F2 0.867 2737 0.35 Bilge 037 BLG10104 A/ 1 2.49 318 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 789 391 1121 F2 0.867 2737 0.41 WT 205x23 Bilge 04F/ 1 2.49 318 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 789 391 1121 F2 0.867 2737 0.41 Bilge 048 SHL10101 A/ 1 3.17 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 834 433 1204 F2 0.885 2632 0.46 WT 205x23 Blg-3P01F/ 1 3.17 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 834 433 1204 F2 0.885 2632 0.46 Blg-3P019 SHL10102 A/ 1 3.9 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 866 529 1325 F2 0.899 2556 0.52 WT 205x23 Blg-3P02F/ 1 3.9 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 866 529 1325 F2 0.899 2556 0.52 Blg-3P0210 SHL10203 A/ 1 5.41 260 2.5 1 1 2 F1&F2 7.73 919 976 1800 F2 0.907 2524 0.71 WT 205x19.5 3P-2P 03F/ 1 5.41 260 2.5 1 1 2 F1&F2 7.73 919 976 1800 F2 0.907 2524 0.71 3P-2P 0311 SHL10204 A/ 1 6.21 260 2.5 1 1 2 F1&F2 9.05 889 1143 1930 F2 0.907 2524 0.76 WT 205x19.5 3P-2P 04F/ 1 6.21 260 2.5 1 1 2 F1&F2 9.05 889 1143 1930 F2 0.907 2524 0.76 3P-2P 0412 SHL10205 A/ 1 7.02 260 2.5 1 0.65 2 F1&F2 10.31 858 844 1617 F2 0.907 2524 0.64 WT 205x19.5 3P-2P 05F/ 1 7.02 260 2.5 1 0.65 2 F1&F2 10.31 858 844 1617 F2 0.907 2524 0.64 3P-2P 0513 SHL10206 A/ 1 7.83 260 2.5 1 0.42 2 F1&F2 9.47 828 501 1263 F2 0.907 2524 0.5 WT 205x19.5 3P-2P 06F/ 1 7.83 260 2.5 1 0.42 2 F1&F2 9.47 828 501 1263 F2 0.907 2524 0.5 3P-2P 0614 SHL10307 A/ 1 8.41 199 2.5 1 0.31 2 F1&F2 8.85 807 348 1097 F2 0.907 2524 0.43 WT 180x16.5 2P-1P 07F/ 1 8.41 199 2.5 1 0.31 2 F1&F2 8.85 807 348 1097 F2 0.907 2524 0.43 2P-1P 0715 SHL10308 A/ 1 9.02 199 2.5 1 0.3 2 F1&F2 8.21 784 307 1037 F2 0.907 2524 0.41 WT 180x16.5 2P-1P 08F/ 1 9.02 199 2.5 1 0.3 2 F1&F2 8.21 784 307 1037 F2 0.907 2524 0.41 2P-1P 0816 SHL10309 A/ 1 9.63 180 2.5 1 0.3 2 F1&F2 7.57 814 313 1071 F2 0.907 2524 0.42 WT 180x16.5 2P-1P 09F/ 1 9.63 180 2.5 1 0.3 2 F1&F2 7.57 814 313 1071 F2 0.907 2524 0.42 2P-1P 0917 SHL10310 A/ 1 10.25 180 2.5 1 0.3 2 F1&F2 6.92 848 273 1065 F2 0.907 2524 0.42 WT 180x16.5 2P-1P 10F/ 1 10.25 180 2.5 1 0.3 2 F1&F2 6.92 848 273 1065 F2 0.907 2524 0.42 2P-1P 1018 SHL10411 A/ 1 11.51 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 5.32 920 303 1162 F2 0.907 2524 0.46 WT 155x14 1P-3D 11F/ 1 11.51 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 5.32 920 303 1162 F2 0.907 2524 0.46 1P-3D 1119 SHL10412 A/ 1 12.23 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 4.6 960 262 1161 F2 0.907 2524 0.46 WT 155x14 1P-3D 12F/ 1 12.23 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 4.6 960 262 1161 F2 0.907 2524 0.46 1P-3D 1220 SHL10413 A/ 1 12.94 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 3.89 1000 212 1152 F2 0.907 2524 0.46 WT 155x14 1P-3D 13F/ 1 12.94 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 3.89 1000 212 1152 F2 0.907 2524 0.46 1P-3D 13

App I-4STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Unsup.Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#Local Stress f R FATIG Long Perm. StressLoad Range. Term (kg/cm2)Range (kg/cm2) CLASS Distr(m) f RG f RL Factor P S fR/PSSCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDID21 SHL10514 A/ 1 14.27 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 2.56 1063 136 1138 F2 0.907 2524 0.45 WT 155x14 3D-2D 14F/ 1 14.27 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 2.56 1063 136 1138 F2 0.907 2524 0.45 3D-2D 1422 SHL10515 A/ 1 14.93 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 1.9 1088 100 1129 F2 0.907 2524 0.45 WT 155x14 3D-2D 15F/ 1 14.93 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 1.9 1088 100 1129 F2 0.907 2524 0.45 3D-2D 1523 SHL10516 A/ 1 15.6 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 1.23 1114 62 1117 F2 0.907 2524 0.44 WT 155x14 3D-2D 16F/ 1 15.6 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 1.23 1114 62 1117 F2 0.907 2524 0.44 3D-2D 1624 SHL10617 A/ 1 16.91 205 2.5 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1110 0 1054 F2 0.889 2611 0.4 WT 180x16.5 2D-She17F/ 1 16.91 205 2.5 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1110 0 1054 F2 0.889 2611 0.4 2D-She1725 SHL10618 A/ 1 17.63 205 2.5 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1108 0 1053 F2 0.871 2711 0.39 WT 180x16.5 2D-She18F/ 1 17.63 205 2.5 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1108 0 1053 F2 0.871 2711 0.39 2D-She1826 SHL10619 A/ 1 18.34 205 2.5 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1132 0 1075 F2 0.854 2810 0.38 WT 180x16.5 2D-She19F/ 1 18.34 205 2.5 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1132 0 1075 F2 0.854 2810 0.38 2D-She1927 SHS10201 A/ 1 19.67 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1243 0 1181 F2 0.826 2962 0.4 WT 205x19.5 MD-01 01F/ 1 19.67 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1243 0 1181 F2 0.826 2962 0.4 MD-01 0128 SHS10202 A/ 1 20.34 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1322 0 1256 F2 0.826 2962 0.42 WT 205x19.5 MD-01 02F/ 1 20.34 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1322 0 1256 F2 0.826 2962 0.42 MD-01 0229 SHS10203 A/ 1 21.01 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1400 0 1330 F2 0.826 2962 0.45 WT 205x19.5 MD-01 03F/ 1 21.01 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1400 0 1330 F2 0.826 2962 0.45 MD-01 0330 DEC10101 A/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 String01F/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 String0131 DEC10102 A/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 String02F/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 String0232 DEC10103 A/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 String03F/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 String0333 DEC10104 A/ 1 21.6 279 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 String04F/ 3 21.6 279 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 String0434 DEC10105 A/ 1 21.6 279 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 String05F/ 3 21.6 279 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 String0535 DEC10106 A/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 String06

App I-5STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Unsup.Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#Local Stress f R FATIG Long Perm. StressLoad Range. Term (kg/cm2)Range (kg/cm2) CLASS Distr(m) f RG f RL Factor P S fR/PSSCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 String0636 DEC10107 A/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 String07F/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 String0737 DEC10108 A/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 String08F/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 String0838 DEC10209 A/ 1 21.6 279 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01 Lvl09F/ 3 21.6 279 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01 Lvl0939 DEC10310 A/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01Inef10F/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01Inef1040 DEC10311 A/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01Inef11F/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01Inef1141 DEC10412 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01 Inb12F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01 Inb1242 DEC10413 A/ 1 21.6 267 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01 Inb13F/ 3 21.6 267 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01 Inb1343 DEC10414 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01 Inb14F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01 Inb1444 DEC10415 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01 Inb15F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01 Inb1545 DEC10416 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01 Inb16F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01 Inb1646 DEC10417 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01 Inb17F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01 Inb1747 DEC10418 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01 Inb18F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01 Inb1848 DEC10519 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01Inef19F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01Inef1949 DEC10520 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01Inef20F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01Inef20

App I-6STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Unsup.Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#Local Stress f R FATIG Long Perm. StressLoad Range. Term (kg/cm2)Range (kg/cm2) CLASS Distr(m) f RG f RL Factor P S fR/PSSCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDID50 DEC10521 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01Inef21F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01Inef2151 DEC10522 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01Inef22F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01Inef2252 DEC10523 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 WT 205x19.5 01Inef23F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1446 0 1374 F2 0.826 2962 0.46 01Inef2353 WTF31501 A/ 1 13.6 78 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 804 0 764 F2 0.826 2962 0.26 WT 155x10.5 3DInef01F/ 1 13.6 78 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 804 0 764 F2 0.826 2962 0.26 3DInef0154 WTF31502 A/ 1 13.6 78 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 835 0 794 F2 0.826 2962 0.27 WT 155x10.5 3DInef02F/ 1 13.6 78 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 835 0 794 F2 0.826 2962 0.27 3DInef0255 WTF31503 A/ 1 13.6 78 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 867 0 823 F2 0.826 2962 0.28 WT 155x10.5 3DInef03F/ 1 13.6 78 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 867 0 823 F2 0.826 2962 0.28 3DInef0356 WTF31604 A/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 898 0 853 F2 0.826 2962 0.29 WT 155x10.5 3DOtbd04F/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 898 0 853 F2 0.826 2962 0.29 3DOtbd0457 WTF31605 A/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 930 0 883 F2 0.826 2962 0.3 WT 155x10.5 3DOtbd05F/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 930 0 883 F2 0.826 2962 0.3 3DOtbd0558 WTF31606 A/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 961 0 913 F2 0.826 2962 0.31 WT 155x10.5 3DOtbd06F/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 961 0 913 F2 0.826 2962 0.31 3DOtbd0659 WTF31607 A/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 992 0 943 F2 0.826 2962 0.32 WT 155x10.5 3DOtbd07F/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 992 0 943 F2 0.826 2962 0.32 3DOtbd0760 WTF31608 A/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1024 0 973 F2 0.826 2962 0.33 WT 155x10.5 3DOtbd08F/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1024 0 973 F2 0.826 2962 0.33 3DOtbd0861 WTF41701 A/ 1 15.2 2433 2.5 1 1 1 7&8 0 288 0 273 F2 0.826 2962 0.09 W/T 549x184 2DInef01F/ 1 15.2 2433 2.5 1 1 1 7&8 0 288 0 273 F2 0.826 2962 0.09 2DInef0162 WTF41702 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 319 0 303 F2 0.826 2962 0.1 WT 180x16.5 2DInef02F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 319 0 303 F2 0.826 2962 0.1 2DInef0263 WTF41703 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 351 0 333 F2 0.826 2962 0.11 WT 180x16.5 2DInef03F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 351 0 333 F2 0.826 2962 0.11 2DInef0364 WTF41704 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 382 0 363 F2 0.826 2962 0.12 WT 180x16.5 2DInef04

App I-7STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Unsup.Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#Local Stress f R FATIG Long Perm. StressLoad Range. Term (kg/cm2)Range (kg/cm2) CLASS Distr(m) f RG f RL Factor P S fR/PSSCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 382 0 363 F2 0.826 2962 0.12 2DInef0465 WTF41705 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 413 0 393 F2 0.826 2962 0.13 WT 180x16.5 2DInef05F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 413 0 393 F2 0.826 2962 0.13 2DInef0566 WTF41706 A/ 1 15.2 176 2.4 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 445 0 423 F2 0.826 2962 0.14 WT 180x16.5 2DInef06F/ 4 15.2 176 2.4 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 445 0 423 F2 0.826 2962 0.14 2DInef0667 WTF41807 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 476 0 452 F2 0.826 2962 0.15 WT 180x16.5 2DInef07F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 476 0 452 F2 0.826 2962 0.15 2DInef0768 WTF41808 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 508 0 482 F2 0.826 2962 0.16 WT 180x16.5 2DInef08F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 508 0 482 F2 0.826 2962 0.16 2DInef0869 WTF41809 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 539 0 512 F2 0.826 2962 0.17 WT 180x16.5 2DInef09F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 539 0 512 F2 0.826 2962 0.17 2DInef0970 WTF41810 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 570 0 542 F2 0.826 2962 0.18 WT 180x16.5 2DInef10F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 570 0 542 F2 0.826 2962 0.18 2DInef1071 WTF41811 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 602 0 572 F2 0.826 2962 0.19 WT 180x16.5 2DInef11F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 602 0 572 F2 0.826 2962 0.19 2DInef1172 WTF41812 A/ 1 15.2 176 2.4 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 633 0 601 F2 0.826 2962 0.2 WT 180x16.5 2DInef12F/ 4 15.2 176 2.4 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 633 0 601 F2 0.826 2962 0.2 2DInef1273 WTF41913 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 659 0 626 F2 0.826 2962 0.21 WT 180x16.5 2DInbd13F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 659 0 626 F2 0.826 2962 0.21 2DInbd1374 WTF41914 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 691 0 656 F2 0.826 2962 0.22 WT 180x16.5 2DInbd14F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 691 0 656 F2 0.826 2962 0.22 2DInbd1475 WTF41915 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 722 0 686 F2 0.826 2962 0.23 WT 180x16.5 2DInbd15F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 722 0 686 F2 0.826 2962 0.23 2DInbd1576 WTF41916 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 753 0 716 F2 0.826 2962 0.24 WT 180x16.5 2DInbd16F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 753 0 716 F2 0.826 2962 0.24 2DInbd1677 WTF52101 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 863 0 820 F2 0.826 2962 0.28 WT 155x10.5 2DInne01F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 863 0 820 F2 0.826 2962 0.28 2DInne0178 WTF52102 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 895 0 850 F2 0.826 2962 0.29 WT 155x10.5 2DInne02F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 895 0 850 F2 0.826 2962 0.29 2DInne02

App I-8STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Unsup.Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#Local Stress f R FATIG Long Perm. StressLoad Range. Term (kg/cm2)Range (kg/cm2) CLASS Distr(m) f RG f RL Factor P S fR/PSSCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDID79 WTF52203 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 926 0 880 F2 0.826 2962 0.3 WT 155x10.5 2DOtbd03F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 926 0 880 F2 0.826 2962 0.3 2DOtbd0380 WTF52204 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 957 0 909 F2 0.826 2962 0.31 WT 155x10.5 2DOtbd04F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 957 0 909 F2 0.826 2962 0.31 2DOtbd0481 WTF52205 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.42 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 989 0 939 F2 0.826 2962 0.32 WT 155x10.5 2DOtbd05F/ 3 16.2 79 2.42 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 989 0 939 F2 0.826 2962 0.32 2DOtbd0582 WTF52206 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1020 0 969 F2 0.826 2962 0.33 WT 155x10.5 2DOtbd06F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1020 0 969 F2 0.826 2962 0.33 2DOtbd0683 WTF52207 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1051 0 999 F2 0.826 2962 0.34 WT 155x10.5 2DOtbd07F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1051 0 999 F2 0.826 2962 0.34 2DOtbd0784 WTF52208 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1083 0 1029 F2 0.826 2962 0.35 WT 155x10.5 2DOtbd08F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1083 0 1029 F2 0.826 2962 0.35 2DOtbd0885 WTF52209 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1114 0 1059 F2 0.826 2962 0.36 WT 155x10.5 2DOtbd09F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1114 0 1059 F2 0.826 2962 0.36 2DOtbd0986 INS10101 A/ 1 0.6 341 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0.52 991 36 976 F2 0.867 2737 0.36 WT 205x23 IBS-IB01F/ 1 0.6 341 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0.52 991 36 976 F2 0.867 2737 0.36 IBS-IB0187 INS10202 A/ 1 1.88 326 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0.49 841 41 838 F2 0.867 2737 0.31 WT 205x23 IbIB-302F/ 1 1.88 326 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0.49 841 41 838 F2 0.867 2737 0.31 IbIB-30288 INS10203 A/ 1 2.56 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 771 37 767 F2 0.874 2696 0.28 WT 205x23 IbIB-303F/ 1 2.56 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 771 37 767 F2 0.874 2696 0.28 IbIB-30389 INS10204 A/ 1 3.24 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 731 32 725 F2 0.887 2625 0.28 WT 205x23 IbIB-304F/ 1 3.24 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 731 32 725 F2 0.887 2625 0.28 IbIB-30490 INS10205 A/ 1 3.92 326 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 721 30 714 F2 0.899 2554 0.28 WT 205x23 IbIB-305F/ 1 3.92 326 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 721 30 714 F2 0.899 2554 0.28 IbIB-30591 INS10406 A/ 1 5.24 260 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.44 686 44 693 F2 0.907 2524 0.27 WT 205x19.5 Ib3P2P06F/ 1 5.24 260 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.44 686 44 693 F2 0.907 2524 0.27 Ib3P2P0692 INS10507 A/ 1 5.88 255 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.48 656 48 669 F2 0.907 2524 0.27 WT 205x19.5 Ib3P2P07F/ 1 5.88 255 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.48 656 48 669 F2 0.907 2524 0.27 Ib3P2P0793 INS10608 A/ 1 6.52 255 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.52 626 52 645 F2 0.907 2524 0.26 WT 205x19.5 Ib3P2P08

App I-9STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Unsup.Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#Local Stress f R FATIG Long Perm. StressLoad Range. Term (kg/cm2)Range (kg/cm2) CLASS Distr(m) f RG f RL Factor P S fR/PSSCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 6.52 255 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.52 626 52 645 F2 0.907 2524 0.26 Ib3P2P0894 INS10609 A/ 1 7.16 255 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.56 596 56 620 F2 0.907 2524 0.25 WT 205x19.5 Ib3P2P09F/ 1 7.16 255 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.56 596 56 620 F2 0.907 2524 0.25 Ib3P2P0995 INS10710 A/ 1 8.4 191 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.63 537 79 586 F2 0.907 2524 0.23 WT 180x16.5 Ib2P1P10F/ 1 8.4 191 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.63 537 79 586 F2 0.907 2524 0.23 Ib2P1P1096 INS10811 A/ 1 9 191 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.67 509 84 563 F2 0.907 2524 0.22 WT 180x16.5 Ib2P1P11F/ 1 9 191 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.67 509 84 563 F2 0.907 2524 0.22 Ib2P1P1197 INS10912 A/ 1 9.6 173 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 532 98 598 F2 0.907 2524 0.24 WT 180x16.5 Ib2P1P12F/ 1 9.6 173 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 532 98 598 F2 0.907 2524 0.24 Ib2P1P1298 INS10913 A/ 1 10.2 173 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.74 560 103 629 F2 0.907 2524 0.25 WT 180x16.5 Ib2P1P13F/ 1 10.2 173 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.74 560 103 629 F2 0.907 2524 0.25 Ib2P1P1399 INS11014 A/ 1 11.36 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 613 0 582 F2 0.907 2524 0.23 WT 155x10.5 Ib1P3D14F/ 1 11.36 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 613 0 582 F2 0.907 2524 0.23 Ib1P3D14100 INS11015 A/ 1 11.92 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 639 0 607 F2 0.907 2524 0.24 WT 155x10.5 Ib1P3D15F/ 1 11.92 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 639 0 607 F2 0.907 2524 0.24 Ib1P3D15101 INS11116 A/ 1 12.48 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 665 0 632 F2 0.907 2524 0.25 WT 155x10.5 Ib1P3D16F/ 1 12.48 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 665 0 632 F2 0.907 2524 0.25 Ib1P3D16102 INS11117 A/ 1 13.04 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 692 0 657 F2 0.907 2524 0.26 WT 155x10.5 Ib1P3D17F/ 1 13.04 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 692 0 657 F2 0.907 2524 0.26 Ib1P3D17103 INS11218 A/ 1 14.14 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 743 0 706 F2 0.907 2524 0.28 WT 155x10.5 IB3D2D18F/ 1 14.14 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 743 0 706 F2 0.907 2524 0.28 IB3D2D18104 INS11219 A/ 1 14.67 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 768 0 730 F2 0.907 2524 0.29 WT 155x10.5 IB3D2D19F/ 1 14.67 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 768 0 730 F2 0.907 2524 0.29 IB3D2D19105 INS11320 A/ 1 15.7 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 816 0 775 F2 0.907 2524 0.31 WT 155x10.5 Ib2D2D20F/ 1 15.7 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 816 0 775 F2 0.907 2524 0.31 Ib2D2D20106 INS11421 A/ 1 16.76 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 872 0 829 F2 0.893 2590 0.32 WT 155x10.5 Ib2DMD21F/ 1 16.76 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 872 0 829 F2 0.893 2590 0.32 Ib2DMD21107 INS11422 A/ 1 17.32 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 918 0 872 F2 0.879 2668 0.33 WT 155x10.5 Ib2DMD22F/ 1 17.32 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 918 0 872 F2 0.879 2668 0.33 Ib2DMD22

App I-10STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Unsup.Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#Local Stress f R FATIG Long Perm. StressLoad Range. Term (kg/cm2)Range (kg/cm2) CLASS Distr(m) f RG f RL Factor P S fR/PSSCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDID108 INS11423 A/ 1 17.88 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 978 0 929 F2 0.865 2746 0.34 WT 155x10.5 Ib2DMD23F/ 1 17.88 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 978 0 929 F2 0.865 2746 0.34 Ib2DMD23109 INS11424 A/ 1 18.44 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1052 0 999 F2 0.851 2823 0.35 WT 155x10.5 Ib2DMD24F/ 1 18.44 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1052 0 999 F2 0.851 2823 0.35 Ib2DMD24110 INS21601 A/ 1 19.67 281 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1243 0 1181 F2 0.826 2962 0.4 WT 205x19.5 IbMD0101F/ 1 19.67 281 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1243 0 1181 F2 0.826 2962 0.4 IbMD0101111 INS21602 A/ 1 20.32 281 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1319 0 1253 F2 0.826 2962 0.42 WT 205x19.5 IbMD0102F/ 1 20.32 281 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1319 0 1253 F2 0.826 2962 0.42 IbMD0102112 INS21703 A/ 1 20.95 281 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1393 0 1324 F2 0.826 2962 0.45 WT 205x19.5 IbMD0103F/ 1 20.95 281 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1393 0 1324 F2 0.826 2962 0.45 IbMD0103113 INS31801 A/ 1 1.2 345 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 921 0 875 F2 0.867 2737 0.32 WT 205x23 Ob Bhd01F/ 1 1.2 345 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 921 0 875 F2 0.867 2737 0.32 Ob Bhd01114 INS31902 A/ 1 1.88 337 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 841 0 799 F2 0.867 2737 0.29 WT 205x23 Ob Bhd02F/ 1 1.88 337 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 841 0 799 F2 0.867 2737 0.29 Ob Bhd02115 INS31903 A/ 1 2.56 337 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 795 11 766 F2 0.874 2696 0.28 WT 205x23 Ob Bhd03F/ 1 2.56 337 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 795 11 766 F2 0.874 2696 0.28 Ob Bhd03116 INS31904 A/ 1 3.24 337 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 796 31 786 F2 0.887 2625 0.3 WT 205x23 Ob Bhd04F/ 1 3.24 337 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 796 31 786 F2 0.887 2625 0.3 Ob Bhd04117 INS31905 A/ 1 3.92 337 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 828 50 834 F2 0.899 2554 0.33 WT 205x23 Ob Bhd05F/ 1 3.92 337 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 828 50 834 F2 0.899 2554 0.33 Ob Bhd05118 INS32006 A/ 1 5.24 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.74 817 72 845 F2 0.907 2524 0.33 WT 205x19.5 OB3P2P06F/ 1 5.24 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.74 817 72 845 F2 0.907 2524 0.33 OB3P2P06119 INS32007 A/ 1 5.88 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.73 787 71 815 F2 0.907 2524 0.32 WT 205x19.5 OB3P2P07F/ 1 5.88 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.73 787 71 815 F2 0.907 2524 0.32 OB3P2P07120 INS32008 A/ 1 6.52 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.72 757 70 786 F2 0.907 2524 0.31 WT 205x19.5 OB3P2P08F/ 1 6.52 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.72 757 70 786 F2 0.907 2524 0.31 OB3P2P08121 INS32009 A/ 1 7.16 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.72 727 70 757 F2 0.907 2524 0.3 WT 205x19.5 OB3P2P09F/ 1 7.16 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.72 727 70 757 F2 0.907 2524 0.3 OB3P2P09122 INS32110 A/ 1 8.4 199 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 668 84 714 F2 0.907 2524 0.28 WT 180x16.5 OB2P1P10

App I-11STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Unsup.Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#Local Stress f R FATIG Long Perm. StressLoad Range. Term (kg/cm2)Range (kg/cm2) CLASS Distr(m) f RG f RL Factor P S fR/PSSCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 8.4 199 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 668 84 714 F2 0.907 2524 0.28 OB2P1P10123 INS32111 A/ 1 9 199 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.69 640 83 687 F2 0.907 2524 0.27 WT 180x16.5 OB2P1P11F/ 1 9 199 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.69 640 83 687 F2 0.907 2524 0.27 OB2P1P11124 INS32112 A/ 1 9.6 180 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.68 662 91 715 F2 0.907 2524 0.28 WT 180x16.5 OB2P1P12F/ 1 9.6 180 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.68 662 91 715 F2 0.907 2524 0.28 OB2P1P12125 INS32113 A/ 1 10.2 180 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.67 690 89 741 F2 0.907 2524 0.29 WT 180x16.5 OB2P1P13F/ 1 10.2 180 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.67 690 89 741 F2 0.907 2524 0.29 OB2P1P13126 SDK10101 A/ 1 19 104 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1172 0 1113 F2 0.837 2901 0.38 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb01F/ 1 19 104 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1172 0 1113 F2 0.837 2901 0.38 MD Otb01127 SDK10102 A/ 1 19 104 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1167 0 1109 F2 0.837 2901 0.38 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb02F/ 1 19 104 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1167 0 1109 F2 0.837 2901 0.38 MD Otb02128 SDK10203 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1163 0 1105 F2 0.837 2901 0.38 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb03F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1163 0 1105 F2 0.837 2901 0.38 MD Otb03129 SDK10204 A/ 1 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1159 0 1101 F2 0.837 2901 0.38 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb04F/ 3 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1159 0 1101 F2 0.837 2901 0.38 MD Otb04130 SDK10205 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1154 0 1096 F2 0.837 2901 0.38 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb05F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1154 0 1096 F2 0.837 2901 0.38 MD Otb05131 SDK10206 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1150 0 1092 F2 0.837 2901 0.38 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb06F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1150 0 1092 F2 0.837 2901 0.38 MD Otb06132 SDK10207 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1145 0 1088 F2 0.837 2901 0.37 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb07F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1145 0 1088 F2 0.837 2901 0.37 MD Otb07133 SDK10208 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1140 0 1083 F2 0.837 2901 0.37 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb08F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1140 0 1083 F2 0.837 2901 0.37 MD Otb08134 SDK10309 A/ 1 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1134 0 1077 F2 0.837 2901 0.37 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb09F/ 3 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1134 0 1077 F2 0.837 2901 0.37 MD Inb09135 SDK10310 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1130 0 1073 F2 0.837 2901 0.37 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb10F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1130 0 1073 F2 0.837 2901 0.37 MD Inb10136 SDK10311 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1125 0 1069 F2 0.837 2901 0.37 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb11F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1125 0 1069 F2 0.837 2901 0.37 MD Inb11

App I-12STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)Unsup.Span(m)CtCy LP#LC#Local Stress f R FATIG Long Perm. StressLoad Range. Term (kg/cm2)Range (kg/cm2) CLASS Distr(m) f RG f RL Factor P S fR/PSSCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDID137 SDK10312 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1121 0 1065 F2 0.837 2901 0.37 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb12F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1121 0 1065 F2 0.837 2901 0.37 MD Inb12138 SDK10313 A/ 1 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1117 0 1061 F2 0.837 2901 0.37 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb13F/ 3 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1117 0 1061 F2 0.837 2901 0.37 MD Inb13139 SDK10314 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1113 0 1057 F2 0.837 2901 0.36 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb14F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1113 0 1057 F2 0.837 2901 0.36 MD Inb14140 SDK10315 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1108 0 1053 F2 0.837 2901 0.36 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb15F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1108 0 1053 F2 0.837 2901 0.36 MD Inb15141 SDK10316 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1104 0 1049 F2 0.837 2901 0.36 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb16F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1104 0 1049 F2 0.837 2901 0.36 MD Inb16142 SDK10317 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1100 0 1045 F2 0.837 2901 0.36 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb17F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1100 0 1045 F2 0.837 2901 0.36 MD Inb17143 SDK10418 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1096 0 1041 F2 0.837 2901 0.36 WT 155x10.5 MD Inn18F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1096 0 1041 F2 0.837 2901 0.36 MD Inn18144 SDK10519 A/ 1 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1091 0 1037 F2 0.837 2901 0.36 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb19F/ 3 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1091 0 1037 F2 0.837 2901 0.36 MD Inb19145 SDK10520 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1087 0 1033 F2 0.837 2901 0.36 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb20F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1087 0 1033 F2 0.837 2901 0.36 MD Inb20146 SDK10521 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1083 0 1029 F2 0.837 2901 0.35 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb21F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1083 0 1029 F2 0.837 2901 0.35 MD Inb21147 SDK10522 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1079 0 1025 F2 0.837 2901 0.35 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb22F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1079 0 1025 F2 0.837 2901 0.35 MD Inb22148 SDK10523 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1074 0 1021 F2 0.837 2901 0.35 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb23F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1074 0 1021 F2 0.837 2901 0.35 MD Inb23149 SDK10524 A/ 1 19 1914 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1070 0 1016 F2 0.837 2901 0.35 W/T 424x165 MD Inb24F/ 1 19 1914 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1070 0 1016 F2 0.837 2901 0.35 MD Inb24

App I-13CutoutLABELID LOCTable I.2 Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Flat Bars for Ship I5 APRIL 2001 13:05:39 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.00 (2000 Rules)SHIP : MidshipLxBxDxd = 194.00x 29.50x 21.60x 7.00(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 2449110.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 3991371.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 9.06(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR FLAT-BAR SUPPORT STIFFENERS OF LONGITUDINALSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 100.00m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 286082.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 208664.(tf-m)Dist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead(m)Force(tf)Support AreasAs(cm 2 }Ac(cm 2 }SCFStress Range(kg/cm2)fs fL fRiFATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSBTM10801 1 1 0.08 0.625 2.42 3.95 6.13 0 90.9 1.5 64 966 971 F2 0.867 2737 0.352 0.08 0.625 2.42 3.95 6.13 0 90.9 1 64 966 969 F2 0.867 2737 0.35[Weld Throat] 0.08 0.625 2.42 3.95 6.13 [Asw]= 0 1.25 64 0 ***** W 0.867 1970 NaNBTM10802 1 1 0.16 0.625 2.42 3.95 6.12 0 90.9 1.5 64 959 964 F2 0.867 2737 0.352 0.16 0.625 2.42 3.95 6.12 0 90.9 1 64 959 961 F2 0.867 2737 0.35[Weld Throat] 0.16 0.625 2.42 3.95 6.12 [Asw]= 0 1.25 64 0 ***** W 0.867 1970 NaNBTM10803 1 1 0.24 0.635 2.42 3.94 6.21 0 90.9 1.5 65 954 959 F2 0.867 2737 0.352 0.24 0.635 2.42 3.94 6.21 0 90.9 1 65 954 956 F2 0.867 2737 0.35[Weld Throat] 0.24 0.635 2.42 3.94 6.21 [Asw]= 0 1.25 65 0 ***** W 0.867 1970 NaNBLG10101 1 1 0.67 0.698 2.3 3.92 6.45 0 48.4 1.5 127 1009 1027 F2 0.867 2737 0.382 0.67 0.698 2.3 3.92 6.45 0 48.4 1 127 1009 1017 F2 0.867 2737 0.37[Weld Throat] 0.67 0.698 2.3 3.92 6.45 [Asw]= 0 1.25 127 0 ***** W 0.867 1970 NaNBLG10102 1 1 1.28 0.73 2.3 3.89 6.69 0 48.4 1.5 131 960 980 F2 0.867 2737 0.36fR/PS

App I-14CutoutLABELID LOCDist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead(m)Force(tf)Support AreasAs(cm 2 }Ac(cm 2 }SCFStress Range(kg/cm2)fs fL fRiFATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PS2 1.28 0.73 2.3 3.89 6.69 0 48.4 1 131 960 969 F2 0.867 2737 0.35[Weld Throat] 1.28 0.73 2.3 3.89 6.69 [Asw]= 0 1.25 131 0 ***** W 0.867 1970 NaNDEC10104 2 1 21.6 0.557 2.42 0 0 0 12.2 1.5 0 1375 1375 F2 0.826 2962 0.462 21.6 0.557 2.42 0 0 0 12.2 1 0 1375 1375 F2 0.826 2962 0.46[Weld Throat] 21.6 0.557 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.826 2127 NaNDEC10105 2 1 21.6 0.557 2.42 0 0 0 12.2 1.5 0 1375 1375 F2 0.826 2962 0.462 21.6 0.557 2.42 0 0 0 12.2 1 0 1375 1375 F2 0.826 2962 0.46[Weld Throat] 21.6 0.557 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.826 2127 NaNDEC10209 2 1 21.6 0.565 2.42 0 0 0 23.3 1.5 0 1370 1370 F2 0.826 2962 0.462 21.6 0.565 2.42 0 0 0 23.3 1 0 1370 1370 F2 0.826 2962 0.46[Weld Throat] 21.6 0.565 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.826 2127 NaNDEC10414 2 1 21.6 0.6 2.42 0 0 0 23.3 1.5 0 1370 1370 F2 0.826 2962 0.462 21.6 0.6 2.42 0 0 0 23.3 1 0 1370 1370 F2 0.826 2962 0.46[Weld Throat] 21.6 0.6 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.826 2127 NaNDEC10519 2 1 21.6 0.61 2.42 0 0 0 23.3 1.5 0 1370 1370 F2 0.826 2962 0.462 21.6 0.61 2.42 0 0 0 23.3 1 0 1370 1370 F2 0.826 2962 0.46[Weld Throat] 21.6 0.61 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.826 2127 NaNSDK10204 2 1 19 0.64 2.42 0 0 0 18.4 1.5 0 1098 1098 F2 0.837 2901 0.382 19 0.64 2.42 0 0 0 18.4 1 0 1098 1098 F2 0.837 2901 0.38[Weld Throat] 19 0.64 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.837 2084 NaNSDK10314 2 1 19 0.6 2.42 0 0 0 16.2 1.5 0 1054 1054 F2 0.837 2901 0.362 19 0.6 2.42 0 0 0 16.2 1 0 1054 1054 F2 0.837 2901 0.36[Weld Throat] 19 0.6 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.837 2084 NaNSDK10519 2 1 19 0.6 2.42 0 0 0 16.2 1.5 0 1034 1034 F2 0.837 2901 0.362 19 0.6 2.42 0 0 0 16.2 1 0 1034 1034 F2 0.837 2901 0.36[Weld Throat] 19 0.6 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.837 2084 NaNfR/PS

App I-15Table I.3 Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F Longitudinals for Ship I26 APRIL 2001 09:40:16 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.00 (2000 Rules)SHIP : MidshipLxBxDxd = 194.00x 29.50x 21.60x 7.00(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 2449110.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 3991371.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 9.06(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 100.00m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 286082.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 208664.(tf-m)STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDID1 BTM10801 A/ 1 0.08 522 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 4 1019 178 966 F 0.867 3111 0.31 WT 265x33 IB Bhd01F/ 3 0.08 522 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 4 1019 178 966 F 0.867 3111 0.31 IB Bhd012 BTM10802 A/ 1 0.16 522 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 4 1010 178 959 F 0.867 3111 0.31 WT 265x33 IB Bhd02F/ 3 0.16 522 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 4 1010 178 959 F 0.867 3111 0.31 IB Bhd023 BTM10803 A/ 1 0.24 522 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 3.9 1001 180 954 F 0.867 3111 0.31 WT 265x33 IB Bhd03F/ 3 0.24 522 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 3.9 1001 180 954 F 0.867 3111 0.31 IB Bhd034 BLG10101 A/ 1 0.67 317 2.3 1 1 1 1&2 3.9 956 293 1009 F 0.867 3111 0.32 WT 205x23 Bilge 01F/ 5 0.67 317 2.3 1 1 1 1&2 3.9 956 293 1009 F 0.867 3111 0.32 Bilge 015 BLG10102 A/ 1 1.28 317 2.3 1 1 1 1&2 3.9 885 304 960 F 0.867 3111 0.31 WT 205x23 Bilge 02F/ 5 1.28 317 2.3 1 1 1 1&2 3.9 885 304 960 F 0.867 3111 0.31 Bilge 026 BLG10103 A/ 1 1.88 318 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 3.9 814 355 944 F 0.867 3111 0.3 WT 205x23 Bilge 03F/ 1 1.88 318 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 3.9 814 355 944 F 0.867 3111 0.3 Bilge 03

App I-16STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDID7 BLG10104 A/ 1 2.49 318 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 787 391 1119 F 0.867 3111 0.36 WT 205x23 Bilge 04F/ 1 2.49 318 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 787 391 1119 F 0.867 3111 0.36 Bilge 048 SHL10101 A/ 1 3.17 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 832 433 1202 F 0.885 2993 0.4 WT 205x23 Blg-3P01F/ 1 3.17 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 832 433 1202 F 0.885 2993 0.4 Blg-3P019 SHL10102 A/ 1 3.9 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 864 529 1323 F 0.899 2907 0.46 WT 205x23 Blg-3P02F/ 1 3.9 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 864 529 1323 F 0.899 2907 0.46 Blg-3P0210 SHL10203 A/ 1 5.41 260 2.5 1 1 2 F1&F2 7.7 918 976 1799 F 0.907 2870 0.63 WT 205x19.5 3P-2P 03F/ 1 5.41 260 2.5 1 1 2 F1&F2 7.7 918 976 1799 F 0.907 2870 0.63 3P-2P 0311 SHL10204 A/ 1 6.21 260 2.5 1 1 2 F1&F2 9.1 888 1143 1929 F 0.907 2870 0.67 WT 205x19.5 3P-2P 04F/ 1 6.21 260 2.5 1 1 2 F1&F2 9.1 888 1143 1929 F 0.907 2870 0.67 3P-2P 0412 SHL10205 A/ 1 7.02 260 2.5 1 0.65 2 F1&F2 10 857 844 1616 F 0.907 2870 0.56 WT 205x19.5 3P-2P 05F/ 1 7.02 260 2.5 1 0.65 2 F1&F2 10 857 844 1616 F 0.907 2870 0.56 3P-2P 0513 SHL10206 A/ 1 7.83 260 2.5 1 0.42 2 F1&F2 9.5 827 501 1262 F 0.907 2870 0.44 WT 205x19.5 3P-2P 06F/ 1 7.83 260 2.5 1 0.42 2 F1&F2 9.5 827 501 1262 F 0.907 2870 0.44 3P-2P 0614 SHL10307 A/ 1 8.41 199 2.5 1 0.31 2 F1&F2 8.9 806 348 1096 F 0.907 2870 0.38 WT 180x16.5 2P-1P 07F/ 1 8.41 199 2.5 1 0.31 2 F1&F2 8.9 806 348 1096 F 0.907 2870 0.38 2P-1P 0715 SHL10308 A/ 1 9.02 199 2.5 1 0.3 2 F1&F2 8.2 783 307 1036 F 0.907 2870 0.36 WT 180x16.5 2P-1P 08F/ 1 9.02 199 2.5 1 0.3 2 F1&F2 8.2 783 307 1036 F 0.907 2870 0.36 2P-1P 0816 SHL10309 A/ 1 9.63 180 2.5 1 0.3 2 F1&F2 7.6 814 313 1071 F 0.907 2870 0.37 WT 180x16.5 2P-1P 09F/ 1 9.63 180 2.5 1 0.3 2 F1&F2 7.6 814 313 1071 F 0.907 2870 0.37 2P-1P 0917 SHL10310 A/ 1 10.25 180 2.5 1 0.3 2 F1&F2 6.9 848 273 1065 F 0.907 2870 0.37 WT 180x16.5 2P-1P 10F/ 1 10.25 180 2.5 1 0.3 2 F1&F2 6.9 848 273 1065 F 0.907 2870 0.37 2P-1P 1018 SHL10411 A/ 1 11.51 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 5.3 919 303 1161 F 0.907 2870 0.4 WT 155x14 1P-3D 11F/ 1 11.51 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 5.3 919 303 1161 F 0.907 2870 0.4 1P-3D 1119 SHL10412 A/ 1 12.23 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 4.6 959 262 1160 F 0.907 2870 0.4 WT 155x14 1P-3D 12F/ 1 12.23 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 4.6 959 262 1160 F 0.907 2870 0.4 1P-3D 1220 SHL10413 A/ 1 12.94 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 3.9 999 212 1151 F 0.907 2870 0.4 WT 155x14 1P-3D 13F/ 1 12.94 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 3.9 999 212 1151 F 0.907 2870 0.4 1P-3D 1321 SHL10514 A/ 1 14.27 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 2.6 1061 136 1137 F 0.907 2870 0.4 WT 155x14 3D-2D 14

App I-17STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 14.27 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 2.6 1061 136 1137 F 0.907 2870 0.4 3D-2D 1422 SHL10515 A/ 1 14.93 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 1.9 1087 100 1128 F 0.907 2870 0.39 WT 155x14 3D-2D 15F/ 1 14.93 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 1.9 1087 100 1128 F 0.907 2870 0.39 3D-2D 1523 SHL10516 A/ 1 15.6 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 1.2 1113 62 1116 F 0.907 2870 0.39 WT 155x14 3D-2D 16F/ 1 15.6 153 2.5 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 1.2 1113 62 1116 F 0.907 2870 0.39 3D-2D 1624 SHL10617 A/ 1 16.91 185 2.5 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1109 0 1053 F 0.889 2969 0.35 WT 155x16.5 2D-She17F/ 1 16.91 185 2.5 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1109 0 1053 F 0.889 2969 0.35 2D-She1725 SHL10618 A/ 1 17.63 185 2.5 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1107 0 1051 F 0.871 3081 0.34 WT 155x16.5 2D-She18F/ 1 17.63 185 2.5 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1107 0 1051 F 0.871 3081 0.34 2D-She1826 SHL10619 A/ 1 18.34 185 2.5 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1129 0 1073 F 0.854 3192 0.34 WT 155x16.5 2D-She19F/ 1 18.34 185 2.5 1 0.3 1 TZONE 1129 0 1073 F 0.854 3192 0.34 2D-She1927 SHS10201 A/ 1 19.67 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1240 0 1178 F 0.826 3364 0.35 WT 155x19.5 MD-01 01F/ 1 19.67 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1240 0 1178 F 0.826 3364 0.35 MD-01 0128 SHS10202 A/ 1 20.34 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1318 0 1252 F 0.826 3364 0.37 WT 155x19.5 MD-01 02F/ 1 20.34 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1318 0 1252 F 0.826 3364 0.37 MD-01 0229 SHS10203 A/ 1 21.01 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1396 0 1326 F 0.826 3364 0.39 WT 155x19.5 MD-01 03F/ 1 21.01 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1396 0 1326 F 0.826 3364 0.39 MD-01 0330 DEC10101 A/ 1 21.6 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 155x19.5 String01F/ 1 21.6 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 String0131 DEC10102 A/ 1 21.6 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 155x19.5 String02F/ 1 21.6 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 String0232 DEC10103 A/ 1 21.6 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 155x19.5 String03F/ 1 21.6 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 String0333 DEC10104 A/ 1 21.6 253 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 155x19.5 String04F/ 3 21.6 253 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 String0434 DEC10105 A/ 1 21.6 253 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 155x19.5 String05F/ 3 21.6 253 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 String0535 DEC10106 A/ 1 21.6 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 155x19.5 String06F/ 1 21.6 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 String06

App I-18STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDID36 DEC10107 A/ 1 21.6 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 155x19.5 String07F/ 1 21.6 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 String0737 DEC10108 A/ 1 21.6 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 155x19.5 String08F/ 1 21.6 253 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1447 0 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41 String0838 DEC10209 A/ 1 21.6 279 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01 Lvl09F/ 3 21.6 279 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01 Lvl0939 DEC10310 A/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01Inef10F/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01Inef1040 DEC10311 A/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01Inef11F/ 1 21.6 280 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01Inef1141 DEC10412 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01 Inb12F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01 Inb1242 DEC10413 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01 Inb13F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01 Inb1343 DEC10414 A/ 1 21.6 267 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01 Inb14F/ 3 21.6 267 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01 Inb1444 DEC10415 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01 Inb15F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01 Inb1545 DEC10416 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01 Inb16F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01 Inb1646 DEC10417 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01 Inb17F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01 Inb1747 DEC10418 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01 Inb18F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01 Inb1848 DEC10519 A/ 1 21.6 267 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01Inef19F/ 3 21.6 267 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01Inef1949 DEC10520 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01Inef20F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01Inef2050 DEC10521 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01Inef21

App I-19STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01Inef2151 DEC10522 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01Inef22F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01Inef2252 DEC10523 A/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 WT 205x19.5 01Inef23F/ 1 21.6 268 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1442 0 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41 01Inef2353 WTF31501 A/ 1 13.6 78 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 803 0 763 F 0.826 3364 0.23 WT 155x10.5 3DInef01F/ 1 13.6 78 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 803 0 763 F 0.826 3364 0.23 3DInef0154 WTF31502 A/ 1 13.6 78 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 834 0 793 F 0.826 3364 0.24 WT 155x10.5 3DInef02F/ 1 13.6 78 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 834 0 793 F 0.826 3364 0.24 3DInef0255 WTF31503 A/ 1 13.6 78 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 866 0 822 F 0.826 3364 0.24 WT 155x10.5 3DInef03F/ 1 13.6 78 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 866 0 822 F 0.826 3364 0.24 3DInef0356 WTF31604 A/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 897 0 852 F 0.826 3364 0.25 WT 155x10.5 3DOtbd04F/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 897 0 852 F 0.826 3364 0.25 3DOtbd0457 WTF31605 A/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 929 0 882 F 0.826 3364 0.26 WT 155x10.5 3DOtbd05F/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 929 0 882 F 0.826 3364 0.26 3DOtbd0558 WTF31606 A/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 960 0 912 F 0.826 3364 0.27 WT 155x10.5 3DOtbd06F/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 960 0 912 F 0.826 3364 0.27 3DOtbd0659 WTF31607 A/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 991 0 942 F 0.826 3364 0.28 WT 155x10.5 3DOtbd07F/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 991 0 942 F 0.826 3364 0.28 3DOtbd0760 WTF31608 A/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1023 0 971 F 0.826 3364 0.29 WT 155x10.5 3DOtbd08F/ 1 13.6 77 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1023 0 971 F 0.826 3364 0.29 3DOtbd0861 WTF41701 A/ 1 15.2 2474 2.5 1 1 1 7&8 0 287 0 273 F 0.826 3364 0.08 502x418x22/3 2DInef012TF/ 1 15.2 2474 2.5 1 1 1 7&8 0 287 0 273 F 0.826 3364 0.08 2DInef0162 WTF41702 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 318 0 302 F 0.826 3364 0.09 WT 180x16.5 2DInef02F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 318 0 302 F 0.826 3364 0.09 2DInef0263 WTF41703 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 350 0 332 F 0.826 3364 0.1 WT 180x16.5 2DInef03F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 350 0 332 F 0.826 3364 0.1 2DInef0364 WTF41704 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 381 0 362 F 0.826 3364 0.11 WT 180x16.5 2DInef04F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 381 0 362 F 0.826 3364 0.11 2DInef04

App I-20STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDID65 WTF41705 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 413 0 392 F 0.826 3364 0.12 WT 180x16.5 2DInef05F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 413 0 392 F 0.826 3364 0.12 2DInef0566 WTF41706 A/ 1 15.2 176 2.4 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 444 0 422 F 0.826 3364 0.13 WT 180x16.5 2DInef06F/ 4 15.2 176 2.4 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 444 0 422 F 0.826 3364 0.13 2DInef0667 WTF41807 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 475 0 451 F 0.826 3364 0.13 WT 180x16.5 2DInef07F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 475 0 451 F 0.826 3364 0.13 2DInef0768 WTF41808 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 507 0 481 F 0.826 3364 0.14 WT 180x16.5 2DInef08F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 507 0 481 F 0.826 3364 0.14 2DInef0869 WTF41809 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 538 0 511 F 0.826 3364 0.15 WT 180x16.5 2DInef09F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 538 0 511 F 0.826 3364 0.15 2DInef0970 WTF41810 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 569 0 541 F 0.826 3364 0.16 WT 180x16.5 2DInef10F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 569 0 541 F 0.826 3364 0.16 2DInef1071 WTF41811 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 601 0 571 F 0.826 3364 0.17 WT 180x16.5 2DInef11F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 601 0 571 F 0.826 3364 0.17 2DInef1172 WTF41812 A/ 1 15.2 176 2.4 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 632 0 600 F 0.826 3364 0.18 WT 180x16.5 2DInef12F/ 4 15.2 176 2.4 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 632 0 600 F 0.826 3364 0.18 2DInef1273 WTF41913 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 658 0 625 F 0.826 3364 0.19 WT 180x16.5 2DInbd13F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 658 0 625 F 0.826 3364 0.19 2DInbd1374 WTF41914 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 690 0 655 F 0.826 3364 0.19 WT 180x16.5 2DInbd14F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 690 0 655 F 0.826 3364 0.19 2DInbd1475 WTF41915 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 721 0 685 F 0.826 3364 0.2 WT 180x16.5 2DInbd15F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 721 0 685 F 0.826 3364 0.2 2DInbd1576 WTF41916 A/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 752 0 715 F 0.826 3364 0.21 WT 180x16.5 2DInbd16F/ 1 15.2 177 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 752 0 715 F 0.826 3364 0.21 2DInbd1677 WTF52101 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 862 0 819 F 0.826 3364 0.24 WT 155x10.5 2DInne01F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 862 0 819 F 0.826 3364 0.24 2DInne0178 WTF52102 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 893 0 848 F 0.826 3364 0.25 WT 155x10.5 2DInne02F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 893 0 848 F 0.826 3364 0.25 2DInne0279 WTF52203 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 925 0 878 F 0.826 3364 0.26 WT 155x10.5 2DOtbd03

App I-21STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 925 0 878 F 0.826 3364 0.26 2DOtbd0380 WTF52204 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 956 0 908 F 0.826 3364 0.27 WT 155x10.5 2DOtbd04F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 956 0 908 F 0.826 3364 0.27 2DOtbd0481 WTF52205 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.42 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 987 0 938 F 0.826 3364 0.28 WT 155x10.5 2DOtbd05F/ 3 16.2 79 2.42 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 987 0 938 F 0.826 3364 0.28 2DOtbd0582 WTF52206 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1019 0 968 F 0.826 3364 0.29 WT 155x10.5 2DOtbd06F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1019 0 968 F 0.826 3364 0.29 2DOtbd0683 WTF52207 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1050 0 997 F 0.826 3364 0.3 WT 155x10.5 2DOtbd07F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1050 0 997 F 0.826 3364 0.3 2DOtbd0784 WTF52208 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1081 0 1027 F 0.826 3364 0.31 WT 155x10.5 2DOtbd08F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1081 0 1027 F 0.826 3364 0.31 2DOtbd0885 WTF52209 A/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1113 0 1057 F 0.826 3364 0.31 WT 155x10.5 2DOtbd09F/ 1 16.2 79 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 1113 0 1057 F 0.826 3364 0.31 2DOtbd0986 INS10101 A/ 1 0.6 341 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0.5 988 36 973 F 0.867 3111 0.31 WT 205x23 IBS-IB01F/ 1 0.6 341 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0.5 988 36 973 F 0.867 3111 0.31 IBS-IB0187 INS10202 A/ 1 1.88 326 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0.5 838 38 833 F 0.867 3111 0.27 WT 205x23 IbIB-302F/ 3 1.88 326 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0.5 838 38 833 F 0.867 3111 0.27 IbIB-30288 INS10203 A/ 1 2.56 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 768 37 765 F 0.874 3064 0.25 WT 205x23 IbIB-303F/ 1 2.56 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 768 37 765 F 0.874 3064 0.25 IbIB-30389 INS10204 A/ 1 3.24 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 729 32 723 F 0.887 2984 0.24 WT 205x23 IbIB-304F/ 1 3.24 326 2.5 1 1 2 TZONE 729 32 723 F 0.887 2984 0.24 IbIB-30490 INS10205 A/ 1 3.92 326 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 720 30 713 F 0.899 2904 0.25 WT 205x23 IbIB-305F/ 1 3.92 326 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 720 30 713 F 0.899 2904 0.25 IbIB-30591 INS10406 A/ 1 5.24 260 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.4 685 44 693 F 0.907 2870 0.24 WT 205x19.5 Ib3P2P06F/ 1 5.24 260 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.4 685 44 693 F 0.907 2870 0.24 Ib3P2P0692 INS10507 A/ 1 5.88 255 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.5 655 48 669 F 0.907 2870 0.23 WT 205x19.5 Ib3P2P07F/ 1 5.88 255 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.5 655 48 669 F 0.907 2870 0.23 Ib3P2P0793 INS10608 A/ 1 6.52 255 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.5 626 52 644 F 0.907 2870 0.22 WT 205x19.5 Ib3P2P08F/ 1 6.52 255 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.5 626 52 644 F 0.907 2870 0.22 Ib3P2P08

App I-22STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDID94 INS10609 A/ 1 7.16 255 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.6 596 56 619 F 0.907 2870 0.22 WT 205x19.5 Ib3P2P09F/ 1 7.16 255 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.6 596 56 619 F 0.907 2870 0.22 Ib3P2P0995 INS10710 A/ 1 8.4 191 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.6 536 79 585 F 0.907 2870 0.2 WT 180x16.5 Ib2P1P10F/ 1 8.4 191 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.6 536 79 585 F 0.907 2870 0.2 Ib2P1P1096 INS10811 A/ 1 9 191 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 508 84 563 F 0.907 2870 0.2 WT 180x16.5 Ib2P1P11F/ 1 9 191 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 508 84 563 F 0.907 2870 0.2 Ib2P1P1197 INS10912 A/ 1 9.6 173 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 531 98 598 F 0.907 2870 0.21 WT 180x16.5 Ib2P1P12F/ 1 9.6 173 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 531 98 598 F 0.907 2870 0.21 Ib2P1P1298 INS10913 A/ 1 10.2 173 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 559 103 629 F 0.907 2870 0.22 WT 180x16.5 Ib2P1P13F/ 1 10.2 173 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 559 103 629 F 0.907 2870 0.22 Ib2P1P1399 INS11014 A/ 1 11.36 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 612 0 582 F 0.907 2870 0.2 WT 155x10.5 Ib1P3D14F/ 1 11.36 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 612 0 582 F 0.907 2870 0.2 Ib1P3D14100 INS11015 A/ 1 11.92 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 638 0 606 F 0.907 2870 0.21 WT 155x10.5 Ib1P3D15F/ 1 11.92 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 638 0 606 F 0.907 2870 0.21 Ib1P3D15101 INS11116 A/ 1 12.48 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 665 0 631 F 0.907 2870 0.22 WT 155x10.5 Ib1P3D16F/ 1 12.48 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 665 0 631 F 0.907 2870 0.22 Ib1P3D16102 INS11117 A/ 1 13.04 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 691 0 656 F 0.907 2870 0.23 WT 155x10.5 Ib1P3D17F/ 1 13.04 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 691 0 656 F 0.907 2870 0.23 Ib1P3D17103 INS11218 A/ 1 14.14 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 742 0 705 F 0.907 2870 0.25 WT 155x10.5 IB3D2D18F/ 1 14.14 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 742 0 705 F 0.907 2870 0.25 IB3D2D18104 INS11219 A/ 1 14.67 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 767 0 728 F 0.907 2870 0.25 WT 155x10.5 IB3D2D19F/ 1 14.67 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 767 0 728 F 0.907 2870 0.25 IB3D2D19105 INS11320 A/ 1 15.7 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 815 0 774 F 0.907 2870 0.27 WT 155x10.5 Ib2D2D20F/ 1 15.7 98 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0 815 0 774 F 0.907 2870 0.27 Ib2D2D20106 INS11421 A/ 1 16.76 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 871 0 827 F 0.893 2945 0.28 WT 155x10.5 Ib2DMD21F/ 1 16.76 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 871 0 827 F 0.893 2945 0.28 Ib2DMD21107 INS11422 A/ 1 17.32 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 916 0 871 F 0.879 3033 0.29 WT 155x10.5 Ib2DMD22F/ 1 17.32 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 916 0 871 F 0.879 3033 0.29 Ib2DMD22108 INS11423 A/ 1 17.88 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 976 0 927 F 0.865 3120 0.3 WT 155x10.5 Ib2DMD23

App I-23STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 17.88 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 976 0 927 F 0.865 3120 0.3 Ib2DMD23109 INS11424 A/ 1 18.44 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1049 0 996 F 0.851 3207 0.31 WT 155x10.5 Ib2DMD24F/ 1 18.44 98 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1049 0 996 F 0.851 3207 0.31 Ib2DMD24110 INS21601 A/ 1 19.67 254 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1239 0 1177 F 0.826 3364 0.35 WT 155x19.5 IbMD0101F/ 1 19.67 254 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1239 0 1177 F 0.826 3364 0.35 IbMD0101111 INS21602 A/ 1 20.32 254 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1315 0 1249 F 0.826 3364 0.37 WT 155x19.5 IbMD0102F/ 1 20.32 254 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1315 0 1249 F 0.826 3364 0.37 IbMD0102112 INS21703 A/ 1 20.95 281 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1389 0 1320 F 0.826 3364 0.39 WT 205x19.5 IbMD0103F/ 1 20.95 281 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 1389 0 1320 F 0.826 3364 0.39 IbMD0103113 INS31801 A/ 1 1.2 345 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 918 0 872 F 0.867 3111 0.28 WT 205x23 Ob Bhd01F/ 3 1.2 345 2.42 1 1 1 1&2 0 918 0 872 F 0.867 3111 0.28 Ob Bhd01114 INS31902 A/ 1 1.88 337 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 838 0 796 F 0.867 3111 0.26 WT 205x23 Ob Bhd02F/ 1 1.88 337 2.5 1 1 1 1&2 0 838 0 796 F 0.867 3111 0.26 Ob Bhd02115 INS31903 A/ 1 2.56 337 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 793 11 764 F 0.874 3064 0.25 WT 205x23 Ob Bhd03F/ 1 2.56 337 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 793 11 764 F 0.874 3064 0.25 Ob Bhd03116 INS31904 A/ 1 3.24 337 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 795 31 784 F 0.887 2984 0.26 WT 205x23 Ob Bhd04F/ 1 3.24 337 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 795 31 784 F 0.887 2984 0.26 Ob Bhd04117 INS31905 A/ 1 3.92 337 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 826 50 832 F 0.899 2904 0.29 WT 205x23 Ob Bhd05F/ 1 3.92 337 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 826 50 832 F 0.899 2904 0.29 Ob Bhd05118 INS32006 A/ 1 5.24 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 816 72 844 F 0.907 2870 0.29 WT 205x19.5 OB3P2P06F/ 1 5.24 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 816 72 844 F 0.907 2870 0.29 OB3P2P06119 INS32007 A/ 1 5.88 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 786 71 814 F 0.907 2870 0.28 WT 205x19.5 OB3P2P07F/ 1 5.88 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 786 71 814 F 0.907 2870 0.28 OB3P2P07120 INS32008 A/ 1 6.52 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 756 70 785 F 0.907 2870 0.27 WT 205x19.5 OB3P2P08F/ 1 6.52 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 756 70 785 F 0.907 2870 0.27 OB3P2P08121 INS32009 A/ 1 7.16 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 726 70 756 F 0.907 2870 0.26 WT 205x19.5 OB3P2P09F/ 1 7.16 264 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 726 70 756 F 0.907 2870 0.26 OB3P2P09122 INS32110 A/ 1 8.4 199 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 667 84 714 F 0.907 2870 0.25 WT 180x16.5 OB2P1P10F/ 1 8.4 199 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 667 84 714 F 0.907 2870 0.25 OB2P1P10

App I-24STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDID123 INS32111 A/ 1 9 199 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 639 83 686 F 0.907 2870 0.24 WT 180x16.5 OB2P1P11F/ 1 9 199 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 639 83 686 F 0.907 2870 0.24 OB2P1P11124 INS32112 A/ 1 9.6 180 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 662 91 715 F 0.907 2870 0.25 WT 180x16.5 OB2P1P12F/ 1 9.6 180 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 662 91 715 F 0.907 2870 0.25 OB2P1P12125 INS32113 A/ 1 10.2 180 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 690 89 740 F 0.907 2870 0.26 WT 180x16.5 OB2P1P13F/ 1 10.2 180 2.5 1 1 1 F1&F2 0.7 690 89 740 F 0.907 2870 0.26 OB2P1P13126 SDK10101 A/ 1 19 104 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1168 0 1110 F 0.837 3295 0.34 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb01F/ 1 19 104 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1168 0 1110 F 0.837 3295 0.34 MD Otb01127 SDK10102 A/ 1 19 104 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1164 0 1106 F 0.837 3295 0.34 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb02F/ 1 19 104 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1164 0 1106 F 0.837 3295 0.34 MD Otb02128 SDK10203 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1160 0 1102 F 0.837 3295 0.33 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb03F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1160 0 1102 F 0.837 3295 0.33 MD Otb03129 SDK10204 A/ 1 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1155 0 1098 F 0.837 3295 0.33 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb04F/ 3 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1155 0 1098 F 0.837 3295 0.33 MD Otb04130 SDK10205 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1151 0 1093 F 0.837 3295 0.33 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb05F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1151 0 1093 F 0.837 3295 0.33 MD Otb05131 SDK10206 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1146 0 1089 F 0.837 3295 0.33 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb06F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1146 0 1089 F 0.837 3295 0.33 MD Otb06132 SDK10207 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1142 0 1085 F 0.837 3295 0.33 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb07F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1142 0 1085 F 0.837 3295 0.33 MD Otb07133 SDK10208 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1137 0 1080 F 0.837 3295 0.33 WT 155x10.5 MD Otb08F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1137 0 1080 F 0.837 3295 0.33 MD Otb08134 SDK10309 A/ 1 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1131 0 1074 F 0.837 3295 0.33 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb09F/ 3 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1131 0 1074 F 0.837 3295 0.33 MD Inb09135 SDK10310 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1126 0 1070 F 0.837 3295 0.32 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb10F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1126 0 1070 F 0.837 3295 0.32 MD Inb10136 SDK10311 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1122 0 1066 F 0.837 3295 0.32 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb11F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1122 0 1066 F 0.837 3295 0.32 MD Inb11137 SDK10312 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1118 0 1062 F 0.837 3295 0.32 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb12

App I-25STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGSUSERDEFINEDIDF/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1118 0 1062 F 0.837 3295 0.32 MD Inb12138 SDK10313 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1114 0 1058 F 0.837 3295 0.32 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb13F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1114 0 1058 F 0.837 3295 0.32 MD Inb13139 SDK10314 A/ 1 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1109 0 1054 F 0.837 3295 0.32 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb14F/ 3 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1109 0 1054 F 0.837 3295 0.32 MD Inb14140 SDK10315 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1105 0 1050 F 0.837 3295 0.32 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb15F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1105 0 1050 F 0.837 3295 0.32 MD Inb15141 SDK10316 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1101 0 1046 F 0.837 3295 0.32 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb16F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1101 0 1046 F 0.837 3295 0.32 MD Inb16142 SDK10317 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1097 0 1042 F 0.837 3295 0.32 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb17F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1097 0 1042 F 0.837 3295 0.32 MD Inb17143 SDK10418 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1092 0 1038 F 0.837 3295 0.31 WT 155x10.5 MD Inn18F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1092 0 1038 F 0.837 3295 0.31 MD Inn18144 SDK10519 A/ 1 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1088 0 1034 F 0.837 3295 0.31 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb19F/ 3 19 102 2.42 1 1 1 TZONE 1088 0 1034 F 0.837 3295 0.31 MD Inb19145 SDK10520 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1084 0 1030 F 0.837 3295 0.31 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb20F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1084 0 1030 F 0.837 3295 0.31 MD Inb20146 SDK10521 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1080 0 1026 F 0.837 3295 0.31 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb21F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1080 0 1026 F 0.837 3295 0.31 MD Inb21147 SDK10522 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1075 0 1022 F 0.837 3295 0.31 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb22F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1075 0 1022 F 0.837 3295 0.31 MD Inb22148 SDK10523 A/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1071 0 1018 F 0.837 3295 0.31 WT 155x10.5 MD Inb23F/ 1 19 102 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1071 0 1018 F 0.837 3295 0.31 MD Inb23149 SDK10524 A/ 1 19 3421 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1067 0 1014 F 0.837 3295 0.31 W/T 403x165 MD Inb24F/ 1 19 3421 2.5 1 1 1 TZONE 1067 0 1014 F 0.837 3295 0.31 MD Inb24

App I-26CutoutLABELID LOCTable I.4 Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F Flat Bars for Ship I26 APRIL 2001 09:40:17 PAGE: 1ABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.00 (2000 Rules)SHIP : MidshipLxBxDxd = 194.00x 29.50x 21.60x 7.00(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 2449110.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 3991371.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 9.06(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR FLAT-BAR SUPPORT STIFFENERS OF LONGITUDINALSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 100.00m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 286082.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 208664.(tf-m)Dist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead Force(m) (tf)Support AreasSCFStress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSAs(cm 2 }Ac(cm 2 }fs fL fRiBTM10801 1 1 0.08 0.625 2.42 3.95 6.13 0 90.9 1.5 64 966 971 F 0.867 3111 0.312 0.08 0.625 2.42 3.95 6.13 0 90.9 1 64 966 969 F 0.867 3111 0.31[Weld Throat] 0.08 0.625 2.42 3.95 6.13 [Asw]= 0 1.25 64 0 ***** W 0.867 1970 NaNBTM10802 1 1 0.16 0.625 2.42 3.95 6.12 0 90.9 1.5 64 959 964 F 0.867 3111 0.312 0.16 0.625 2.42 3.95 6.12 0 90.9 1 64 959 961 F 0.867 3111 0.31[Weld Throat] 0.16 0.625 2.42 3.95 6.12 [Asw]= 0 1.25 64 0 ***** W 0.867 1970 NaNBTM10803 1 1 0.24 0.635 2.42 3.94 6.21 0 90.9 1.5 65 954 959 F 0.867 3111 0.312 0.24 0.635 2.42 3.94 6.21 0 90.9 1 65 954 956 F 0.867 3111 0.31[Weld Throat] 0.24 0.635 2.42 3.94 6.21 [Asw]= 0 1.25 65 0 ***** W 0.867 1970 NaNBLG10101 1 1 0.67 0.698 2.3 3.92 6.45 0 48.4 1.5 127 1009 1027 F 0.867 3111 0.332 0.67 0.698 2.3 3.92 6.45 0 48.4 1 127 1009 1017 F 0.867 3111 0.33[Weld Throat] 0.67 0.698 2.3 3.92 6.45 [Asw]= 0 1.25 127 0 ***** W 0.867 1970 NaNfR/PS

App I-27CutoutLABELID LOCDist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead ForceSupport AreasSCFStress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSAs Ac fs fL fRi(m) (tf) (cm 2 } (cm 2 }BLG10102 1 1 1.28 0.73 2.3 3.89 6.69 0 48.4 1.5 131 960 980 F 0.867 3111 0.322 1.28 0.73 2.3 3.89 6.69 0 48.4 1 131 960 969 F 0.867 3111 0.31[Weld Throat] 1.28 0.73 2.3 3.89 6.69 [Asw]= 0 1.25 131 0 ***** W 0.867 1970 NaNDEC10104 2 1 21.6 0.557 2.42 0 0 0 12.2 1.5 0 1375 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.412 21.6 0.557 2.42 0 0 0 12.2 1 0 1375 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41[Weld Throat] 21.6 0.557 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.826 2127 NaNDEC10105 2 1 21.6 0.557 2.42 0 0 0 12.2 1.5 0 1375 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.412 21.6 0.557 2.42 0 0 0 12.2 1 0 1375 1375 F 0.826 3364 0.41[Weld Throat] 21.6 0.557 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.826 2127 NaNDEC10209 2 1 21.6 0.565 2.42 0 0 0 23.3 1.5 0 1370 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.412 21.6 0.565 2.42 0 0 0 23.3 1 0 1370 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41[Weld Throat] 21.6 0.565 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.826 2127 NaNDEC10414 2 1 21.6 0.6 2.42 0 0 0 23.3 1.5 0 1370 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.412 21.6 0.6 2.42 0 0 0 23.3 1 0 1370 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41[Weld Throat] 21.6 0.6 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.826 2127 NaNDEC10519 2 1 21.6 0.61 2.42 0 0 0 23.3 1.5 0 1370 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.412 21.6 0.61 2.42 0 0 0 23.3 1 0 1370 1370 F 0.826 3364 0.41[Weld Throat] 21.6 0.61 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.826 2127 NaNSDK10204 2 1 19 0.64 2.42 0 0 0 18.4 1.5 0 1098 1098 F 0.837 3295 0.332 19 0.64 2.42 0 0 0 18.4 1 0 1098 1098 F 0.837 3295 0.33[Weld Throat] 19 0.64 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.837 2084 NaNSDK10314 2 1 19 0.6 2.42 0 0 0 16.2 1.5 0 1054 1054 F 0.837 3295 0.322 19 0.6 2.42 0 0 0 16.2 1 0 1054 1054 F 0.837 3295 0.32[Weld Throat] 19 0.6 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.837 2084 NaNSDK10519 2 1 19 0.6 2.42 0 0 0 16.2 1.5 0 1034 1034 F 0.837 3295 0.312 19 0.6 2.42 0 0 0 16.2 1 0 1034 1034 F 0.837 3295 0.31[Weld Throat] 19 0.6 2.42 0 0 [Asw]= 0 1.25 0 0 ***** W 0.837 2084 NaNfR/PS

App J-1APPENDIX JFATIGUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SHIP J

App J-2STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOETable J.1 Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Longitudinals for Ship JABS\SAFEHULL\CFATIGUE V6.00 (2000 Rules)SHIP :LxBxDxd = 150.79x 16.31x 11.83x 5.03(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 231939.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 347129.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 5.74(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR LONGITUDINAL STIFFENERSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 77.72m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 94216.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 75632.(tf-m)******** "Net" Ship ******** Local Cf=0.95 Cw=0.75 Long Perm.ID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGS1 BTM10101 A/ 2 0 416 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 5.22 2189 336 2039 F2 0.893 2590 0.79 12x4x22#I-T A1F/ 4 0 416 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 5.22 2189 336 2039 F2 0.893 2590 0.79 A12 BTM10202 A/ 2 0 416 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 5.2 2118 333 1979 F2 0.893 2590 0.76 12x4x22#I-T A2F/ 4 0 416 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 5.2 2118 333 1979 F2 0.893 2590 0.76 A23 BTM10403 A/ 2 1 416 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 5.16 1993 335 1880 F2 0.893 2590 0.73 12x4x22#I-T B2F/ 4 1 416 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 5.16 1993 335 1880 F2 0.893 2590 0.73 B24 BLG10101 A/ 2 1 406 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 5.1 1805 341 1733 F2 0.893 2590 0.67 12x4x22#I-T C1F/ 4 1 406 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 5.1 1805 341 1733 F2 0.893 2590 0.67 C15 BLG10202 A/ 2 2 219 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1788 755 2416 F2 0.893 2590 0.93 12x4x14#I-T C2F/ 4 2 219 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1788 755 2416 F2 0.893 2590 0.93 C26 SHL10201 A/ 2 3 192 2.338 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.28 1982 1085 2913 F2 0.931 2429 1.2 12x4x14#I-T D3F/ 4 3 192 2.338 1 1 1 F1&F2 8.28 1982 1085 2913 F2 0.931 2429 1.2 D37 SHL10202 A/ 2 4 192 2.338 1 1 1 F1&F2 9.74 1941 1418 3191 F2 0.931 2429 1.31 12x4x14#I-T D3USERDEFINEDID

App J-3STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGSF/ 4 4 192 2.338 1 1 1 F1&F2 9.74 1941 1418 3191 F2 0.931 2429 1.31 D38 SHL10403 A/ 2 5 168 2.338 1 0.55 1 F1&F2 12.79 1787 1108 2751 F2 0.931 2429 1.13 10x4x11.5#I-T E2F/ 4 5 168 2.338 1 0.55 1 F1&F2 12.79 1787 1108 2751 F2 0.931 2429 1.13 E29 SHL10404 A/ 2 6 168 2.338 1 0.32 1 F1&F2 11.32 1779 542 2206 F2 0.931 2429 0.91 10x4x11.5#I-T E2F/ 4 6 168 2.338 1 0.32 1 F1&F2 11.32 1779 542 2206 F2 0.931 2429 0.91 E210 SHL10505 A/ 2 7 122 2.338 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 10 1904 554 2335 F2 0.931 2429 0.96 8x4x10#I-T F1F/ 4 7 122 2.338 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 10 1904 554 2335 F2 0.931 2429 0.96 F111 SHL10506 A/ 2 7 122 2.338 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.81 2004 462 2343 F2 0.931 2429 0.96 8x4x10#I-T F1F/ 4 7 122 2.338 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 8.81 2004 462 2343 F2 0.931 2429 0.96 F112 SHL10507 A/ 2 8 122 2.338 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.62 2103 400 2378 F2 0.931 2429 0.98 8x4x10#I-T F1F/ 4 8 122 2.338 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 7.62 2103 400 2378 F2 0.931 2429 0.98 F113 SHL10508 A/ 2 9 122 2.338 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.43 2203 335 2411 F2 0.931 2429 0.99 8x4x10#I-T F1F/ 4 9 122 2.338 1 0.3 1 F1&F2 6.43 2203 335 2411 F2 0.931 2429 0.99 F114 SHS10201 A/ 2 10 125 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1656 793 2326 F2 0.882 2651 0.88 8x4x10#I-T G2F/ 4 10 125 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1656 793 2326 F2 0.882 2651 0.88 G215 SHS10202 A/ 2 11 125 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2091 0 1986 F2 0.855 2804 0.71 8x4x10#I-T G2F/ 4 11 125 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2091 0 1986 F2 0.855 2804 0.71 G216 DEC10101 A/ 2 12 125 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81 8x4x10#I-T StrF/ 4 12 125 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81 Str17 DEC10102 A/ 2 12 125 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81 8x4x10#I-T StrF/ 4 12 125 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81 Str18 DEC10203 A/ 2 12 123 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81 8x4x10#I-TF/ 4 12 123 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.8119 DEC10204 A/ 2 12 123 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81 8x4x10#I-TF/ 4 12 123 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.8120 DEC10205 A/ 2 12 123 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81 8x4x10#I-TF/ 4 12 123 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.8121 DEC10306 A/ 2 12 122 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81 8x4x10#I-TF/ 4 12 122 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.8122 DEC10307 A/ 2 12 122 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81 8x4x10#I-TF/ 4 12 122 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.8123 DEC10308 A/ 2 12 122 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81 8x4x10#I-TUSERDEFINEDID

App J-4STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGSF/ 4 12 122 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.8124 DEC10309 A/ 2 12 122 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81 8x4x10#I-TF/ 4 12 122 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.8125 DEC10410 A/ 2 12 121 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81 8x4x10#I-TF/ 4 12 121 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.8126 DEC10411 A/ 2 12 121 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81 8x4x10#I-TF/ 4 12 121 2.338 1 1 1 1&2 0 2393 0 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.8127 INB10101 A/ 2 1 148 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 0.5 1874 86 1862 F2 0.893 2590 0.72 10x4x11.5#I-T IB AF/ 4 1 148 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 0.5 1874 86 1862 F2 0.893 2590 0.72 IB A28 INB10302 A/ 2 1 146 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 0.5 1865 82 1850 F2 0.893 2590 0.71 10x4x11.5#I-T IB B2F/ 4 1 146 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 0.5 1865 82 1850 F2 0.893 2590 0.71 IB B229 INB10403 A/ 2 1 146 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 0.49 1825 85 1814 F2 0.893 2590 0.7 10x4x11.5#I-T IB B3F/ 4 1 146 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 0.49 1825 85 1814 F2 0.893 2590 0.7 IB B330 INB10504 A/ 2 2 106 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 0.44 1666 96 1675 F2 0.893 2590 0.65 8x4x10#I-T IB B4F/ 4 2 106 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 0.44 1666 96 1675 F2 0.893 2590 0.65 IB B431 INB10705 A/ 2 2 104 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 0.36 1409 76 1410 F2 0.893 2590 0.54 8x4x10#I-T IB C1F/ 4 2 104 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 0.36 1409 76 1410 F2 0.893 2590 0.54 IB C132 INB10806 A/ 2 3 90 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 0.23 1011 55 1013 F2 0.893 2590 0.39 8x4x10#I-T IB C2F/ 4 3 90 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 0.23 1011 55 1013 F2 0.893 2590 0.39 IB C233 INB10807 A/ 2 4 90 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 0.16 787 37 783 F2 0.893 2590 0.3 8x4x10#I-T IB C2F/ 4 4 90 2.338 1 1 2 1&2 0.16 787 37 783 F2 0.893 2590 0.3 IB C234 NBG10101 A/ 4 1 6 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 2034 0 1932 F2 0.893 2590 0.75 4x2.28x3.25#T Gir2F/ 4 1 6 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 2034 0 1932 F2 0.893 2590 0.75 Gir235 NBG20201 A/ 4 1 6 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 1981 0 1882 F2 0.893 2590 0.73 4x2.28x3.25#T Gir4F/ 4 1 6 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 1981 0 1882 F2 0.893 2590 0.73 Gir436 NBG30301 A/ 4 1 82 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 1905 0 1810 F2 0.893 2590 0.7 5x4x7.5#T Gir6F/ 4 1 82 2.438 1 1 1 1&2 0 1905 0 1810 F2 0.893 2590 0.7 Gir637 SDK10101 A/ 2 9 69 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 2052 0 1949 F2 0.92 2473 0.79 5x4x5.75#T 2nd 4F/ 4 9 69 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 2052 0 1949 F2 0.92 2473 0.79 2nd 438 SDK10102 A/ 2 9 69 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1905 0 1810 F2 0.92 2473 0.73 5x4x5.75#T 2nd 4F/ 4 9 69 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1905 0 1810 F2 0.92 2473 0.73 2nd 439 SDK10203 A/ 2 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1759 0 1671 F2 0.92 2473 0.68 5x4x5.75#T 2nd 3USERDEFINEDID

App J-5STF#SafeHullSTF IDTOEID Dist.fromBL(m)SM(cm3)UnsupSpan(m)f R FATIGf RLCt Cy LP# LC# Local StressLong Perm. Stress(m) f RG Factor P S fR/PSLoadRangeRange(kg/cm2)CLASS TermDistr(kg/cm2)SCANT-LINGSF/ 4 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1759 0 1671 F2 0.92 2473 0.68 2nd 340 SDK10204 A/ 2 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1613 0 1532 F2 0.92 2473 0.62 5x4x5.75#T 2nd 3F/ 4 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1613 0 1532 F2 0.92 2473 0.62 2nd 341 SDK10305 A/ 2 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1466 0 1393 F2 0.92 2473 0.56 5x4x5.75#T 2nd 2F/ 4 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1466 0 1393 F2 0.92 2473 0.56 2nd 242 SDK10306 A/ 2 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1339 0 1272 F2 0.92 2473 0.51 5x4x5.75#T 2nd 2F/ 4 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1339 0 1272 F2 0.92 2473 0.51 2nd 243 SDK10307 A/ 2 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1211 0 1151 F2 0.92 2473 0.47 5x4x5.75#T 2nd 2F/ 4 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1211 0 1151 F2 0.92 2473 0.47 2nd 244 SDK10308 A/ 2 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1084 0 1030 F2 0.92 2473 0.42 5x4x5.75#T 2nd 2F/ 4 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 1084 0 1030 F2 0.92 2473 0.42 2nd 245 SDK10409 A/ 2 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 957 0 909 F2 0.92 2473 0.37 5x4x5.75#T 2nd 1F/ 4 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 957 0 909 F2 0.92 2473 0.37 2nd 146 SDK10410 A/ 2 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 843 0 801 F2 0.92 2473 0.32 5x4x5.75#T 2nd 1F/ 4 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 843 0 801 F2 0.92 2473 0.32 2nd 147 SDK10411 A/ 2 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 730 0 693 F2 0.92 2473 0.28 5x4x5.75#T 2nd 1F/ 4 9 68 2.338 1 1 1 TZONE 730 0 693 F2 0.92 2473 0.28 2nd 1USERDEFINEDID

App J-6CutoutLABELID LOCTable J.2 Phase A Fatigue Analysis of Class F2 Flat Bars for Ship J31 DECEMBER 2000 21:33:36 PAGE: 1SHIP :LxBxDxd = 150.79x 16.31x 11.83x 5.03(m)Hull-Girder Moment of Inertia Ivert. 231939.(cm2-m2) Ihoriz. 347129.(cm2-m2)Neutral Axis Height 5.74(m) above baselineSlamming factor for deck and bottom structures, ms= 1.000FATIGUE CONTROL FOR FLAT-BAR SUPPORT STIFFENERS OF LONGITUDINALSS U M M A R YSpecial Location at 77.72m from AP (0.485 L from aft end of L)Scantling Group # 1Range of Wave-induced Bending Moment MW(vert.) 94216.(tf-m) MW(horiz.) 75632.(tf-m)Dist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead Force(m) (tf)Support AreasSCFStress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSAs(cm 2 }Ac(cm 2 }fs fL fRiBTM10101 1 1 0.04 0.764 2.338 5.22 9.55 7.1 28 .5 1 0.5 255 2039 2074 F2 0.893 2590 0.82 0.04 0.764 2.338 5.22 9.55 7.1 28.5 1.25 255 2039 2064 F2 0.893 2590 0.8[Weld Throat] 0.04 0.764 2.338 5.22 9.55 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 255 0 473 W 0.893 1868 0.25BTM10202 1 1 0.21 0.762 2.338 5.2 9.48 7.1 28.5 1.5 253 1979 2015 F2 0.893 2590 0.782 0.21 0.762 2.338 5.2 9.48 7.1 28.5 1.25 253 1979 2004 F2 0.893 2590 0.77[Weld Throat] 0.21 0.762 2.338 5.2 9.48 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 253 0 470 W 0.893 1868 0.25BTM10403 1 1 0.52 0.772 2.338 5.16 9.54 7.1 28.5 1.5 255 1880 1919 F2 0.893 2590 0.742 0.52 0.772 2.338 5.16 9.54 7.1 28.5 1.25 255 1880 1907 F2 0.893 2590 0.74[Weld Throat] 0.52 0.772 2.338 5.16 9.54 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 255 0 473 W 0.893 1868 0.25BLG10101 1 1 0.98 0.776 2.338 5.1 9.48 7.1 28.5 1.5 253 1733 1774 F2 0.893 2590 0.682 0.98 0.776 2.338 5.1 9.48 7.1 28.5 1.25 253 1733 1762 F2 0.893 2590 0.68[Weld Throat] 0.98 0.776 2.338 5.1 9.48 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 253 0 470 W 0.893 1868 0.25BLG10202 1 1 1.83 0.779 2.338 6.07 11.33 7.1 27.5 1.5 311 2416 2461 F2 0.893 2590 0.952 1.83 0.779 2.338 6.07 11.33 7.1 27.5 1.25 311 2416 2447 F2 0.893 2590 0.94[Weld Throat] 1.83 0.779 2.338 6.07 11.33 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 311 0 577 W 0.893 1868 0.31SHL10201 1 1 3.04 0.719 2.338 8.28 14.27 7.1 27.5 1.5 392 2913 2972 F2 0.931 2429 1.22fR/PS

App J-7CutoutLABELID LOCDist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead ForceSupport AreasSCFStress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSAs Ac fs fL fRi(m) (tf) (cm 2 } (cm 2 }2 3.04 0.719 2.338 8.28 14.27 7.1 27.5 1.25 392 2913 2954 F2 0.931 2429 1.22[Weld Throat] 3.04 0.719 2.338 8.28 14.27 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 392 0 727 W 0.931 1750 0.42SHL10202 1 1 3.69 0.798 2.338 9.74 18.65 5.9 22.9 1.5 616 3191 3322 F2 0.931 2429 1.372 3.69 0.798 2.338 9.74 18.65 5.9 22.9 1.25 616 3191 3282 F2 0.931 2429 1.35[Weld Throat] 3.69 0.798 2.338 9.74 18.65 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 616 0 950 W 0.931 1750 0.54SHL10403 2 1 5.27 0.762 2.338 12.79 23.36 5.9 18.7 1.5 492 2751 2848 F2 0.931 2429 1.172 5.27 0.762 2.338 12.79 23.36 5.9 18.7 1.25 492 2751 2819 F2 0.931 2429 1.16[Weld Throat] 5.27 0.762 2.338 12.79 23.36 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 492 0 759 W 0.931 1750 0.43SHL10404 2 1 6.02 0.72 2.338 11.32 19.54 5.9 18.7 1.5 241 2206 2235 F2 0.931 2429 0.922 6.02 0.72 2.338 11.32 19.54 5.9 18.7 1.25 241 2206 2226 F2 0.931 2429 0.92[Weld Throat] 6.02 0.72 2.338 11.32 19.54 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 241 0 372 W 0.931 1750 0.21SHL10505 3 1 6.7 0.644 2.338 10 15.44 5.9 14.8 1.5 213 2335 2357 F2 0.931 2429 0.972 6.7 0.644 2.338 10 15.44 5.9 14.8 1.25 213 2335 2350 F2 0.931 2429 0.97[Weld Throat] 6.7 0.644 2.338 10 15.44 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 213 0 328 W 0.931 1750 0.19SHL10506 3 1 7.31 0.61 2.338 8.81 12.88 5.9 14.8 1.5 178 2343 2358 F2 0.931 2429 0.972 7.31 0.61 2.338 8.81 12.88 5.9 14.8 1.25 178 2343 2353 F2 0.931 2429 0.97[Weld Throat] 7.31 0.61 2.338 8.81 12.88 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 178 0 274 W 0.931 1750 0.16SHL10507 3 1 7.92 0.61 2.338 7.62 11.14 5.9 14.8 1.5 154 2378 2389 F2 0.931 2429 0.982 7.92 0.61 2.338 7.62 11.14 5.9 14.8 1.25 154 2378 2386 F2 0.931 2429 0.98[Weld Throat] 7.92 0.61 2.338 7.62 11.14 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 154 0 237 W 0.931 1750 0.14SHL10508 3 1 8.53 0.606 2.338 6.43 9.34 5.9 14.8 1.5 129 2411 2419 F2 0.931 2429 12 8.53 0.606 2.338 6.43 9.34 5.9 14.8 1.25 129 2411 2417 F2 0.931 2429 0.99[Weld Throat] 8.53 0.606 2.338 6.43 9.34 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 129 0 199 W 0.931 1750 0.11SHS10201 3 1 10.01 0.876 2.338 3.22 6.77 4.9 12.3 1.5 372 2326 2392 F2 0.882 2651 0.92 10.01 0.876 2.338 3.22 6.77 4.9 12.3 1.25 372 2326 2372 F2 0.882 2651 0.89[Weld Throat] 10.01 0.876 2.338 3.22 6.77 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 372 0 480 W 0.882 1910 0.25SHS10202 3 1 10.88 0.91 2.338 0 0 4.9 12.3 1.5 0 1986 1986 F2 0.855 2804 0.712 10.88 0.91 2.338 0 0 4.9 12.3 1.25 0 1986 1986 F2 0.855 2804 0.71[Weld Throat] 10.88 0.91 2.338 0 0 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.855 2017 0DEC10101 3 1 11.85 0.718 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.5 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.812 11.85 0.718 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.25 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81[Weld Throat] 11.85 0.718 2.338 0 0 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.855 2017 0fR/PS

App J-8CutoutLABELID LOCDist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead ForceSupport AreasSCFStress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSAs Ac fs fL fRi(m) (tf) (cm 2 } (cm 2 }DEC10102 3 1 11.88 0.768 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.5 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.812 11.88 0.768 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.25 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81[Weld Throat] 11.88 0.768 2.338 0 0 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.855 2017 0DEC10203 3 1 11.91 0.768 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.5 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.812 11.91 0.768 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.25 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81[Weld Throat] 11.91 0.768 2.338 0 0 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.855 2017 0DEC10204 3 1 11.93 0.762 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.5 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.812 11.93 0.762 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.25 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81[Weld Throat] 11.93 0.762 2.338 0 0 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.855 2017 0DEC10205 3 1 11.95 0.724 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.5 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.812 11.95 0.724 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.25 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81[Weld Throat] 11.95 0.724 2.338 0 0 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.855 2017 0DEC10306 3 1 11.96 0.686 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.5 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.812 11.96 0.686 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.25 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81[Weld Throat] 11.96 0.686 2.338 0 0 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.855 2017 0DEC10307 3 1 11.96 0.686 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.5 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.812 11.96 0.686 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.25 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81[Weld Throat] 11.96 0.686 2.338 0 0 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.855 2017 0DEC10308 3 1 11.97 0.686 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.5 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.812 11.97 0.686 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.25 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81[Weld Throat] 11.97 0.686 2.338 0 0 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.855 2017 0DEC10309 3 1 11.98 0.648 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.5 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.812 11.98 0.648 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.25 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81[Weld Throat] 11.98 0.648 2.338 0 0 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.855 2017 0DEC10410 3 1 11.98 0.61 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.5 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.812 11.98 0.61 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.25 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81[Weld Throat] 11.98 0.61 2.338 0 0 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.855 2017 0DEC10411 3 1 11.98 0.458 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.5 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.812 11.98 0.458 2.338 0 0 3.8 9.5 1.25 0 2273 2273 F2 0.855 2804 0.81[Weld Throat] 11.98 0.458 2.338 0 0 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 0 0 0 W 0.855 2017 0INB10101 2 1 1.37 0.724 2.338 0.5 0.87 7.1 22.5 1.5 28 1862 1863 F2 0.893 2590 0.722 1.37 0.724 2.338 0.5 0.87 7.1 22.5 1.25 28 1862 1862 F2 0.893 2590 0.72fR/PS

App J-9CutoutLABELID LOCDist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead ForceSupport AreasSCFStress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSAs Ac fs fL fRi(m) (tf) (cm 2 } (cm 2 }[Weld Throat] 1.37 0.724 2.338 0.5 0.87 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 28 0 52 W 0.893 1868 0.03INB10302 2 1 1.39 0.686 2.338 0.5 0.82 7.1 22.5 1.5 26 1850 1850 F2 0.893 2590 0.712 1.39 0.686 2.338 0.5 0.82 7.1 22.5 1.25 26 1850 1850 F2 0.893 2590 0.71[Weld Throat] 1.39 0.686 2.338 0.5 0.82 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 26 0 49 W 0.893 1868 0.03INB10403 2 1 1.49 0.728 2.338 0.49 0.85 7.1 22.5 1.5 27 1814 1815 F2 0.893 2590 0.72 1.49 0.728 2.338 0.49 0.85 7.1 22.5 1.25 27 1814 1814 F2 0.893 2590 0.7[Weld Throat] 1.49 0.728 2.338 0.49 0.85 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 27 0 51 W 0.893 1868 0.03INB10504 3 1 1.83 0.658 2.338 0.44 0.7 7.1 17.8 1.5 27 1675 1675 F2 0.893 2590 0.652 1.83 0.658 2.338 0.44 0.7 7.1 17.8 1.25 27 1675 1675 F2 0.893 2590 0.65[Weld Throat] 1.83 0.658 2.338 0.44 0.7 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 27 0 49 W 0.893 1868 0.03INB10705 3 1 2.47 0.626 2.338 0.36 0.54 7.1 17.8 1.5 21 1410 1410 F2 0.893 2590 0.542 2.47 0.626 2.338 0.36 0.54 7.1 17.8 1.25 21 1410 1410 F2 0.893 2590 0.54[Weld Throat] 2.47 0.626 2.338 0.36 0.54 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 21 0 38 W 0.893 1868 0.02INB10806 3 1 3.45 0.61 2.338 0.23 0.34 5.9 14.8 1.5 16 1013 1013 F2 0.893 2590 0.392 3.45 0.61 2.338 0.23 0.34 5.9 14.8 1.25 16 1013 1013 F2 0.893 2590 0.39[Weld Throat] 3.45 0.61 2.338 0.23 0.34 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 16 0 24 W 0.893 1868 0.01INB10807 3 1 4 0.59 2.338 0.16 0.22 5.9 14.8 1.5 10 783 783 F2 0.893 2590 0.32 4 0.59 2.338 0.16 0.22 5.9 14.8 1.25 10 783 783 F2 0.893 2590 0.3[Weld Throat] 4 0.59 2.338 0.16 0.22 [Asw]= 4.8 1.25 10 0 16 W 0.893 1868 0.01SDK10101 4 1 9.13 0.799 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.5 0 1949 1949 F2 0.92 2473 0.792 9.13 0.799 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.25 0 1949 1949 F2 0.92 2473 0.79SDK10102 4 1 9.13 0.788 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.5 0 1810 1810 F2 0.92 2473 0.732 9.13 0.788 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.25 0 1810 1810 F2 0.92 2473 0.73SDK10203 4 1 9.13 0.788 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.5 0 1671 1671 F2 0.92 2473 0.682 9.13 0.788 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.25 0 1671 1671 F2 0.92 2473 0.68SDK10204 4 1 9.13 0.787 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.5 0 1532 1532 F2 0.92 2473 0.622 9.13 0.787 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.25 0 1532 1532 F2 0.92 2473 0.62SDK10305 4 1 9.13 0.736 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.5 0 1393 1393 F2 0.92 2473 0.562 9.13 0.736 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.25 0 1393 1393 F2 0.92 2473 0.56SDK10306 4 1 9.13 0.686 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.5 0 1272 1272 F2 0.92 2473 0.512 9.13 0.686 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.25 0 1272 1272 F2 0.92 2473 0.51SDK10307 4 1 9.13 0.686 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.5 0 1151 1151 F2 0.92 2473 0.47fR/PS

App J-10CutoutLABELID LOCDist.fromBL(m)Long`lSpacing(m)Long`lLength(m)Local LoadRangeHead ForceSupport AreasSCFStress Range(kg/cm2)FATIGCLASSLongTermDistr.FactorPermissibleStress(kg/cm2)PSAs Ac fs fL fRi(m) (tf) (cm 2 } (cm 2 }2 9.13 0.686 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.25 0 1151 1151 F2 0.92 2473 0.47SDK10308 4 1 9.13 0.685 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.5 0 1030 1030 F2 0.92 2473 0.422 9.13 0.685 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.25 0 1030 1030 F2 0.92 2473 0.42SDK10409 4 1 9.13 0.647 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.5 0 909 909 F2 0.92 2473 0.372 9.13 0.647 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.25 0 909 909 F2 0.92 2473 0.37SDK10410 4 1 9.13 0.61 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.5 0 801 801 F2 0.92 2473 0.322 9.13 0.61 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.25 0 801 801 F2 0.92 2473 0.32SDK10411 4 1 9.13 0.458 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.5 0 693 693 F2 0.92 2473 0.282 9.13 0.458 2.338 0 0 4.6 7.3 1.25 0 693 693 F2 0.92 2473 0.28fR/PS

APPENDIX KOPNAV Instruction 4700.7JMaintenance Policy for Naval ShipsDecember 4, 1992K-1

APPENDIX KOPNAV Instruction 4700.7JMaintenance Policy for Naval ShipsDecember 4, 1992References:(a) OPNAVNOTE 4700, Notional Durations, Intervals, and Repair Man-Days for Depot-Level Maintenance Availabilities of United States Navy Ships of 2 Dec 92(b) OPNAVINST 4780.6C, Procedures for Administering Service Craft and Boats in theU.S. Navy(c) OPNAVINST 4720.2E, Policy for Fleet Modernization Program (FMP)(d) MIL-STD-1388, Logistics Support Analysis(e) MIL-P-24534 , Planned Maintenance System: Development of Maintenance RequirementCards, Maintenance Index Pages, and Associated Documentation(f) OPNAVINST 4790.4B, Ships’ Maintenance and Material Management (3-M) Manual1. Purpose. To establish policy and responsibility for determining, authorizing, planning,scheduling, performing, and evaluating maintenance of ships, to ensure quality, safety, andoperational readiness.2. Scopea. This instruction applies to all ships of the United States Navy (active and reserve), exceptcivilian operated ships assigned to the Military Sealift Command. Throughout this instruction,the term “ship” refers to all surface ships, aircraft carriers, submarines, and those patrol andservice craft specified in reference (a). Reference (b) provides policy and guidance formaintenance of service craft and boats not addressed in reference (a).b. The Ship Maintenance Program is one of two major components of the Navy’s program formaintenance and modernization of ships, which, in its entirety, defines and manages the materialcondition requirements and the configuration of Navy ships. The Ship Maintenance Program isdesigned to keep ships at the highest level of material condition practicable, and to providereasonable assurance of their availability for operations to the Fleet Commanders. The secondmajor component, the Fleet Modernization Program (FMP), is designed to maintain the integrityof ship configuration as changes are authorized. While the maintenance and modernizationprograms and budgets are distinct, the programs are closely related in their planning andexecution. This instruction addresses the Ship Maintenance Program, with reference tomodernization, as necessary. The Fleet Modernization Program is addressed by reference (c).c. This instruction applies to the three echelons of maintenance: organizational-, intermediate-,and depot-level. Enclosures (l), (2), and (3), respectively, address these maintenance echelons.3. Policya. Ships shall be maintained in a safe material condition, adequate to allow accomplishment ofassigned missions.K-2

. Maintenance for new acquisition ships, systems, and equipment shall be based on Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) principles in order to achieve readiness objectives in the mostcost-effective manner, as outlined in reference (d). Maintenance plans for in-service ships,systems, and equipment should be reviewed and modified to incorporate RCM principles in areaswhere it can be determined that the expected results will be commensurate with associated costs.c. Condition-Based Maintenance (CBM) diagnostics, inspections, and tests shall be utilized tothe maximum extent practicable to determine performance and material condition of, and toschedule corrective maintenance actions for ships, systems, and equipment. CBM is based onobjective evidence of actual or predictable failure of a ship’s installed systems or components.This includes:(1) Condition-directed maintenance based on objective evidence of actual or potentialfailure, or valid condition trend information.(2) Adjustments to time-directed preventive maintenance such as oil changes, greasing,component software changeouts, and periodic checks based on valid engineering analysissuch as the assessment of the as-found material condition of components or systemswhen they are disassembled for maintenance, or age-reliability analysis.d. Maintenance actions shall be either preventive or corrective. Preventive maintenance actionsshall be selected using RCM principles, which maximize the reliability of ships and minimize thetotal maintenance workload.(1) Preventive maintenance actions are those actions intended to prevent or discoverfunctional failures.(2) Corrective maintenance actions are those actions intended to return or restoreequipment to acceptable performance levels.e. Maintenance actions shall be authorized to be performed by the lowest maintenance echelonthat can ensure proper accomplishment, taking into consideration urgency, priority, capability,capacity, and cost.(1) RCM-applicable and RCM-effective preventive maintenance actions, as defined inreference (e), shall be performed at all maintenance echelons, as authorized. Preventivemaintenance for new acquisition ships, systems, and equipment shall be RCM-developedin accordance with references (d) and (e). Preventive maintenance actions for in-serviceships, systems, and equipment should be reviewed and modified to incorporate RCMprinciples when it can be determined that the expected results will be cost effective.(2) All organizational-level preventive maintenance actions shall be documented onMaintenance Index Pages (MIPs) in the ship’s Planned Maintenance System (PMS) andmanaged by ship’s force in accordance with the Maintenance and Material Management(3-M) system, reference (f).(3) All intermediate- and depot-level preventive maintenance actions shall bedocumented as Master Job Catalog (MJC) items in the Maintenance ResourceManagement System (MRMS), or in an alternate Chief of Naval Operations (CNO)approved maintenance management system, and managed by fleet-designatedsubordinate activities in accordance with fleet guidelines.K-3

(4) Preventive maintenance actions shall be:(a) Detailed on Maintenance Requirements Cards (MRCS) for organizationallevelaccomplishment, and as MJC items for intermediate- and depot-levelaccomplishment.(b) Scheduled in accordance with the 3-M system for organizational-levelaccomplishment.(c) Scheduled in accordance with the Periodic Maintenance RequirementsScheduling Subsystem of MRMS or an alternate CNO-approved maintenancescheduling system for intermediate- and depot-level accomplishment.(d) Accomplished as scheduled.(5) RCM-applicable and RCM-effective corrective maintenance actions may be requiredto restore systems or equipment to full operation, to bring operation to within specifiedparameters, or to ensure safe operations.(a) The decision to perform corrective maintenance shall be based on actualequipment condition.(b) Safety related corrective maintenance is mandatory and shall be accomplishedat the earliest opportunity.(c) The corrective maintenance action selected (i.e., repair, replacement, oralteration) shall be based on optimizing cost and reliability considerations.Execution shall be in accordance with applicable repair or installationstandards or specific technical documentation.f. The Current Ship’s Maintenance Project (CSMP) shall be the primary repository ofinformation concerning the material condition of the ship and shall be maintained by ship’s forcein a complete and current status at all times.(1) The CSMP shall be used by the ship to document all deferred preventive andcorrective maintenance requirements regardless of the source of the requirements.These deferred items shall be validated by ship’s force and entered into the CSMP inaccordance with reference (f) guidelines.(2) The CSMP shall include deferred material deficiencies reported by headquarters orfleet inspections such as Underwater Ship Husbandry Inspections, UnderwayMaterial Inspections, and Propulsion Examining Board Examinations. Wherepractical, deficiencies identified from these inspections should be provided to theship in electronic format compatible with CSMP automated format to avoidimposition of laborious data entry requirements on ship’s force.g. A Maintenance Program shall be developed, within existing infrastructure, for each ship class.The Maintenance Program for each ship class shall:(1) Be defined, for CNO (N85, N86, N87, or N88) approval, in a Maintenance ProgramMaster Plan. The Maintenance Program Master Plan provides a general overview ofthe cognizant Program Executive Offices (PEOs), Direct Reporting ProgramManagers (DRPMs), or Ship Program Manager’s (SPMs) maintenance plan for theship class. It specifies key elements, such as: depot-level availability intervals anddurations, frequency of intermediate-level availabilities, and any special maintenance,maintenance support, or infrastructure requirements.K-4

(2) Be documented in a Class Maintenance Plan (CMP), for Commander, Naval SeaSystems Command (COMNAVSEASYSCOM) approval. For new ship classes, theCMP shall be based on logistics support analysis, reference (d). The CMP is adetailed, comprehensive document for Maintenance Program Master Planimplementation. CMPS, for in-service ship classes, should be reviewed and modifiedto comply with reference (d) when it can be determined that the expected results willbe commensurate with associated costs.(a) The CMP shall include all preventive maintenance actions (organizational-,intermediate-, and depot-level) with engineered periodicities. An engineeredperiodicity is the recommended periodicity for accomplishment of amaintenance action, and is based upon an engineering analysis of all relevanttechnical maintenance history information, including material condition andperformance feedback data.(b) Details concerning development and implementation of Maintenance ProgramMaster Plans and CMPS are provided in enclosure (4).(3) Emphasize the accomplishment of maintenance actions performed on a continuousbasis throughout the ship’s life cycle, using RCM and CBM principles.(4) Emphasize assignment of maintenance actions to the lowest maintenance echelon thatcan ensure proper accomplishment, taking into consideration urgency, priority,capability, capacity, and cost.(5) Provide a selection of special support alternatives. (e.g., rotatable pools, insuranceitem management, or dedicated maintenance husbandry agents, such as PortEngineers or AEGIS Homeport Engineering Teams) whose use would be determinedthrough the evaluation of technical and economic criteria.(6) Minimize the time ships spend in depot maintenance by ensuring that depotmaintenance availability notional intervals and durations are an integral part of boththe acquisition and the life-cycle maintenance strategy for ships, and are determinedby maintenance requirements, and not by anticipated modernization requirements.The installation of new alterations should be planned and scheduled to conform tothese notional depot maintenance intervals and durations. Actual availabilitydurations will be altered as necessary to accomplish all required maintenance andmodernization actions.(7) Ensure that ships and other fleet activities are as self-sufficient as practicable. TheNavy should drive increasingly toward “one way of doing business” for shipmaintenance, authorizing variances only where a compelling case is made andapproved. Self-sufficiency shall not be interpreted as authorization or direction toindependently develop and support class or ship-unique maintenance processes, orinformation systems. Within the framework of this vision, maintenance programsshall utilize the following resources, enhancing self-sufficiency:(a) Reliable on-site or onboard technical decision-making support programs, suchas the Miniature/Microminiature (2M) Electronic Repair Program and MobileTechnical Units (MOTUS), described in enclosures (5) and (6), respectively.(b) Accurate technical information and data about system and equipmentperformance requirements, operating procedures, and maintenance and repairtechnical requirements and procedures. The key to this is the effectiveness ofK-5

the Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) program and the manner in which thatprogram is integrated into the larger Navy maintenance infrastructure.(c) Effective processes and tools to minimize the labor hours required to: identify,locate, extract, and apply information and data required to perform workcorrectly the first time, and to accurately report work completion data.Examples are: the Advanced Technical Information System (ATIS),Maintenance Resource Management System (MRMS), Shipboard NontacticalAuto Data Processing (SNAP) Program, Organizational MaintenanceManagement System (OMMS), and the Advanced Industrial Management(AIM) Program.h. Intermediate Maintenance Activities (IMAs) are fleet assets to be utilized for accomplishmentof maintenance and modernization that is beyond organizational-level capability or capacity, butnot requiring depot-level assets. Intermediate-level maintenance is addressed further inenclosure (2). Maintenance of ship systems and equipment shall be performed by qualifiedpersonnel using correct procedures and material in accordance with technical requirementsissued by the appropriate technical authority. Policy and direction promulgated by the FleetCommanders in Chief (FLTCINCS), COMNAVSEASYSCOM, or their subordinate activitiesshall comply with such technical requirements. FLTCINCS and COMNAVSEASYSCOM shallensure the establishment of procedures addressing deviations in technical requirements. Theseprocedures shall:(1) Ensure that the activity, when finding itself unable to comply with technicalrequirements, recommends to the appropriate technical authority a repair that theactivity considers achievable and that will ensure that the needs of the fleet aresatisfied.(2) Differentiate between categories of repair, and identify, by each category of repair,the appropriate technical authority that can authorize deviation from technicalrequirements.(3) Ensure work does not proceed until concurrence from appropriate technical authorityis received.(4) Ensure cognizant technical authority revises applicable technical requirements, ordocuments a deviation from technical requirements, to reflect resolution of the repair.i. Depot maintenance activities perform maintenance and modernization work that is beyondintermediate-level capability or capacity. Depot-level maintenance is addressed in enclosure (3).j. Ship configuration shall be controlled through a formal change process that provides forupdating of the Ship’s Configuration and Logistics Support Information System (SCLSIS)database.k. Equipment and components installed in Navy ships shall be standardized to the maximumextent practicable to minimize life cycle logistics support costs. This means that maintenanceand modernization changes, as well as new construction changes, should emphasize the use ofequipment and components already supported by the Federal Supply System to the maximumextent practicable, with due consideration to life cycle cost, reliability, and maintainability.K-6

l. Effective Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) and the resources required to implement theMaintenance Program over the life cycle of each new ship class shall be programmed andbudgeted in sufficient time to ensure that support is in place by no later than the end of the leadship’s post-shakedown availability. For systems being introduced for in-service ships, ILSresources shall be programmed and budgeted to ensure support is in place coincident with fleetm. Drydocking shall be planned and scheduled in accordance with the ship’s MaintenanceProgram Master Plan and Class Maintenance Plan. Underwater Ship Husbandry (UWSH)inspection, maintenance, or repair actions shall be planned and accomplished in accordance withreference (j) .(1) In the event drydocking maintenance actions are required before planned, a review ofcurrent UWSH capabilities shall be undertaken by the responsible repair activity todetermine if drydocking is necessary or if emergent drydock time can be reduced costeffectively, by accomplishing repairs with qualified divers using approvedprocedures.(2) Whenever feasible, UWSH maintenance actions should provide permanent repairs toavoid subsequent drydock rework costs . Where permanent repairs are not feasible,temporary repairs shall be accomplished, within technical and cost constraints, tosupport ship operations until the next regularly scheduled drydocking.4. Responsibilitiesa. Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). The CNO is responsible for maintaining the overallreadiness of naval forces. This includes the responsibility for planning and programmingresources required for the acquisition, life cycle management, maintenance, and modernizationof Navy ships.(1) CNO (N43), as the CNO staff (OPNAV) point of contact for all Ship MaintenanceProgram issues that cross Operational Forces Resource Sponsor boundaries, will:(a) Coordinate the Ship Maintenance Program with the Operational Forces ResourceSponsors (N85, N86, N87, and N88), FLTCINCS, COMNAVSEASYSCOM,PEOS, and DRPMs, as required.(b) Concur with all Maintenance Program Master Plans prior to approval bycognizant Operational Forces Resource Sponsors.(c) Assess ship maintenance requirements, identify funding and other programdeficiencies, and recommend resolutions to properly execute the ShipMaintenance Program.(d) Document, via reference (a) , approved Maintenance Program Master Plan depotmaintenance availability notional durations, intervals, and repair man-days for allship classes to be used for scheduling, programming, and budgeting purposes.(e) Approve the location and dates of all CNO-scheduled depot maintenanceavailabilities.K-7

(2) Operational Forces Resource Sponsors (N85, N86, N87, and N88) will:(a) Approve all Maintenance Program Master Plans for their respective platforms andmonitor compliance.(b) Plan and program the resources required to fully support the MaintenanceProgram Master Plans, including: organizational-, intermediate-, and depot-levelmaintenance; ship acquisition; and ship disposition.(3) The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Manpower and Personnel), CNO (Nl), willprovide trained, qualified military personnel to perform maintenance at all levels.b. FLTCINCS. The FLTCINCS are responsible for the material condition of their assigned ships.The FLTCINCS shall:(1) Identify and authorize required maintenance actions, using condition, cost, schedule,and mission trade-offs, as required.(2) Ensure that ship’s force, IMA, and SRF maintenance actions are planned andaccomplished by qualified personnel using correct procedures and materials inaccordance with cognizant technical requirements.(3) Approve those changes to CNO-scheduled depot maintenance availabilitiesauthorized by enclosure (3) .(4) Implement standard maintenance policies between the Atlantic and Pacific fleets.(5) Participate in the development and implementation of each CMP.(6) Promote self-sufficiency of fleet ships and activities.(7) Fund ship systems Direct Fleet Support (DFS) services provided by the Naval SeaSystems Command and its subordinate activities on a cost reimbursable basis.(8) Provide feedback of resource expenditures and as-found material condition to the 3-M System. Resource expenditure feedback is required in detail sufficient forcontinuous improvement of depot-level planning, programming, and budgeting. Asfoundmaterial condition feedback is required in detail sufficient to supportrefinement and validation of technical requirements, to perform engineering analysis,and to schedule subsequent maintenance actions.(9) Comply with additional responsibilities issued in enclosures to this instruction.c. COMNAVSEASYSCOM. As the lead hardware systems commander for ship life cyclemanagement, COMNAVSEASYSCOM shall:(1) Establish Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical (HM&E) and combat systems technicalrequirements and provide the technical support necessary to maintain the materialcondition of all ships.(2) Command the Naval Shipyards (NSYS) and Supervisors of Shipbuilding, Conversionand Repair (SUPSHIPs).(3) Ensure that NSYS and SUPSHIPs execute ship maintenance and modernizationwithin the scope of work authorized, employing prescribed technical and qualitystandards, specifications, and requirements in an efficient manner.K-8

(4) Issue and maintain current Navy equipment drawings, technical manuals, repairstandards, maintenance and test requirements, and process controls as required forship, system, and equipment operation and maintenance.(5) Assist and advise FLTCINCS and Type Commanders (TYCOMS) in Condition-Based Maintenance implementation.(6) Develop RCM-based material condition diagnostic systems needed for more effectivemaintenance decision-making, and develop or integrate information systems requiredto support increased maintenance self-sufficiency of ships and other fleet activities.(7) Manage the ship’s 3-M System as specified in reference (f).(8) Provide ship system DFS services on a cost-reimbursable basis as requested by theFLTCINCS. This support includes advice, instruction, and training of fleet personnelunder the operational control of Fleet Commanders. It also includes reviews, tests,and inspections to evaluate the effectiveness and material condition of ship equipmentand systems.(9) Comply with additional responsibilities issued in enclosures to this instruction.d. PEOS, DRPMs, and SPMS. PEOS, DRPMs, and SPMS shall:(1) Assist and advise FLTCINCS and TYCOMS in condition-based maintenanceimplementation.(2) Develop RCM-based material condition diagnostic systems needed for moreeffective maintenance decision-making, and develop or integrate informationsystems required to support increased maintenance self-sufficiency of ships and otherfleet activities.(3) Issue and maintain current selected record data, ship drawings, and ship-classspecifictechnical manuals.(4) Analyze in-service operational data and maintenance feedback through 3-Mmaintenance data, casualty reports, repair activity discrepancy reports, guarantee andwarranty deficiencies and other reporting sources to determine design and processimprovements and to refine maintenance requirements.(5) Approve those changes to CNO-scheduled depot maintenance availabilitiesauthorized by enclosure (3) .(6) Comply with additional responsibilities issued in enclosures to this instruction.e. Chief of Naval Personnel (CHNAVPERS). CHNAVPERS is responsible for providing trained,qualified, military personnel, as specified by current manpower authorization, to performorganizational and intermediate levels of maintenance.f. Chief of Naval Education and Training (CNET). CNET shall provide effective training inmaintenance skills for military personnel in accordance with reference (p) and modify trainingprograms to enhance quality maintenance as described in enclosure (7). RCM, CBM, and qualitymaintenance concepts and methods shall be included in shipboard watchstanders, equipmentoperators, maintainers, supervisors, planners, and engineering training programs.K-9

APPENDIX LS9086–CN–STM–040Naval Ships’ Technical ManualL-1

APPENDIX LS9086–CN–STM–040Naval Ships’ Technical ManualThe information cited below represents selected extracts from the Naval Ship’s TechnicalManual related to requirements for inspecting the structure of ships in service.Naval Ship’s Technical Manual Chapter 074, Volume 2. Nondestructive Testing of Metals,Qualification and Certification Requirements for Naval Personnel (non-Nuclear)Table 074-11. Mandatory Reference DocumentsIdentificationTitleMIL-STD-1688Fabrication, Welding, & Inspection of HY-80/100 SubmarineApplicationsMIL-STD-1689Fabrication, Welding, & Inspection of Noncombatant ShipStructuresNAVSEA 0900 - LP - 003 - Radiography Standard for Production & Repair Welds9000NAVSEA 0900 - LP - 003 -8000Surface Inspection Acceptance Standards for Metals (NOTE:Includes MT, PT & Visual Inspection)NAVSEA 0900-LP-001 -7000 Fabrication & Inspection of Brazed Piping JointsMIL-STD-278Standard for Welding & Allied Processes on Piping andMachineryMIL-STD-271Requirements for Nondestructive Testing MethodsAWS A2.4American Welding Society: Symbols for Welding andNondestructive TestingNAVSEA 0900 - LP - 999 -9000Acceptance Standards for Surface Finish of Flame or Arc-CutMaterialMIL-STD-248 Welding and Brazing Procedure and PerformanceQualificationNAVPERS 15105Manual of Navy Enlisted ClassificationASTM-E-446Reference Radiographs for Steel Castings Up to 2 Inches inThicknessASTM-E-155Reference Radiographs for Aluminum and MagnesiumCastingsASTM-E-186Reference Radiographs for Heavy Walled (2 to 4-1/2 in.)Steel CastingsASTM-E-272Reference Radiographs for High Strength Copper Base andNickel Copper Alloy CastingsASTM-E-310Radiographs Acceptance Criteria for Tin Bronze CastingsMIL-STD-2195(SH)Inspection Procedures for Detection and Measurement ofDealloying Corrosion on Aluminum Bronze and NickelAluminum Bronze ComponentsL-2

Naval Ship’s Technical Manual Chapter 074, Volume 2. Nondestructive Testing of Metals,Qualification and Certification Requirements for Naval Personnel (non-Nuclear)Table 074-12. Guidance Reference DocumentsVOLUMES I thru %2nd editionHandbookProgrammedHandbooksInstructionIdentification Title PublisherASTM - E - 125 Standard Reference American Society for TestingPhotographs for Magnetic and MaterialsParticle Indications on FerrousCastingsVOLUMES I and 11 Nondestructive Testing American Society for NondestructiveTestingAmerican Society for NondestructiveTestingRadiography in Modern Eastman Kodak CompanyIndustryASTM Std.Methods of Testing Metals— American Society for TestingPart 3and MaterialsSection 1 Welding Handbook American Welding SocietyNo. 1 Living with Radiation U.S. Atomic EnergyCommissionH-55 Quality and Reliability Government Printing OfficeAssurance Handbook NondestructiveTesting Series;RadiographyRecommended PracticeSNT-TC-LAJune 1980 EditionAmerican Society for Non -destructive TestingRecommended PracticeSNT-TC-LAAmerican Society for Non -Destructive Testing Inc.,4153 Arlingate PlazaCaller #28518Columbus, OH 43228-0518L-3

Naval Ship’s Technical Manual, Chapter 079. Damage ControlVolume 4—Compartment Testing and Inspection079–50.1.1 Surface Ship and Submarine Survivability. Structural integrity and compartmenttightness contribute to surface ship and submarine survivability. Structural integrity refers to theability of the ship’s structure to withstand loads without experiencing structural failure. Loss ofstructural integrity generally results in the inability of the ship to perform one or more of itsmissions. Compartment tightness refers to the ability of the compartment boundaries to preventunwanted fluid or gas leakage, which could injure personnel or damage equipment. Ships aredesigned and built with sufficient structural integrity and compartment tightness to survive inboth peacetime and wartime. Operating the ship safely and surviving in both peacetime andwartime depends on maintaining structural integrity and compartment tightness and usingcompartment tightness to protect the ship, its personnel and equipment after damage. Toaccomplish this, a schedule of tests and inspections must be vigorously observed and maintained.079–50.2.12 Structural Integrity. Structural integrity means the ability of the ship’s structure towithstand a variety of loads (forces applied to structure) without experiencing structural failure.If the ship’s structure is damaged, it loses some, or all, of its structural integrity. The followingdamage compromises structural integrity:(a)(b)(c)Corrosion, which reduces the thickness of structure.Bending or buckling of structure. Because ships must operate in waves and with anumber of different loading conditions (weapons or cargo loads), much of the ship’sstructure must be strong both when compressed (pushed together from the ends) andwhen in tension (pulled from the ends). The ability of a structure to stand up tocompression depends on the plate thickness, stiffener size and its configuration. Ifthe structure buckles it loses most of its strength and will no longer supportcompression.Breaks in structural continuity. This includes cracking and holes due to damage orunauthorized cutting. Because ships must operate in waves and with a number ofdifferent loading conditions (weapons or cargo loads), much of the ship’s structuremust be strong both when compressed (pushed together from the ends) and when intension (pulled from the ends). If there are breaks in the ship’s structure, it will nolonger be able to resist tension. Shipboard structure is discussed in NSTM Chapter100, Hull Structures.079-53.1 Applicability079-53.1.1 Surface Ship structural integrity testing and inspection and tightness testing andinspection requirements are referenced in Table 079-53-1.L-4

Table 079-53-1. Source Documents for Compartment Inspectionand Test Requirements for Surface ShipsNaval Ships’ Technical ManualGeneral requirements forcompartment inspection.Inspection of InfrequentlyEntered Spaces – IncludesDouble–bottoms, Voids,Cofferdams, BallastTanks, Potable Water, ReserveFeed Tanks, Fuel Tanks, JP–5Tanks and Gasoline TanksInspection for Corrosion –Includes General Corrosion,Pitting, Exfoliation, Galvanic,Stress, Fretting, CreviceCorrosion of Bilges, Galley,Scullery, Tanks, Voids andShaft AlleyInspections for Corrosion andStructural DamageDamageControl:Compartment Testing andInspectionInspections, Tests, Recordsand ReportsInspections, Tests, Recordsand ReportsNSTM 079, Volume 4 DOCNO: S9086–CN–STM–040NSTM 090 DOC NO: S9086–CZ–STM–000NSTM 090 DOC NO: S9086–CZ–STM–000Hull Structure NSTM 100 DOC NO: S9086–DA–STM–000 NSN: 0901–LP–100–0010Fuel Tank Inspection and Ship Fuel and Fuel Systems NSTM 541 DOC NO: S9086–CleaningSN–STM–010JP–5 Tank Tank Inspection and Cleaning NSTM 542 DOC NO: S9086–SP–STM–010Gasoline/MOGAS Storage Tank Flush NSTM 542 DOC NO: S9086–SP–STM–010Lubricating Oil Flushing of Lube Oil System NSTM 262 DOC NO: S9086–H7–STM–010Collection, Holding andTransferTank Preservation Preservation of Ships inServiceInspection NSTM 593 DOC NO: S9086–T8–STM–010NSTM 631 DOC NO: S9086–VD–STM–010 V1, V2, V3PLANNED MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTSCompartment Visual Inspect compartment/space asInspectionapplicable to work center(DCPO CompartmentInspection)Compartment Sonic Perform ultrasonic inspectionInspection (SI)of watertight and airtightboundariesMRC 62 W31A N (All ships)MRC 97 B1WL N (All ships)L-5

Collective Protection System(CPS)Boundaries Perform zonepressurization test of CPSsystemL-6MRC C1XP on MIP 5121/017MRC B7DR on MIP 5121/013JP–5 Storage Tanks Clean and Inspect MRC X98W on MIPS5420/Z01, 5420/006,5420/008Request depot clean, inspect MIP 1231/001and preserveJP–5 Service (Head) Tanks Clean and Inspect MRC X98W on MIPS5420/Z01, 5420/006,5420/008MRC C1BE on MRC1231/002JP–5 Emergency Service(Emergency Head) TanksClean and inspect MRC C1BE on MIP 1230/002Request repair activity to gas MIP 1230/Z01 MIP 1230/001free, clean and inspectJP–5 Drain/Sump/Clean and inspect MRC X98W on MIP–Contamination Tank5420/Z01, 5420/006,5420/008Fuel Oil Cargo Tank Clean and inspect MRC B6NG on MIP 1231/004Fuel Oil Storage Tank –Uncompensated SystemsClean and inspect MRC B6NG on MIP 1231/004MRC A9QT on MIP 1230/004MRC Z24M on MIP 1231/002Request repair activity/depotto clean and inspectMIP 1231/004MIP 1230/005Diesel Fuel Marine Tank Clean and inspect MRC X93N on MIP 1231/001Request depot clean, inspect MIP 1231/001and preserveFuel Oil Storage Tanks –Compensated SystemRequest repair activity to gas–free and inspect one bankMIP 1230/Z01MIP 1230/001Fuel Oil Service Tank (Head Clean and inspect MRC B6NG on MIP 1231/004Tank), Emergency ServiceMRC X78F on MIP 1230/002TankMRC C1BE on MIP 1230/002(Emergency Head Tank), andFuel Gravity Feed TankMRC A9QS on MIP 1230/004Request repair activity to gas–free, clean and inspectMIP 1230/Z01MIP 1230/001Request depot clean, inspect MIP 1230/005and preservePotable Water Tank(s) Clean and inspect MRC A9QW on MIP1230/004MRC B6NH on MIP 1231/004Request depot inspect and MIP 1231/001preserveFeedwater Tank Clean and inspect MRC A9QW on MIP

1230/004Contaminated Oil Tank Clean and inspect MRC B6NJ on MIP 1231/004MRC Y73C on MIP 1231/001Request depot clean, inspect MIP 1230/005preserveBallast Tanks Clean and inspect MRC X78G on MIP 1230/002MRC Z77X on MIP 1230/003MRC A9QU on MIP1230/004Request depot clean, inspectand preserveMIP 1230/005MIP 1231/001Double Bottom Tanks Clean and inspect unused MRC X78G on MIP 1230/002tanksMRC Z77X on MIP 1230/003Voids and Cofferdams Clean and inspect MRC X78G on MIL 1230/002MRC Z77X on MIP 1230/003MRC A9QV on MIP1230/004Lube Oil Storage Tank Clean and inspect MRC C3VN on MIP 1230/004Request depot clean, inspectand preserveMIP 1231/001MIP 1230/005Waste Water Tank Clean and inspect MRC Y73C on MIP 1231/001Contaminated, Holding and Request repair activity cleanTransfer Tankand inspectMIP 5931/001MIP 5931/002MIP 5931/005MIP 5931/006MIP 5931/008MIP 5931/015MIP 5931/016MIP 5931/017MIP 5931/018MIP 5931/021079–53.2 Structural Integrity.079–53.2.1 Recognizing Structural Concerns. Structural aspects of cutting holes,watertightness, shoring, storm damage, cracking, deflection of structure, ordnance foundationsand weight changes are given in NSTM Chapter 100, Hull Structures. NSTM Chapter 100 alsoprovides requirements for shipyard structural examination.079–53.3.7 Incidental Inspections. When performing planned maintenance listed in Table 079–53–1, entry into infrequently entered tanks, voids, cofferdams or other compartments should beused as an opportunity for a complete material inspection. If this is not possible, workers shouldbe alert for material discrepancies, particularly of the preservation system, and list them forcorrection.L-7

Naval Ships’ Technical Manual, Chapter 081Waterborne Underwater Hull Cleaning of Navy Ships081–1.1.1.1 Total ship performance and Fleet capability can be enhanced by waterborne cleaningand maintenance (in place of drydocking for cleaning). This practice increases ship availabilityand minimizes associated costs. Removal of fouling while the ship is waterborne can restoremost, if not all, of the post-drydocking performance and economy of operation. Regular hullcleaning prevents calcareous fouling from progressing to a point where fouling damagesunderlying anticorrosive paint coatings. The specific advantages are described in the followingparagraphs.081–1.1.5 Extended Paint Service Life. The service life of a properly applied non-ablativevinyl anti-fouling paint system, normally 2 years, can be extended to as much as 7 or more yearswhen supported over its lifetime by regularly scheduled inspections and periodic cleanings aspart of the hull cleaning program. The service life of a properly applied ablative antifouling paintsystem, normally 5 to 7 years, can be maintained and extended when supported over its lifetimeby regularly scheduled inspections and periodic cleanings as part of the hull cleaning program.081–1.1.6 Corrosion Control. Calcareous fouling accelerates paint system failure, therebyincreasing the hull structure’s susceptibility to corrosion.081–1.3.4 Docking Block Bearing Surfaces. The unpainted surfaces that rested on the dockingblocks during the most recent drydocking are more susceptible to fouling than the rest of theunderwater body. These surfaces often can be identified by the sharp delineation of fouling attheir boundaries. Fouling ratings of FR–70 or above are common over these bearing surfaces.Particular attention to hull plating condition is critical in these areas because of their greatersusceptibility to corrosion.081–2.1 Cleaning Interval Criteria and Scheduling081–2.1.1 General. Since the effects of fouling on speed and power may vary among shipclasses, and since the rates of fouling growth will vary with the condition of the antifouling paintsystem, the quality and number of prior cleanings, and the ship’s geographical area andoperational profile, no specific cleaning intervals can be stated. It is therefore imperative that allships be scheduled for precleaning inspection on regular intervals to determine if cleaning isnecessary. Delaying full hull cleaning to the point where a significant amount of hard fouling hasformed (fouling rating (FR) 50 and above for non-ablative anti-fouling paints; FR-40 for ablativeand self–polishing paints) can result in damage to the paint system.081–2.1.1.1 For hull cleaning and scheduling purposes, the following definitions apply:FULL CLEANING: The term full cleaning refers to the cleaning of the entire underwater hullsurface (that is, painted surfaces), propellers, and shafts.INTERIM CLEANING: The term interim cleaning refers to the cleaning of propellers and shaftsonly. Interim cleanings are normally scheduled for all ships between regular full cleanings totake advantage of the significant fuel savings benefits of operating with clean, smooth runninggear. Approximately 50 percent of the entire fuel savings benefit of cleaning an entire hull (thatL-8

is, full cleaning) is attributable to the cleaning of propellers and shafts. All ships, irrespective ofthe hull coating formulation, will benefit from routine interim cleanings and inspections.081–2.1.8.1 Should areas of significant paint failure be discovered during a precleaning orpostcleaning hull inspection, the painted areas of the hull shall not be subjected to furthercleaning without specific Type Commander (TYCOM) approval. A guide for assessing risk tofailing paint is provided in Table 081–2–1. Assistance in determining severity of failure and hullprotection is provided in paragraph 081–2.1.9, Table 081–1–2, and Figure 081–1–2.081–2.1.9 Hull Protection Systems. The two systems that protect a ship’s hull from corrosiondeterioration are the anticorrosive paint system and the impressed current or sacrificial anodecathodic protection system. The interaction of these two systems and their ability to adequatelyprotect the hull from corrosion is interdependent on several factors. Because hull cleaninginspections reveal the most comprehensive information on these system activities, thresholds areprovided which indicate marginal or failing hull protection systems. The threshold for shipsoutfitted with impressed current cathodic protection systems is 10 percent bare metal observedon the underwater hull. Thresholds for ships with sacrificial anode systems are 5 percent baremetal or an observation of any inactive anodes. For ships with sacrificial anode systems, a hullpotential survey should be conducted whenever either of these thresholds is observed.L-9

Naval Ship’s Technical Manual Chapter 090, Inspections, Tests, Records, and Reports090-1.3 Materiel Inspections of Active and Inactive Ships and Service Craft. As required byTitle 10 U.S. Code 7304 and Article 0321, U.S. Navy Regulations, the Board of Inspection andSurvey (INSURV) shall:• Examine each naval ship at least once every 3 years, if practicable, to determine itsmateriel condition.• Report any ship found unfit for continued service to higher authority.• Perform other inspections and trials of naval ships and service craft as directed by theChief of Naval Operations (CNO). Surveys are directed by CNO on an individual basis.090-1.51 Inspection of Infrequently Entered Spaces. Frequently entered spaces are inspectedon a regular schedule; however, some infrequently entered spaces are inspected only whenconsidered necessary by the Operational Commander. The special precautions observed prior toentering or working such spaces are described in paragraphs 090-1.52 through 090-1.54.090-1.52 Double-Bottoms, Voids, Cofferdams, and Ballast Tanks. Unless special inspectionsare necessary at more frequent intervals because of unusual conditions or because of suspectedunsatisfactory conditions, ballast tanks (except ballast tanks used also for fuel) and unuseddouble-bottom tanks, voids, and cofferdams shall be inspected at scheduled drydockings.Specific attention shall be given to inspecting tank sounding tubes and striker plates. There havebeen instances where a sounding bob has worn a hole, first through the striker plate and thenthrough the hull plating. For inert gas-filled cofferdams, inspections are required only duringscheduled drydockings or when work is necessary. In instances where severe corrosion ispresent upon inspection and corrective measures are taken, the affected space shall bereinspected six months later to ensure that corrosion has not recurred. Maintenance RequirementCards (MRCS) shall be used where applicable and pertinent materiel conditions reported onOPNAV Form 4790/2K.090-1.53 Freshwater and Reserve Feed Tanks. Double bottoms and tanks ordinarily filledwith fresh water (including associated check valves in tank overflow piping, sounding tubes,striker plates, and terminals of air escape piping) shall be inspected at a naval shipyard duringscheduled drydockings or when emptied and opened for any purpose. Information regarding themateriel condition of these tanks and associated structures should be recorded on OPNAV Form4790/2K for inclusion in the Maintenance Data System.090-1.54 Fuel Tanks and JP-5 Fuel and Gasoline Tanks. Instructions for detailed inspectionof fuel tanks are contained in NSTM Chapter 541, Petroleum Fuel Stowage, Use and Testing,and for JP-5 fuel and gasoline tanks in NSTM Chapter 542 (9150), Gasoline and JP-5 FuelSystems. MRCs shall be used where applicable.090-1.55 Inspection for Corrosion. Visual inspection of most compartments or machinery forcorrosion will indicate whether corrosion-related base metal deterioration has occurred. If themetal is coated with paint or some other corrosion-resistant material, inspection can indicate theextent of coating failure. If a partial failure is in evidence, the inspector will determine thepercentage of ineffective coating and the extent of corrosion deterioration of base metal. NavalL-10

Ships Technical Manual Chapter 631, Preservation of Ships in Service (SurfacePreparation and Painting) gives criteria for identifying coating failures.090-1.56. Nondestructive testing to determine the extent of corrosion damage shall beperformed where the visual examination indicates damage that could affect system operation. Ifnondestructive testing is required to support the visual inspection, consult NSTM Chapter 074volume 2, Nondestructive Testing of Metals, Qualification and Certification Requirements forNaval Personnel, for general guidance on the extent of damage permitted before repair isrequired. The fact that inspected metal surfaces show indications of corrosion attack shall because for implementing corrosion control procedures as described in NSTM Chapter 631 orcorrosion repairs in NSTM Chapter 074 volume 2, or both, as appropriate.090-1.57. It is vital for inspection personnel to identify the type and extent of corrosion sothat appropriate action can be taken to prevent catastrophic failure. Most ship corrosion iselectrochemical and occurs in the presence of an electrolyte such as seawater. It is usuallyaccelerated in areas where dissimilar metals are in proximity. Further information oncharacteristics of electrochemical corrosion are available in Chapter 633 (9190), Preservation ofShips in Service (Cathodic Protection). Categories of types of corrosion most common to navalships are described in paragraphs 090-1.58 through 090-1.64.090-1.58 General Corrosion Attack. General corrosion attack is usually associated with auniform surface deterioration over an extensive area.090-1.59 Pitting. Pitting attack on a metal surface takes the form of deep cavities of smalldiameter. It may be localized, or may cover larger areas. Pitting may be found on both ferrousand nonferrous metals and their alloys.090-1.60 Exfoliation Attack. Exfoliation attack is a type of corrosion deterioration resulting inseparation of a metal into thin layers or foils, which can usually be peeled from the surface.090-1.61 Galvanic or Dissimilar Metal Corrosion Attack. When two dissimilar metals, suchas aluminum and steel, are coupled together and subjected to a corrosive environment (such aswater, salt spray, stack gas, or cleaning solutions), the more active metal (aluminum) becomesthe anode and corrodes through exfoliation or pitting.090-1.62 Stress Corrosion Cracking. Stress corrosion cracking results from the simultaneousaction on a susceptible metal or alloy of a sustained static load and a corrosive environment. It isparticularly characteristic of high strength aluminum alloys, certain low strength alloys, and highstrength steels. Cracks may be intergranular (along grain boundaries) or transgranular (acrossgrains).090-1.63 Fretting Corrosion. Fretting corrosion (high impingement/abrasion) is a type ofattack that takes place when two heavily loaded surfaces in contact with each other (usuallymachinery parts) are subjected to either slight vibration or oscillation. The small particles thatare constantly being removed from the rubbing surfaces create the abrasive action responsible forthe corrosion attack.L-11

090-1.64 Crevice Corrosion. Crevice corrosion is usually a pitting attack caused by the greaterconcentration of dissolved oxygen in an electrolyte such as water, seawater, or cleaning solutionstrapped in a crevice, compared to the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the rest of theelectrolyte.090-1.65 Detection of Corrosion Attack. The occurrence or frequent recurrence ofelectrochemical corrosion attack in any particular compartment or specific piece of equipment orhardware is generally attributable to the presence of an electrolytic solution (seawater).Corrosion inspection shall therefore be conducted with great care in those places where certainenvironmental or design characteristics aggravate the corrosion problem. Some adverse featuresof these design characteristics will usually involve:1. Seawater splash2. Sea (salt) spray3. Poor drainage4. High humidity/poor ventilation5. Dissimilar metal connections6. High impingement/abrasion.090-1.66 Critical Inspection Areas. Examples of corrosion-susceptible areas are described inparagraphs 090-1.67 through 090-1.72. Not all shipboard areas with potential corrosion problemsare included.090-1.67 Bilges (Fire Rooms, Engine Rooms, Diesel Engine Rooms, Pumprooms). Becauseof high humidity, seawater, and corrosive solutions present in bilges, it is important that controlinspections be made regularly. Components and equipment requiring careful attention include:1. Suction Pumps2. Foundations and machinery supports3. Boiler air casings4. Galvanic anodes090-1.68 Galley and Scullery. Structures and equipment in galleys and sculleries aresusceptible to electrochemical corrosion attack. Joined dissimilar metals, in particular, should becarefully inspected.090-1.69 Tanks and Voids. Under ordinary conditions all voids, cofferdams, and doublebottomcompartments, except those specially fitted or designated for carrying reserve feed,ballast water, fuel, diesel oil, or lubricating oils, shall be kept dry as much as practicable. Theseareas are normally protected by organic coatings and shall be inspected for paint failure such asflaking, blistering, peeling, and general lifting. The substrate metal surface shall also beinspected for corrosion. For this purpose, a knife or sharp instrument may be used to lift thepaint to determine if the rate of corrosion attack on the underlying metal is accelerating.L-12

090-1.70 Shaft Alley. Particular emphasis shall be placed during shaft alley inspections on:1. Pump suction2. Bearing and machinery foundations3. Restricted and nondraining areas.090-1.71 Oilers. In oilers, doublebottom compartments, except those designated for carryingreserve feed water, ballast water, fuel, diesel oil, or lubricating oils, shall routinely be kept dry.Use of these compartments for storage of additional fresh water or for seawater ballast fortrimming purposes shall be avoided except in cases of necessity. Cofferdam compartments shallbe kept dry except where directed and approved. Cofferdams adjacent to cargo gasoline tankswill be kept completely filled with fresh water; this water should be slightly alkaline to minimizecorrosion. This prevents seepage of gasoline into the cofferdams when gasoline cargo is carried.It also prevents the accumulation of gasoline vapor in the cofferdam even when the tanks areempty. This precaution shall be taken whether the gasoline tanks are full or empty. The carryingof fresh water in the cofferdam between cargo fuel tanks and a fire room is permissible ifnecessary to prevent oil leakage or to enhance fire protection. The water shall be maintained atsuch height in cofferdams as the Commanding Officer deems necessary.090-1.72 Miscellaneous Areas. In addition to the corrosion-susceptible areas listed, otherspaces, areas, compartments, hardware, and equipment requiring critical scrutiny for corrosionattack include:Aluminum bulkhead stiffenersAluminum and steel joints (interior wet spaces and exterior)Aluminum decking (exterior and interior), fan rooms, and underneath deck tilePipe bulkhead penetrationsPipe and wire clampsSafety rail fittingsHelicopter deck tiedown fittingsCertain areas directly exposed to stack gases, such as radar supports.090-1.73 Watertight Integrity Tests. A planned program for conducting watertight integritytests and inspections shall be instituted so that all spaces are covered during an operating cycle,including a routine shipyard overhaul. Chapter 079 volume 4, (9880, Sect IV), CompartmentTesting and Inspection, specifies types and cycles of testing. A mandatory schedule in the formof a plan of watertight integrity tests and inspections has been prepared by NAVSEA for mostships. A compartment shall not be air-tested unless specified in this schedule.090-1.74 Inspection of Safety Devices. Mechanical, electrical, or electronic safety devices,installed for the protection of machinery equipment or personnel, shall be inspected at suitableregular intervals in accordance with PMS and whenever warranted by unusual circumstances orconditions. Whenever practicable, such inspection shall include operation of the safety devicewhile the equipment or unit is in actual operation.090-1.75 Inspection by a Shipyard. Examination of a structure by a shipyard, and the requiredreports, are to be in accordance with Chapter 100, Hull Structures. Materiel Inspections requiredL-13

during drydocking and the required reports are listed in Chapter 997, Docking Instructions andRoutine Work in Drydock.090-1.76 Inspection of Wood Hull Ships. Inspection of wood-hull ships is covered in Chapter100, Hull Structures.Naval Ship’s Technical Manual Chapter 100, Hull Structures100-2.21 Gun Foundations. After gun firing, gun foundations shall be examined to determinewhether any or all of the following adverse effects have occurred:1. Loosening of hold down bolts2. Elongation of hold down bolts3. Indication of excessive strain in foundation girders and connections, such as crackedpaint or welds, or loose rivets4. Indication of excessive strains on the stanchions and their connections100-2.22 Any excessive vibration of gun foundations, which makes rapid firing of the gunseither difficult or uncertain, shall be reported to NAVSEA on Report of Equipment Failure,Report Symbol 9120-1 (NAVSEA 3621).100-2.23 No structural modification in way of or affecting the structural strength and rigidity ofordnance foundations shall be undertaken without NAVSEA approval.100-2.24 Gun Director and Missile Launcher Foundations. Gun director and missile launcherfoundations shall be inspected periodically for alignment to determine the following:1. Foundation structure has not been distorted2. Hold-down bolts have not loosened3. Bolt holes have not become elongated4. No excessive vibration exists100-2.31 Shipyard Structural Examination100-2.32 General. When a ship is assigned availability for repairs, the repair activity shall makean inspection of the ship’s structure when evidence of severe deterioration has been reported bythe Commanding Officer. Repairs shall be based on criteria that have been established for suchexaminations. These criteria are described in the following paragraphs.100-2.33 General Criteria. Strength members of portion of strength members, which havesuffered a reduction in cross sectional area of 25 percent of greater from their original, shall becropped out and replaced. In cases where material deterioration is limited to small areas (lessthan two square feet), repairs may be accomplished by welding in lieu of replacement.100-2.34 Scattered pits of depth at least 25 percent, but not greater than 45 percent, of originalthickness may be repaired by welding. Repairs to restore thickness of existing structure byL-14

cladding or surfacing shall be accomplished by the metal arc welding process as set forth inChapter 074, Welding and Allied Processes.100-2.35 Where galvanized plating was installed, it must be replaced with galvanized plating, orcoated, over abrasive blasted surfaces, with inorganic zinc type paint in accordance with MIL-P,23236, class 3 post-curing type.100-2.36 Special Criteria. For certain ship classes, specific structural inspection and renewalcriteria have been established. Check off lists also have been prepared for some of these shipclasses and are available from the cognizant planning yards and Type Commanders.Naval Ship’s Technical Manual Chapter 631, Preservation of Ships in ServiceVolume 1. GeneralSection 1. General Information631–2.8.2 Safety Precautions and Requirements for Abrasive Blasting. The safetyprecautions and requirements that shall be taken to prevent introduction of abrasive-blastingmaterials into ship spaces and unprotected equipment, and to prevent injury to personnel andproperty damage, are described in the following paragraphs. These precautions apply to allabrasive blasting operations on or within the vicinity of naval ships undergoing any type ofavailability. The Commissioned Submarine and the Commissioned Surface Ship General ReactorPlant Overhaul and Repair Specifications (NAVSEA 0989–LP–037–2000 and 0989–LP–043–0000), respectively, shall be consulted for additional precautions before areas outboard of thereactor compartment or machinery spaces of nuclear powered ships are blasted with abrasives.631–2.8.2.1.3. The entire area to be blasted shall be visually inspected. Heavily rusted orcorroded areas, damaged metal, and holes in the structure or piping shall be checked todetermine if the technical examination is warranted, and for possible repair prior to blasting.Abrasive blasting hoses routed through compartments shall be identified by an appropriatelymarked sign posted in each compartment, warning against damaging the hoses.631–2.8.2.2 Postoperational Requirements. After any blasting or contamination of shipinterior, the equipment or components blasted or contaminated by abrasive dust shall be cleanedand tested in accordance with the applicable NSTM chapter prior to being put into service. Theentire area shall be visually inspected for pits, scabs, and scars. Suspected wall thicknessreductions shall be reported for further technical examination in accordance with NSTM Chapter100, Hull Structures, and NSTM Chapter 505, Piping Systems.L-15

APPENDIX MUnderwater Ship Husbandry ManualS0600-AA-PRO-0100910-LP-018-0350, Revision 2October 1, 1998M-1

APPENDIX MUnderwater Ship Husbandry ManualS0600-AA-PRO-0100910-LP-018-0350, Revision 2October 1, 1998Chapter 17 Underwater Ship Husbandry Inspection ProceduresSection 1 Introduction17-1.2 Scope.17-1.2.1 This chapter addresses the personnel, equipment, and documentation requirements forUWSH inspections, using non-invasive procedures and techniques. The term non-invasive meansthat the diver does not remove any cover plates or disassemble any portion of the system duringthe inspection. Non-invasive inspections are divided into two categories: Level 1 inspectionsand Level 2 inspections.17-1.2.2 Level 1 inspections are stern-to-stem, non-invasive inspections of the entire hull and itsappendages. Level 1 inspections are typically routine, scheduled inspections. These inspectionsmay be performed for regularly scheduled maintenance assessment, post-deployment conditionassessment, or damage assessment following a collision, grounding, or other suspected mishap. Itis also used as a pre- and post-hull cleaning inspection.17-1.2.3 Level 2 inspections are system-specific, non-invasive inspections. Level 2 inspectionsusually result from either a deficiency discovered during a Level 1 inspection or from a problemreported by the ship.17-1.2.4 A third level of inspection, Level 3, are system-specific, invasive procedures requiringsome amount of disassembly of the system or component to complete the inspection. Level 3inspections are outside the scope of this chapter. Level 3 inspections are covered in systemspecificchapters of this manual.17-1.3 APPLICABILITY.17-1.3.1 The Level 1 and 2 inspection procedures covered in this manual are applicable to allclasses of active surface ships and submarines for which the procedures have been completed. Alist of current inspection procedures can be found in the table of contents. As additionalprocedures are developed for other ship classes, this table will be revised.17-1.3.2 The information and procedures contained in this chapter are not intended to duplicateor supersede information contained in various system technical manuals, the U.S. Navy DivingManual or the Naval Ship's Technical Manual (NSTM).M-2

17-1.3.3 Certification as a Level 1 or 2 Inspector under this chapter does not imply certificationunder other commercial or military standards (e.g., ASNT, MIL-STD-271).17-1.4 MANUAL LAYOUT.17-1.4.1 This chapter is intended to serve two distinct purposes: as a general information andtraining guide and as a collection of inspection procedures for specific ship classes. The generalinformation section includes references and discusses inspection equipment, personnelrequirements, inspection techniques, (e.g., tag outs, positioning and locating), the inspectionprocess, post-inspection requirements, and safety. Each separate ship class section includes ageneral hull description, a description of major hull components pertinent to that class, and Level1 and Level 2 inspection procedures.17-1.4.2 Level 1 procedures are organized as follows.17-1.4.2.1 Procedures are given in the order inspection items are found from stern to stem.17-1.4.2.2 Each ship section contains a “Plan and Profile” drawing of the ship. This figure showskey inspection items and their approximate frame locations. Inspection items are numbered tocorrespond with an inspection checklist (discussed below).17-1.4.2.3 Each ship section also includes a “Checklist of Major Hull Components,” which canbe used as an on-site reference. For each inspection item, the table lists the Plan and Profiledrawing reference number, name of the item, system served, docking plan reference number,exact hull location (closest frame and distance from the centerline), and size of the opening. Aspace is also provided to record the condition found.17-1.4.2.4 The Level 1 inspections and the checklists detailed in this manual were accurate at thetime of publication for the lead ship in each class. However, SHIPALTs and other variationswithin any given ship class will require alterations and deletions to these procedures. Regularinput from divers using these procedures will ensure that they are up to date.17-1.4.2.5 The checklist presents hull components in the order in which they are found,beginning at the stern area and then moving to the port side, bow, and starboard. This orderlimits diver excursions under the keel, yet covers the entire hull surface. All hull openings listedon the docking drawing are also found on the checklist, even though some of them are locatedabove the waterline. Items that appear above the waterline can be used to assist in the setup ofthe dive station and also can help the diver’s orientation with the hull prior to descending below.The checklist and plan and profile figures can be photocopied for reference on the dive stationduring an inspection.17-1.4.3 Level 2 procedures are given in order in which equipment is found, beginning at thestern.M-3

Section 2 Personnel and Equipment Requirements17-2.1 Personnel Requirements.17-2.1.1 This section discusses the personnel qualifications and equipment requirementsnecessary to conduct quality UWSH inspections.17-2.1.2 The qualifications of the divers conducting the UWSH inspection are the single mostimportant factor impacting the quality of data collected. This section sets forth specific minimumdiver qualification standards for UWSH Inspectors.17-2.1.3 The types of UWSH inspectors are Trainee, Level 1 Inspector, Level 2 Inspector, andLevel 3 Inspector.17-2.1.4 Trainees are those personnel who are newly assigned to a diving locker and who haveno UWSH experience. They may assist a Level 1 Inspector during a Level 1 inspection. Traineesmust have, as a minimum, the following skills and knowledge: a. A thorough understanding ofthe terms and procedures of this chapter; b. The ability to track and locate their position on anyarea of the hull; and c. Training in the use of Diver’s Underwater Color Television System(DUCTS)17-2.1.5 Level 1 Inspectors are those personnel trained and qualified to perform non-invasiveinspections. They may assist a Level 2 Inspector during a Level 2 inspection. Level 1 Inspectorsmust have, as a minimum, the following skills and knowledge:a. A thorough understanding of the terms and procedures of this chapter;b. The ability to track and locate their position on any area of the hull;c. The ability to accurately report the size (area or percent) of damage, paint failuremode, and types of corrosion;d. The ability to accurately determine Fouling Rating (FR) and Paint DeteriorationRating (PDR) in accordance with NSTM Chapter 081;e. The ability to accurately measure clearances, including where and how to takemeasurements and how to use feeler gauges and inside and outside calipers;f. Successful completion of U.S. Navy Training Course “Tools and Their Uses,”NAVEDTRA No. 82085;g. Demonstrated ability to accurately report propeller surface roughness using theRupert Comparator;h. Training in the use of the DUCTS; andi. Training in the use of underwater 35mm photography equipment.17-2.1.6 Level 2 Inspectors are those personnel trained and qualified to perform Level 2inspections. They may assist a Level 3 Inspector during an invasive inspection. Level 2Inspectors must have, as a minimum, the following skills and knowledge:a. One year demonstrated experience as a Level 1 Inspector;b. Successful completion of U.S. Navy Training Course “Blue Print Reading andSketching,” NAVEDTRA No. 82014;c. The ability to read engineering drawings and plans; andM-4

d. A functional understanding of the operation and purpose of the specific systembeing inspected.17-2.1.7 Level 3 Inspectors are those personnel trained and qualified to perform both invasiveand non-invasive inspections. Level 3 Inspectors must have, as a minimum, the following skillsand knowledge:a. One year demonstrated experience as a Level 2 Inspector; andb. Knowledge and demonstrated experience following the procedures covered insystem-specific chapters of this manual.Chapter 17, Section 7DDG 51 Class—Underwater Ship Husbandry Inspection Procedures17-7.3 Level 1 Inspection Procedures.17-7.3.1 Introduction.17-7.3.1.1 This section contains Level 1 inspection procedures for the DDG 51 Class GuidedMissile Destroyer. The Table 17-7.2 checklist presents components in the order in which thediver would find them when making a stern area, port side, bow, and starboard side inspectiondive. Note that all hull openings included on the docking plan are listed in Figure 17-7.1 andTable 17-7.2. Depending on the ship’s draft at the time of the inspection, some items may beabove the waterline. The Dive Supervisor can refer to Figures 17-7.1 and 17-7.2 and Table 17-7.2 (found at the end of these Level 1 procedures) to pinpoint the exact location of a particularcomponent. These tables and figures can be photocopied and used to document the reportedcondition of each component. In addition, the NAVSEA Diver Inspection Data Forms for thehull, Sonar Dome Rubber Window, ICCP, and propeller should be used to record the inspectionresults. These forms are included in Section 5 of this chapter. Underwater color photographyshould also be used to further depict the damage described in the report and in the forms.17-7.3.2 Paint and Fouling Inspection.NOTETo accurately report the PDR and FR, the diver must be thoroughly familiar with NSTM Chapter081, “Waterborne Underwater Hull Cleaning of Navy Ships.”17-7.3.2.1 One of the most important aspects of a Level 1 inspection is the assessment of theFouling Rating (FR) and the Paint Deterioration Rating (PDR). Values for the FR and the PDRmay vary widely along the length of a hull.17-7.3.2.2 The diver should continuously report the condition of the paint using standard termssuch as peeling, blistered (broken or intact), and missing antifouling or anticorrosive paint.Report the color of exposed paint. A diver’s light is necessary to report color accurately. Usesections of hull plate to estimate the condition of small areas: flat and curved areas of plate,edges, welds, seams, rivets, and bolt heads. The Dive Supervisor maintains a running log of theconditions and records the FR and PDR for localized areas. This enables the Dive Supervisor tokeep track of the total estimate for each section of the hull. These values are then summarized,yielding the overall condition for each area: bow, stern, flat bottom, and sides. Report thedocking block areas separately from the flat bottom and sides. For docking block areas, reportM-5

the average percent of block areas painted and the percent of base metal with pitting. Estimatethe average diameter and depth of pitting. For a heavily fouled section of hull, only the FR canbe reported since little or no hull paint will be visible.17-7.3.2.3 This inspection procedure alerts the diver when the inspection process has beencompleted for each section of the hull to assist in summarizing the overall conditions.a. Inspect and report the FR.b. Inspect and report the PDR. Report localized areas of pitting, blisters, peeling, ormissing paint.c. Inspect and report the docking block FR and PDR.17-7.3.3 General Hull Plate Inspection.a. Carefully examine the hull plating. Look for areas of bare metal, bleeding rust,and large areas of pitting.b. Inspect for holes, cracked weld seams, distorted hull plates, localized areas ofpitting, corrosion, and any other apparent damage.c. Estimate and report the extent and location of any damage; report length of cracksand average pit diameter and depth.M-6

APPENDIX NThe Corrosion ControlInformation Management System (CCIMS)Inspection ManualN-1

APPENDIX NThe Corrosion Control Information Management System (CCIMS) Inspection Manual1 - IntroductionThis manual is based on input from the Type Commanders, the Fleet, Carderock Division, NavalSurface Warfare Center (CDNSWC), NAVSEA, NAVAIR, and PERA-CV. It seeks to provide,at the deck plate level, a uniform set of inspection attributes and inspection criteria. This is doneby comparing what is seen against the text and pictures in the manual and then appropriatelymarking the applicable Inspection Form.Historically, slow to degrade systems inspection data was never rigorously stored in one placefor easy access to aid in the planning process. The Corrosion Control Information ManagementSystem (CCIMS), whose data input screens duplicate the various Inspection Forms,accomplishes this task. Slow to degrade areas are defined as tanks, voids, sponson voids, aircraftelectrical servicing station trunks (AESS), ventilation systems, bilges and non-skid.2 - PurposeThe purpose of this manual is to provide standardized inspection and reporting procedures forslow to degrade systems as defined above.3 - ScopeThis manual establishes a standardized procedure for inspecting slow to degrade systems on anaircraft carrier and provides standard report forms for recording the inspection results. Theobjective of the inspection is to produce useful, accurate, and reproducible data about thecondition of everything within the system. Where applicable, this includes coating condition,cathodic protection depletion, and the condition of tank internals such as ladders, tank levelindicators, and piping. Maintenance planners will use the data to determine how much and whattype of maintenance is needed in each system.6 - Procedure6.1 GeneralThis document describes, in text and picture, the line by line procedures for completing theappropriate Inspection Form. It is expected that an inspector will take a copy of this manual anda blank Inspection Form into the tank. As experience is gained, only occasional reference to themanual should be required.The inspector will need the following tools:1. one appropriate Inspection Form for each area to be inspected,2. a copy of this manual, or, as a minimum, a set of Coating Condition Reference Standards(Figure 11) and T-bar Coating Condition Reference Standards (Figure 12), or theAircraft Carrier Tank and Void Inspection Hip Pocket Guide3. a powerful flash light4. a pocket knife5. a small magnet6. a ragN-2

6.2 Tank and Void InspectionThe Tank and Void Inspection Form is divided into fourteen discrete areas. They are: GeneralData, Access Data, Ladder Data, Vent/Overflow Data, Tank Level Indicator (TLI) Data,Sounding Tube Data, Cathodic Protection Data, Coating Data, Structural Integrity Data, SeachestData, Piping Data, Desiccant Data, Ship Defined Attributes, and Close-Out Inspection. A blockfor Additional Comments are available for explanation of problems found.6.2.9 Structural Integrity Data65. Structural Integrity Compromised by Corrosion: Indicate whether or not thestructural integrity of the tank was compromised by corrosion (i.e., rust holes). If the structuralintegrity has been compromised, circle YES and provide amplifying information in theADDITIONAL COMMENTS block. Otherwise, circle NO. NOTE: A compromise of thestructural integrity of a tank requires immediate attention and a significant repair effort. Submitwork request for emergent repairs. Additional inspections and data may be required by others.Include data from the additional inspection in the Additional Comments block or attach copy ofinspection results to the report for this inspection.N-3

APPENDIX OUnited States CodeTitle 10--Armed ForcesSubtitle C--Navy and Marine CorpsPart Iv--General AdministrationChapter 633--Naval VesselsO-1

APPENDIX OUnited States CodeTitle 10--Armed ForcesSubtitle C--Navy and Marine CorpsPart Iv--General AdministrationChapter 633--Naval VesselsSec. 7304. Examination of vessels; striking of vessels from Naval Vessel Register(a) Boards of Officers to Examine Naval Vessels.The Secretary of the Navy shall designateboards of naval officers to examine naval vessels, including unfinished vessels, for thepurpose of making a recommendation to the Secretary as to which vessels, if any, shouldbe stricken from the Naval Vessel Register. Each vessel shall be examined at least onceevery three years if practicable.(b) Actions by Board. A board designated under subsection (a) shall submit to the Secretaryin writing its recommendations as to which vessels, if any, among those it examinedshould be stricken from the Naval Vessel Register.(c) Action by Secretary. If the Secretary concurs with a recommendation by a board that avessel should be stricken from the Naval Vessel Register, the Secretary shall strike thename of that vessel from the Naval Vessel Register.O-2

ssc - 419 supplemental commercial design guidance for fatigue ship ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?