ABS American Bureau of Shipping Profile

ourM I S S I O N

quality & environmentalP O L I C Y

The mission of the American Bureau ofShipping is to serve the public interest as well as the needs of our clients by promoting the security of life, propertyand the natural environment primarilythrough the development and verificationof standards for the design, constructionand operational maintenance of marine-related facilities.

It is the policy of the American Bureau of Shipping to be responsive to the indi-vidual and collective needs of our clientsas well as those of the public at large, to provide quality services in support ofour mission, and to provide our servicesconsistent with international standardsdeveloped to avoid, reduce or control pollution to the environment.

All of our client commitments, supporting actions, and services deliveredmust be recognized as expressions ofQuality. We pledge to monitor our performance as an on-going activity and to strive for continuous improvement.

We commit to operate consistent withapplicable environmental legislation andregulations and to provide a frameworkfor establishing and reviewing environ-mental objectives and targets.

Executive Summary

ABS has worked with the container transportation market since its inception and has a history

that is closely linked to the innovations of the industry. ABS remains a market leader and

currently maintains class on the largest percentage of post-Panamax vessels. Recentnewbuilding activity includes the classing of the largest vessels in service and of new

construction of 7,000 teu and above.

In the development of Ultra Large Containerships (ULCS), several economic and operational

considerations must be addressed to obtain a working design. The service speed, size and

speed of container cranes, port draft restrictions and container stack height limitations influencethe dimensions and design. Additional consideration must be paid to container configurations.

ABS SafeHull is the starting point for an ABS approved design. Application of the principlesfound in ABS SafeHull provide the keystone to a structurally sound vessel. Employing the

dynamic loading approach (DLA) program of SH-DLA provides a more complete analysis

of the vessel. For further design verification, several analytical tools exist to address uniqueconsiderations for the ULCS. By simulating actual loads, analysis programs at ABS for dynamic

stress, nonlinear factors, propeller cavitation, and wave impact, among others, give a better

understanding of how the next-generation of ULCS will perform once in service.

In the design of the ULCS, extra consideration should be given to deck structure, hatch corners,

the location of the deckhouse and engine room, the bow and stern regions and to transversestrength. These critical areas are all addressed through programs offered by ABS.

Operators must also address several issues affecting the vessel during service. The operationalissues of ballast water, green water, lashing arrangements, parametric roll, location of bunker

tanks, voltage systems, and vibration are of particular importance.

The ABS SafeShip program follows a vessel from inception through its life service. This

information management system allows owners the best method for maintaining their vessels.

ABS is the classification society of choice for large containerships. With practical experiences

and unmatched technical capability, ABS offers shipowners and shipbuilders of these vessels

absolutely the most comprehensive classification services available.

iExecutive Summary

Giants in the Container Industry

Introduction................................................................................................................................................v

ABS’ Current Position ...............................................................................................................................1

Market Share ........................................................................................................................................1

Recent Activity ......................................................................................................................................1

History of ABS’ Role .................................................................................................................................3

Economic and Operational Considerations............................................................................................5

Design Considerations ..........................................................................................................................5Service speed ....................................................................................................................................5Container cranes ...............................................................................................................................5Port draft restrictions..........................................................................................................................6Container stack height limitations ......................................................................................................6

Container Configurations ......................................................................................................................6

ABS SafeHull..............................................................................................................................................7

Technology for ULCS ............................................................................................................................8Load defines strength ........................................................................................................................8Loading cases....................................................................................................................................8Structure modeling.............................................................................................................................9Strength assessment .........................................................................................................................9

SH-DLA (Dynamic Loading Approach)..................................................................................................11

Analytical Tools........................................................................................................................................13

DYSOS (Dynamic Stress Analysis of Open Ships) ............................................................................13

Nonlinear Analysis by LAMP-NASTRAN System...............................................................................13

Propeller Analysis ...............................................................................................................................15Effective wake calculations ..............................................................................................................15Propeller cavitation analysis ............................................................................................................15Propeller induced hull pressure .......................................................................................................16

Wave Impact Analysis (Slamming) .....................................................................................................16

Structural Considerations ......................................................................................................................17

Deck Structure ....................................................................................................................................17

Hatch Corners.....................................................................................................................................17

Location of Deckhouse and Engine Room.........................................................................................18

Bow Region.........................................................................................................................................18

Transverse Strength ............................................................................................................................18

iiiTable of Contents

Operational Issues ..................................................................................................................................19

Ballast Water .......................................................................................................................................19

Green Water........................................................................................................................................19

Lashing Arrangement ..........................................................................................................................19

Vessel Motions (Parametric Roll)........................................................................................................20

Location of Bunker Tanks....................................................................................................................21

Voltage Systems .................................................................................................................................21

Vibration ..............................................................................................................................................22

ABS SafeShip...........................................................................................................................................23

Case Study ...............................................................................................................................................25

SHI Develops 9,000 TEU Container Vessel ........................................................................................25

Services Provided by ABS to Samsung .............................................................................................25

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................27

Appendix 1 ...............................................................................................................................................29

Fleet Information and Market Share ...................................................................................................29

Appendix 2 ...............................................................................................................................................30

Sampling of ABS-Classed Post-Panamax Vessels .............................................................................30

Appendix 3 ...............................................................................................................................................33

Listing of ABS-Classed Container Vessels .........................................................................................33

Appendix 4 ...............................................................................................................................................35

Shipyards with ABS-Approved Designs..............................................................................................35

iv Giants in the Container Industry

Introduction

In selecting the most appropriate classification society for a new construction project, ABS

requests that the client consider the following:

ABS’ current position as the leader in post-Panamax classification comes from years of

experience with containerships, backed by advanced technical programs that address the

needs of both shipowners and shipbuilders. ABS has been classifying container vessels sincetheir inception and remains at the forefront of the technology necessitated by the design

considerations of the Ultra Large Containership (ULCS). ABS is also a leader in research

and development of appropriate Rules and Regulations governing the design parameters andvessel life.

ABS surveyors’ experience is enhanced by a commitment to technology and the analyticalprograms offered by the engineering department. By responding to clients’ needs through a

worldwide network of offices, clients receive the necessary attention to ensure project success.

ABS has programs already in place, and personnel with the needed experience, to aid in the

design and construction of the next generation of ULCS. ABS currently has projects that are in

the 7,000 teu to 9,000 teu (twenty foot equivalent units) range, and as the mega-containershipsare being built, ABS has developed the technology and can demonstrate the practical

experience necessary to meet the design challenges posed by these vessels.

Classification with ABS includes:• The most authoritative and appropriate Rules for the classification of containerships.

• Design review to verify the design complies with the ABS Rule requirements.

• Surveys during construction to assure compliance with classification requirements, as given

in the Rules and on the ABS approved plans, and attendance on board during official sea

trials.

• Governmental authorizations to issue certificates and/or conduct surveys pertaining to theLoad Line, MARPOL, SOLAS, tonnage conventions, and ISM Code.

• Acceptance by the ABS Classification Committee and award of the appropriate notation.

• Performance of periodic surveys to assure that the vessel is maintained to Class standards.

The benefits of classing with ABS include:• Knowledge that the vessel is appropriate for the intended service.

• Backing of years of relevant knowledge and experience.

• Single source for all technical needs.

• Compliance with governmental requirements.

• Indication of due diligence of owner/operator.

• Maintenance of schedules during design/construction.

• Indication of performance of proper maintenance.

• Assurance of protection of capital investment.

Based on a long and varied experience, ABS provides comprehensive, efficient practical

classification services fulfilling client needs for any ULCS project.

vIntroduction

ABS’ Current Position

Market Share At the end of 2000, ABS was the leading

classification society within the post-Panamaxsector with a 35 percent market share.1 ABS

already has the experience and technical tools

necessary to meet today’s market demand andprovide for future project success.

ABS’ existing fleet contains 387 containerships,aggregating more than 11m gt and representing

a 20 percent share of the market. With 90 post-

Panamax vessels in class, ABS is the classification society of choice for owners of the largestcontainer vessels, as demonstrated by the chart.2 Recent contracts include the construction of

two new ultra-large vessels, designed to carry 7,400 teu. Additionally, ABS has 32 post-Panamax

vessels on its orderbook. Of these, seven will have a capacity of 6,600 to over 7,000 teu.

By year-end 2000, ABS had a total of 75 containerships on its orderbook, ranging in size from

4,300 gt to 92,000 gt from owners worldwide. Experienced operators recognize ABS’ technicalexcellence and choose us for their classification needs.

Recent ActivityIn the two years prior to 2001, ABS demonstrated its market dominance for the classification of post-Panamax vessels. During this time period, ABS set the pace for the largest vessels

yet to be constructed. 1999 confirmed ABS’ position as the preferred society for the largest

containerships. Five vessels, each of 92,000 gt, were delivered into ABS class during the year.Another five vessels, each of 69,000 gt were classed in 1999. In total during the year, ABS

classed 24 containerships of 1.0m gross tons.

Also in 1999, ABS received contracts to class 21 new containerships of 1.07m gross tons —

including four vessels of 92,000 gt, and eight others of more than 60,000 gt. At the end of 2000,

a total of 54 containerships, aggregating 2.18m gt, were contracted to be built or building to ABSclass.

Three of the four 92,000 gt vessels, each with a 6,600 teu capacity, were delivered in 2000. Intotal, 14 post-Panamax containerships were delivered in 2000. During the year, ABS also paired

with Samsung Heavy Industries to review their plans for a 9,100 teu vessel.

______________________1 Source: Seaway, December 2000. Refer to Appendix One for market comparisons2 Source: Seaway, December 2000.

1ABS’ Current Position

Post-Panamax Existing Vessels

This chart shows a flat

ordering trend for smallercontainer vessels over the

period relative to the total

fleet, while orders for thelarger size vessels continues

to grow.

The percentages represent

the past year’s (monthly)

ordering of containerships inthe two categories, relative

to its fleet size. For example,

in October 2000, orderingfor the smaller carriers represents 20 percent of the total <3,000 teu fleet, while ordering for

larger carriers represents 54 percent of the total >3,000 teu fleet. The total ordering as of

October 2000 represents 31 percent of the total fleet (by teu).

This information on the containership orderbook demonstrates that over a one-year time period,

there is increasing momentum for ordering larger vessels, while the total orders for smallervessels remains constant.

ABS anticipates that the scrapping of older vessels, which affects the smaller ship sizes, and the increased demand for container transportation will drive the demand for new containership

orders in the short to medium term. Operators will accelerate the process of upsizing as they

combine replacement and additional requirements for capacity.

2 Giants in the Container Industry

Source: Clarkson’s Container Intelligence Monthly, Oct. 2000

History of ABS’ Role

The ABS history with the container market is filled with many firsts. The maritime industry

is constantly pushing the boundaries with innovative, larger, safer, more efficient, and

more technically sophisticated vessels. The increase in containership size mirrors earlieradvancements, in that technological developments can help shipowners gain operational

and cost advantages.

The concept of carrying cargo in containers was developed in the United States in the mid-

1950s to reduce ship time at dockside, cut the cost of cargo handling and prevent petty pilferage.

ABS classed the first vessel to carry containers, the IDEAL X, and the first full containership with the conversion of the C2 vessel GATEWAY CITY for Sea-Land Service. In 1966 the first

transatlantic crossing of a containership signaled the transportation industry’s acceptance of

containerization.

During the 1960s, owners turned to purpose designed and built ships culminating in a unique

series of eight containerships, capable of carrying 1,900 teu, built to ABS classification for Sea-Land Service, Inc. in 1969. The vessels, traveling at up to 33 knots, remain the fastest

containerships ever built.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the demand for the new, more efficient, specialized

containerships became increasingly international. ABS was at the forefront of this innovative

method of handling a wide range of commodities. Programs developed by the ABS Researchand Development department examined ship structural behavior and were used to analyze the

design of the world’s then 12 largest containerships. The American New York and 11 sisterships,

built by Daewoo in South Korea to ABS class for U.S. Lines in 1984, were 58,000 dwt ships,each with a capacity of 4,238 twenty-foot-equivalent-units.

ABS was the first to class post-Panamax vessels in 1988.Two German shipyards, HDW and Bremer Vulkan delivered

five new American President Lines (APL) C-10 container-

ships all under ABS class. Their 39.4-meter beam madethem too large to transit the Panama Canal, and provided a

radical breakthrough in containership operation that began to

redefine containership routes.

When shipyards subsequently lengthened the structure of these 4,340 TEU vessels, they relied

on the finite element (FEM) analyses performed by ABS as an aid to design and ensure shipstability.

These types of analyses are included as part of theABS SafeHull-Dynamic Loading Approach (SH-DLA)

— a “design-by-analysis” procedure for more

accurate modeling of expected shiploads anddynamic stresses than with traditional methods. SH-

DLA allows a more rational distribution of material in

the hull structure and results in conservatively biasedscantlings. The detailed analysis performed by SH-

DLA was streamlined and tailored for specific ship

types modified to be more designer-focused andreleased as ABS SafeHull in 1993.

3History of ABS’ Role

In 1996, SafeHull was expanded to the containership structures. In applying SafeHull, the loads

and stresses imposed on a hull structure, for the first time, could be quantified in an integratedand realistic manner early in the design stages. ABS SafeHull is an integral part of the ABS

SafeShip program — an integrated through life-management program.

ABS’ success in the structural evaluation of containerships of the post-Panamax segment can

be largely attributed to the success of these two programs: SH-DLA and ABS SafeHull. This

advanced technology has guided designers as they seek to minimize potential structural risks.As owners order even larger container vessels, ongoing research at ABS has addressed all

technical issues that a 10,000 teu, or larger, vessel may pose.


Economic and Operational Considerations

The size range for the largest containerships is expected to increase significantly in the near

future, as economies of scale remain the dominant operational factor driving efficient transport.

Numerous, commercial studies have underscored the significant reductions in slot costs offeredby the largest vessels on the world’s principal trading routes.

The largest containerships currently in service are in the 6,000 teu range. Many leadingshipyards, however, have developed designs for vessels with additional container rows, tiers and

holds that increase the main dimensions of the vessels and increase the capacity to as much as

10,000 teu. In the future, the carrying capacity of containerships is expected to increase to12,000 teu and above.

The trend towards increased size of containershipspresents unique challenges for the structural

designer and operational managers. At ABS, rational

structural criteria analysis is applied to largecontainership designs through its dynamic-based

ABS SafeHull system and SH-DLA analysis. These

evaluate a vessel’s strength and identify the mostcritical structural elements within a design.

Design ConsiderationsThere are several significant issues that must be addressed by designers as they develop the

next generation of ULCS. Reaching beyond purely technical considerations associated with the

vessel’s construction, these challenges extend into machinery limitations, port capabilities, on-land transportation infrastructure, and hub/spoke operation. The most significant issues to be

addressed are:

Service speedTo maximize the return on investment in the new ULCS, operators are demanding higher service

speeds to increase vessel utilization and improve service to their clients. Service speeds in

excess of 25 knots are now commonplace. Engine manufacturers and propeller designers arerapidly developing new concepts that will obviate the need for dual plant, twin screw

configurations by offering 14-cylinder and larger engines.

Container cranes Port container cranes are constantly being

enlarged to overcome limitations of speed,height and reach that restrict the handling

of containers stowed across the vessel.

5Economic and Operational Considerations

Port draft restrictions Draft limitations at many ports, such as on the US East Coast, place particular emphasis on

limiting design draft on ULCS.

Similarly, as vessel size increases further, draft limitations in the Strait of Malacca will shape

vessel dimensions once ULCS break the 15,000 teu barrier.

Container stack height limitationsA typical ISO rated container is capable of handling eight fully loaded containers on top of it,

giving a fully loaded container stack a limit of nine tiers. If the strength of typical container cornerposts is increased, more tiers of fully loaded containers can be stacked in the holds of container

vessels (vessel depth).

Additionally, designers’ efforts to minimize a vessel’s registered gross tonnage to limit port and

other operational charges, have posed new challenges regarding stack heights, bridge visibility

and cargo protection.

Each of these issues influences the main characteristics of vessels being placed into service

today. Some of these issues are not related to vessel design and are already being addressedby the more sophisticated ports as they increase the size of their cranes and ease draft

restrictions.

Container ConfigurationsEven before some of the infrastructure issues were addressed, designers studied container

storage configurations to increase vessel carrying capacity. This represents a balancing act

between form and function. Designers seek to maximize the open spaces available forloading/unloading the box cargo within the confines of the vessel’s form and structural

configurations.

As the carrying capacity of

containerships increase,

the task requires a sureknowledge of how to best

achieve vessel stability.

The cost associated withlost cargo or downtime for

repair is too great to

ignore, emphasizing thechallenges that the ULCS

present.


Container Stack Arrangement

13 x 13 17 x 1418 x 15

24 x 16

Panamax 4000 teu Post Panamax 7000 teu Post Panamax 9000 teu

Ultra 13000 teu Ultra 18000 teu

24 x 18

ABS SafeHull

A ULCS designed and built to ABS class will meet the Rule requirements contained within ABS

SafeHull. SafeHull provides a dynamic load based approach that considers corrosion as well

as the dominant failure modes — yielding, buckling and fatigue. Shipowners recognize thatships designed to meet SafeHull criteria are demonstrably stronger and therefore safer, more

durable ships and that these vessels are less susceptible to in-service structural failure and

require fewer repairs.

The ABS SafeHull System was conceived as a complete

technical resource comprising two criteria — the Guidefor Dynamic-Based Design and Structural Evaluation and

Guide for Fatigue Assessment, as well as a comprehen-

sive suite of software applications programs, technicalsupport services, and related technical documentation

and guidance.

ABS and SafeHull have achieved significant market

share, with particular successes in the tanker and very

large containership markets. Containership owners haverecognized the importance of a rational approach to

design and the strength criteria outlined by ABS

SafeHull.

Large containership structural performance has, in general, been very positive. However, the

trends of ever increasing size, capacity, speed and innovative design require detailed designcriteria that are not available using traditional rules.

7ABS SafeHull

SafeHull Design Cycle

Technology for ULCSABS SafeHull for containerships incorporates a number of elements for design and evaluation by

analysis.

This system is divided into two parts. During the design process, or Phase A, the general

arrangement passes through a refining process beginning with an automated generation of the

Hull Configuration. Next, calculations determining the dynamic loads assess the reaction of thedesigned vessel against specific criteria. This is followed by a determination of the structural

components, compliance with strength criteria and fatigue assessment.

Evaluation of the design is the next step in

the process. Commonly referred to as

Phase B, this stage generates a FiniteElement Model (FEM) that again runs

through a calculation of dynamic loads.

Following 3-D global Finite ElementAnalysis, the design runs through an

assessment of Failure Modes. Such an

evaluation of the design confirms itsstructural integrity. This process verifies a

design with a lifetime performance able to

withstand all relevant failure modes.

SafeHull criteria provide guidelines for specific structural considerations that must be addressed

as containerships become larger. For example, since a containership hold structure is designedto carry loads at specific points, whereas other areas may carry little or no direct load, design

considerations require direct calculations.

Load defines strengthA knowledge of all the loads acting on a ship is fundamental to achieving safety, where safety is

defined as having an excess of capability (strength) compared with the demand (loads). The

loads that a ship experiences are dependent on the environmental conditions and are mainlydynamic in nature. It is essential that relevant global and local loads are considered in an explicit

manner, and that their combination and phasing be representative of their time-dependent

nature.

For ULCS, the torsional strength of the hull and high stress concentrations at the hatch corners

are of paramount concern. Four oblique sea conditions are applied to impose maximum torsionalloads at the forward and aft ends of the mid-ship cargo hold and to check the fatigue strength of

the structures immediately forward of the engine room where there is an abrupt change in

torsional rigidity.

Loads are calculated to determine the proper scantlings in a rational manner for the forebody.


Loading casesThe magnitude of each of the previously discussed load components is defined as the “nominal

design load.” To obtain the combined load effects, a comprehensive set of design load cases hasbeen developed to ensure that the maximum response has been considered by analyzing the

Hydrodynamic Loads, Impact Loads, Ballast Loads, Container Loads, and Operational Loads.

Loading cases are used to determine the effect of green water on deck and on hatch covers.This is especially relevant for containers as they produce static and dynamic concentrated loads

rather than the distributed loads associated with liquid and bulk cargo.

Structure modelingABS SafeHull places an emphasis on both hull girder strength and local strength established in

conjunction with specified load and failure criteria to address the use of higher tensile steels

commonly found in current designs. Because of this, the failure modes of buckling and fatiguereceive appropriate close attention, and in some cases they are the governing failure modes that

determine the design. This distinction is a valuable feature of the SafeHull approach.

ABS SafeHull embodies the “net ship” concept

by taking into account, at the design stage, the

future effects of deterioration. SafeHull vesselsare designed to meet requirements after 20

years of assumed wastage. During Structure

Modeling, SafeHull uses a partial FEM todetermine structure interaction and whether the

area is a high or low stress area. This is needed

for determining plate thickness, stiffeners andthe local structure.

Although the SafeHull strength criteria primarily address global and local strength, the overallsafety of the hull girder is also considered. In this connection, SafeHull implicitly addresses the

elasto-plastic behavior, reserve strength, and residual strength, among other factors that are

influential in decision making regarding the material redistribution.

Initial scantling requirements have been developed for plating, longitudinals and other stiffeners,

and the main supporting members. Extensive parametric studies and examination of surveyrecords, together with other research findings, form the basis for calibration of the relevant

parameters employed in the strength formulations.

Strength assessmentABS SafeHull encompasses a strength assessment to verify the suitability of the initial design

against the specified failure criteria. A series of tests are used to determine yielding strength,buckling and ultimate strength, fatigue strength, strength deck, hatch openings, and fatigue.

Of particular importance to containerships is the design of hatch openings concerningassociated loads, stresses and distortions. The large deck openings, the strong warping restraint

of the engine room, and the non-prismatic hull structure of containerships cause significant

torsion-induced longitudinal warping stresses along the strength deck.

9ABS SafeHull

3D FEM Partial Length Model

Certain structural details have been identified as particularly vulnerable to fatigue. Special

attention in the development of the SafeHull criteria has been given to the following fatiguesensitive areas:

• Hatch corners on the main and second decks, and top of continuous hatchside coamings

• Connections of longitudinal deck girders to the transverse bulkheads

• End connections for the hatch side coaming, including coaming stays and hatch end

coamings

• Cutouts in the longitudinal bulkheads, longitudinal deck girders, hatch end coamings andcross deck beams

Transverse structures,hatch openings and hatch

corners must be

considered together asany distortion and stress

to one point influences the

entire structure. As thesize of containerships

continue to increase, the

transverse structuresbecome more critical with

increasing ship breadth or

decreasing width of thedouble side structures.

The result of these analyses is a vessel that meets load requirements, while avoiding sometimesoverly conservative safety factors. SafeHull provides the exact knowledge of what areas need

more or less consideration and answers the question of where reinforcement with filler plates

best strengthens the structure and prevents cracking.


Hatch Corner Fatigue Assessment

SH-DLA (Dynamic Loading Approach)

The ABS SafeHull program relies on the engineering principles established in the SH-DLA

program. SH-DLA was first introduced in 1991 as an engineering approach to determine the

expected dynamic loads and permissible stresses acting on a vessel in a seaway, replacing thetraditional semi-empirical approach. While SafeHull looks at a portion of the vessel and then

makes a global comparison, SH-DLA enhances the analysis provided by SafeHull by examining

the entire ship’s surface in a variety of loading cases to determine where any additionalreinforcements or scantlings are needed.

For containerships, SH-DLA is not arequirement for class; however, many

existing ABS-classed post-Panamax vessels

use both SafeHull and SH-DLA to identifycritical areas. SafeHull for containerships is

a comprehensive approach to design

verification, but as ABS’ clients order largervessels, they increasingly turn to SH-DLA to

focus on all areas of critical importance,

such as torsional strength analysis, toensure vessel structural strength.

As the loads acting on a vessel come from a variety of sources, both internal and external, themotions experienced by the vessel at sea are simulated by SH-DLA to determine bending

moments, sheer forces and external wave pressure acting on the hull.

The SH-DLA procedure investigates a vessel’s movements through a series of dynamic

evaluations. SH-DLA considers the structure of the vessel and its intended environment to

consider the appropriate wave environment and the dynamic response of the vessel. Takingthese two things into account, SH-DLA then applies the combined dynamic and static loads in

the structural analysis, along with the distribution of the external hydrostatic and hydrodynamic

pressures over the hull.

Structural response of the vessel is

examined through a FEM. Theresults of the 3D FEM analysis

generate the hull girder’s overall

response and are used as input forthe subsequent fine mesh FEM

analysis (zooming analysis). The

fine mesh FEM analysis is thenused to determine the more

detailed local stresses, including

transverse web frames, longitudinalgirders, and all horizontal stringers.

These FEM results are then usedto examine the stresses and

deflections in the structure to

ensure they fall within the

11SH-DLA (Dynamic Loading Approach)

Dynamic Load in Waves

Analysis Procedure

prescribed limits of the failure modes of yield and buckling, as specified in the SH-DLA

Guidance. The greater detail of SH-DLA provides further assurance to a robust design with along service life.

SH-DLA represents a consistent and rational approach that employs a direct linear analysis ofthe containership. This reduces the “modeling uncertainties” that may be introduced when using

rule scantling equations. Rule equations have necessarily relied on simplifications to account for

the applied loads, structural response and strength. The comprehensive SH-DLA analysis doesnot rely on these modeling simplifications and produces more reliable answers for structural

components.

Just as SH-DLA can be used to further verify specific load cases, ABS employs a variety of

other analyses to refine designs against known influences.


Analytical Tools

As containerships increase in size, designers must find a balance between function and design.

Owners need a vessel that has a large capacity and the ability to move at a rapid speed. These

two considerations create complex design considerations and require enhanced technicalevaluations to verify structural integrity. In addition to ABS SafeHull and SH-DLA, ABS offers

several analyses to guide the structural design.

DYSOS (Dynamic Stress Analysis of Open Ships)As an early design stage screening tool for evaluating many different designs and identifying

critical cases for detailed FEM analysis, DYSOS (Dynamic Stress Analysis of Open Ships) uses

a simplified non-prismatic beam model to obtain a full length torsional analysis. This systemrelies on the ABS/SHIPMOTION program and structural beam theory to provide an assessment

of the torsional responses of the containership and the impact of some design alterations. These

assessments are then used as guidance for the shipyard’s structural design.

As the width of hatch openings increase with the ULCS, undesirable stresses (at the transition

from the torsionally weak open sections to the relatively stiff closed sections) due to twist andwarping occur and become one of the major design concerns. Calculations are performed to

screen proposed designs for deck stress and hatch opening distortion caused by global load of

vertical, horizontal and torsional moments.

SHIPMOTION is used to calculate the vertical bending moment, horizontal bending moment,

vertical shear force and horizontal shear force,which are due to the wave pressure, vessel’s

motions and the inertial loads for a range of

wave headings and periods. These loads areapplied to the containership using beam theory.

By using a non-prismatic beam model for a

containership, this analysis is more efficientrequiring limited modeling time but provides

abundance of information of structural

response. Critical wave conditions for FEM analysis can be more accurately determined basedon the structural response rather than a traditional load based approach.

DYSOS can easily consider over 20 to 30 design variations in determining the global effects oftorsion in a short time period. The simplified but very efficient modeling makes it well suited to

perform comparative studies — resulting in an ideal preliminary design tool.

Nonlinear Analysis by LAMP-NASTRAN SystemCompared to traditional linear theory, the nonlinear theory is needed to accurately calculate the

dynamic loads for modern, ultra-large containerships. The nonlinear analysis consists of two

main parts: nonlinear motion and loads by LAMP (Large Amplitude Motion Program) andstructure analysis by NASTRAN for the critical load cases determined from the linear

seakeeping analysis or DYSOS analysis.

LAMP incorporates nonlinear motion and load theories to calculate the pressure distribution over

the instantaneous actual wetted surface of the vessel in waves. The nonlinear load structural

FEM analysis is performed using NASTRAN. This advanced direct calculation approach providesmore realistic load and structural responses than traditional linear SH-DLA in that it accounts for

13Analytical Tools

Beam Model for DYSOS Analysis

nonlinear motion and loads. Nonlinear analysis results in improved design and optimized

scantling for extreme sea conditions that govern the design.

Where higher uncertainties exist in the

dynamic loads, such as relative bow motion,hull girder loads of bending moments, and

torsional moments, hydrodynamic pressure,

and green water on deck, a consistentanalysis of nonlinear motion, loads, and

hydrodynamic pressure is needed. The

dynamic loads such as bending moment andwave pressure are, in general, more

nonlinear than the ship motion responses.

For example, hogging and sagging bendingmoment amidships are not equal in

magnitude and are not linearly proportional

to the wave height. Realistic behavior of the pressure time history is important for accuratelypredicting the fatigue life of the side longitudinal stiffeners located near the waterline.

Conventional linear theory does notaccurately predict relative motion and velocity

that are the bases for calculating bow flare

impact, bottom slamming pressure and thecorresponding whipping responses. Other

areas of concern for containerships include

the prediction of green water on deck andingress water into open hatches or open-top

ships.

To achieve a full nonlinear analysis, LAMP

has been developed to be a completeanalysis system starting from model

generation, motions, and impact and

structural loads for FEM analysis. Realisticrandom wave environment or a specific

nonlinear wave can be modeled.

An integral part of the nonlinear analysis

system is the mapping of hull pressure to

the structural finite element NASTRANmodel for structural analysis. A 3D FEM

global model representing the hull girder

structure and finer mesh models for localstructures are used to examine the

adequacy of the hull structure.


Sagging Condition

Vertical bending moment-time history

Pressure distribution in hogging wave condtion

The nonlinear analysis by LAMP-NASTRAN

considers failure modes of yielding, and buckling.The evaluation for yielding and buckling of the

primary supporting structure of the vessel is based

on the results of the fine mesh models where moreaccurate determination of local stresses is made.

Propeller AnalysisAvailable engines are capable of propelling 8,000 - 10,000 teu containership at the required

speed with larger 14-cylinder engines providing the necessary horsepower. As containershipscontinue to grow in size, comparable developments in engine design will be required.

Designers may opt for a twin screw design to meet propulsion and speed requirements. With theaddition of a larger engine and the possibility of twin screw design, propeller analysis should be

performed to address cavitation and hull pressure. ABS has computer programs available to

predict the performance of propellers. These programs are capable of predicting hydrodynamicpressures on the propeller blades, including cavitation, as well as hydrodynamic pressures on

the vessel’s structure.

Effective wake calculationsEffective wake is the interaction between nominal wake

and the propeller and is one of the most importantissues that affect the accuracy of the prediction of

propeller cavitation and propeller blade hydrodynamic

pressure. Programs are used for calculating the effectivewake. Three programs are available to calculate simple

axisymmetric flow, steady non-uniform 3-dimensional

flow, and unsteady non-uniform 3-dimensional flow.

Propeller cavitation analysisAn all-purpose propeller analysis program predicts the

performance of a propeller, including its cavitation. The programis capable of mapping hydrodynamic pressure distributions and

cavitation patterns, where they occur, on the propeller blades.

The pressure distribution can be interfaced with a finite elementprogram for propeller blade stress analyses. A subroutine is also

available for integrating the pressure distributions to obtain

steady and unsteady forces and moments acting on the shaftingsystem.

15Analytical Tools

Calculated effective wake

Propeller cavitation pattern

Full Ship LAMP-NASTRAN Analysis

Propeller induced hull pressureCavitation is the main source of fluctuation pressures acting

on a ship’s hull, which in turn causes propeller-induced hullvibrations. Based on propeller cavitation predictions, the

diffraction fluctuation pressures on the ship’s hull can be

calculated.

The MPUF3A series of programs is used in the propeller

analyses described above.

Wave Impact Analysis (Slamming)Historically, bottom slamming has notbeen a major concern with

containerships. However, speed

requirements, hull form and increasedvessel size are all factors that make

large containerships susceptible to

bow and stern slamming impact.

Wave impact typically occurs in the

bow portion of the ship, at flat-bottomsections, and at the upper bow flare.

However, for modern containerships,

slamming may also occur at the sternsections of the ship, which may have

a very flat bottom. The impact loads

are highly concentrated in a very shorttime duration.

The impact forces may result in damage of local structure, and accentuate structural vibrationthroughout the hull, often referred to as whipping. Complete analysis of the hull girder requires

predictions of combined wave and whipping response. At any cross section of the vessel, the

whipping induced bending moment should be combined with low frequency wave induced loadswith the proper phase relations to produce the total hull girder loads.

At ABS, the LAMP systemis effectively applied to

predict the slamming

pressures on the flat sternof containerships to carry

out impact load analyses.

Boundary element methodsor the analytic axymtotic

approach can be applied.

Using the calculatedslamming pressures local

structures can be analyzed. Furthermore, a full ship vibration analysis can be performed. More

detailed vibration analysis using these impact forces is further described under the section forvibration.


Propeller induced hull pressure

Impact forces due to slamming

Stern slamming pressure

Structural Considerations

The increase in container vessel size presents

structural challenges for designers. Operational

demands are pushing the designs into areas wherethere is little direct service experience. This means that

a scientific approach, based on general hydrodynamics

and engineering first principles, pioneered by ABSthrough innovative programs like ABS SafeHull, is

required to develop the vessel strength parameters if

the risk of structural failure is to be minimized.

Fortunately, as described in the previous sections,

advances in load determination and structuralevaluation techniques available to designers and

builders have opened the door to almost unlimited

increases in the size of the next generation of thesevessels. For large high-speed containerships, the load

prediction is especially important.

Rational criteria as applied through the dynamic-based ABS SafeHull system, or as assessed

through the more comprehensive SH-DLA, and risk-based analysis will become essential tools in

shaping future safety parameters. For ULCS, the most significant structural design aspects to beaddressed are:

Deck StructureLarge hatches in the deck and large open areas of the holds leave very little deck area toaccommodate the main hull girder strength of the vessel. In the latest ultra large containership

designs this feature is particularly pronounced.

The combination of vertical and horizontal hull girder bending, and the torsional twisting of the

hull, are critical issues to be addressed during the structural development of a successful design.

The large containership designs incorporate a combination of structural arrangements such ashull thickness, continuous hatch coamings, inboard

longitudinal girders and high strength steel material

in order to resist these loads.

Hatch CornersTo accommodate stowage of the containers, large

hatch openings are provided with the smallest cornerradius as possible. However, it is at these corners,

where the longitudinal and transverse structure

meet, that the combination of the bending andtorsionally induced longitudinal warping stresses is

critical. Adding to the issue is the distortion of hatch

openings, which also influences the stressdistribution within this critical location.

The distortion of hatch openings at the hatchcoaming top is also critical to the design of the hatch

17Structural Considerations

Hatch Corner FEM Stress Plot

covers upon which the above deck containers will be loaded. Since the majority of hatch corner

stresses are wave-induced and dynamic in nature, they will fluctuate and the correspondingfatigue strength of the hatch corners is a prime design consideration.

Many aspects of the design, such as: the relative strength of the transverse box beam structureat the top of transverse bulkheads, whether inboard longitudinal girders are provided, whether

thick insert plates in the deck are fitted, etc., can be used to control the stresses in this area.

ABS programs analyze the vessel’s structure to identify where design features can be modifiedto increase its strength.

Location of Deckhouse and Engine Room As containerships become larger and theopen area of the deck is expanded, the

deckhouse can be relocated to a position on

the ship that can help control the hatchopening distortions and stresses. This is

done by separating the deckhouse and

engine rooms that are typically co-located inmost recent containership designs. An

added benefit of separating these two

spaces is that the Navigation Bridge can bebrought forward to improve visibility.

Bow Region Dynamic loads resulting from bow flare impact, bottomslamming and green water loads on the fore end of a

containership can be substantial. These impact loads will

be more pronounced for large containerships and need tobe considered in the design of the local bow structure,

including the breakwater protecting the forward rows of

deck containers.

ABS studies on bow flare impact loads also show that, for

the full load condition, increases in dynamic bendingmoment can be as much as 25 percent for ships with

large bow flare.

Transverse Strength The vessel beam of ULCS will increase; however, the hold lengths have remained constant since

hold length is governed by the standard length of cargo containers. As a result, the aspect ratio

of the cargo hold double bottom is becoming skewed toward a wide section with few floors andmany longitudinal girders that intersect the vertical girders of the transverse bulkheads.

Designers must ensure that the end connections and interactions of these major structuralmembers are properly accounted for and that all relevant failure modes such as material

yielding, buckling and fatigue are assessed.


Container and Deckhouse Arrangement

Bow Region FEM Plot

Panamax 4000 teu

Post Panamax 7000 teu

Post Panamax 9000 teu

Ultra 18000 teu

Ultra 18000 teu

Operational Issues

Ballast WaterABS released the Advisory Notes on Ballast Water Exchange Procedures in October 1999. The

study investigated Ballast Water Management for three different sizes of container vessels,feeder, panamax and post-Panamax, taking into account the strength and stability limitations of

the vessels.

Of the three vessels studied, it was noted that the post-Panamax vessels have ample excess

ballast, deadweight capacity, and stability margin to bring additional ballast onboard before

initiating the exchange process. The ultra-large containership’s ballast water management wouldmost likely mirror the post-Panamax vessel ballast characteristics.

Ballast water management is a prerequisite for the ES (Environmental Safety) notation offered byABS. The requirement for ES notation is that every vessel able to carry ballast water is to have a

ballast water management plan. This plan provides guidance to the operators for the proper

handling and treatment of ballast water and sediment to minimize the transfer of harmful aquaticorganisms and pathogens in the ballast water and sediment.

Green Water Special design consideration must be paid to reduce the amount of green water taken on boardby a containership. Green water on deck is considered in the design of the freeboard height,

forecastle deck, and local bow structure, including the breakwater.

ABS studies the green water on deck to determine its effect on the structural integrity of the deck

and bow structures. Green water on deck is also important for ship owners/ operators from

safety and operational viewpoints to protect the crew, cargo and equipment on deck duringheavy weather.

For the hatch-coverless containership, the amount of ingress water into cargo holds is analyzed.Often model tests are conducted or motion simulation is also used for ingress analysis once it is

carefully correlated with the experimental data. The effect of green water on deck and ingress

water for an open top containership can be mitigated through prudent design.

Lashing ArrangementAs container vessel size increases, an operational concern affecting the overall structure of the

vessel deals with the lashing arrangement. This is due to the increased structural deformationsdue to vessel reaction to the wave environment on a larger vessel.

To offset the deformation, the hatch covers are designed to slide. Also, the container stacksthemselves have a certain amount of slack in them due to necessary corner fitting/twist lock

tolerances for operation. Based on the vessel motions, accelerations and structural response, the

displacements of these two systems could very well be at odds with each other. Therefore, whenthe lashings are secured at one end to the vessel structure (or lashing bridges) and at the other

end to the container stack, the lashings become the interface for these two systems. One way of

addressing this is to have the containers lashed to the hatches, but then the hatch coversecuring becomes the interface.

It should also be noted that the open truss arrangements of the lashing bridges are also flexible.Therefore, while the base of the lashing bridges will displace with the vessel structure,

19Operational Issues

depending on the flexibility of the lashing bridge and the reaction of the adjacent longitudinal

container stack, the upper portions of the lashing bridge will displace due to the reactions of thelashing forces from the container stack.

ABS certifies the initial installation of container securing systems aboard vessels. The CSC(Container Securing Certificate) notation is issued to vessels that meet with ABS’ requirements,

as stated in the ABS Guide for Certification of Container Securing Systems. A vessel’s container

securing system must pass a satisfactory completion of plan review, testing of the securingdevices, approval of the Container Securing Manual and installation of the fixed securing

devices.

Vessel Motions (Parametric Roll)Operators of modern containerships are aware of the costly damages incurred by lost

containers. This was recently demonstrated when a vessel lost many deck containers in

November 1999 while in the North Pacific. A $50 million (USD) cargo damage suit wassubsequently filed. In light of this situation, many owners are concerned about parametric roll.

Parametric roll is an unusually large non-linear roll in excess of 30 to 40 degrees resulting from

the wave interaction with large overhanging vessel shape of the bow flare and/or stern flareareas. The nonlinear phenomenon of parametric roll uniquely affects the modern containership

with its sleek design below the waterline.

The modern containerships, with hulls designed for higher speed, more cargo capacity, larger

bow flares, and Gondola stern are uniquely susceptible to the problems associated with

parametric roll. When a large containership is in seas with a wave height of 7 to 8 meters and aspecific wave frequency band, it may experience roll motion of 30 to 40 degrees. When the

vessel rolls over 40 degrees, transverse diagonal lashings will loosen or fail and consequently

containers will be lost, no matter how much pretension is given.

Even in high, head or following seas, the excessive heave and pitch motions associated with

large bow flare and flat stern can trigger the strong nonlinear coupling with the roll motion,eventually causing large parametric rolling. This is an instability phenomenon and it can be

dangerous. It can occur at the wave encounter period approximately equal to half of the roll

natural period. For instance, even a containership with a 20-second roll natural period canexperience parametric roll at certain head seas.

Owners are now considering many ways to prevent or mitigate this unstable roll. One solution toavoid or reduce the parametric roll, often used by naval ships and offshore supply vessels, is to

fit the vessel with anti-roll tanks. Other options also exist to minimize the effects of parametric

roll. Some owners elect to install active fin stabilizers, similar to those installed on naval shipsand cruise ships.


Anti-roll tank images courtesey of: http://www.intering.com

Location of Bunker TanksRecent events involving environmental damage as a result of oil spills and leaks have raised the

question of fuel oil tank location on large vessels. Although there are, as yet, no formal

requirements on the carriage of fuel oil in protected bunker tanks, there are new designs withprotectively located fuel oil tanks.

Owners wishing to guarantee the long-term operation of their vessels recognize the value of theirinclusion. A reasonable segregation distance for fuel oil tanks could be that of the requirements

of MARPOL.

Voltage SystemsAs containership capacity increases, so will the capacity for reefer containers. Conventional low

voltage (LV) systems are no longer technically optimal in handling large electrical loads

demanded by ULCS. High voltage (HV) power systems provide the needed solution.

Typically, LV generators and motors are limited in size to about 2,500kW to 4,000kW. This does

not mean that more generators could simply be installed to satisfy the electrical load demand.Economy of space utilization and maintenance and operating costs would tend to discourage

this. More importantly, there are engineering limitations to the total capacity of a LV system.

For example, the larger the installed capacity the higher the short circuit current, and in thisrespect, available LV switchgears are only capable of withstanding short circuit currents up to

about 150 kA, thus limiting installed capacity. Moreover the cost and size of these generators

and switchgears, and cables tend to increase disproportionately as they get larger; this makesthe HV equipment attractive.

While HV systems present other problems: e.g. heightened electrical hazards, retraining of crew,etc., experience has shown that these have been overcome without great difficulties. Not to

forget, however, is the intrinsic flexibility of HV systems to system designers, chief among which

is the choice of system earthing. By choosing either not to earth the system or to earth thesystem directly or through impedance, the system designers have an array of choices for system

performance and equipment costs, which can be optimized to suit the needs of the operation.

Computer tools are commonly available to conduct simulation studies.

Classification rules for HV systems have been in place for many years. They provide for the

many safety features needed of HV systems. They include requirements such as specificlocation for HV switchgears, detection of internal short circuit fault detection for generators,

segregation of LV and HV cable routing, etc.

While these rules are applicable to HV

systems in general, in addition to class rules, it

is necessary for system designers to considerspecific application of HV system to container-

ship operations. For example, it is highly

recommended that system designers chooseto have dedicated step-down transformers for

supplying power to reefer containers as shown

in the accompanying illustration. The use ofshipboard LV distribution system, including

ship services other than reefer containers,

should be avoided.

21Operational Issues

The important consideration here is earth fault. Where segregated from the main power system

by transformers, earth fault in the reefer power system can be detected with ease withoutinterfering with the main power system. Such an arrangement would also provide system

designers with options for transformer earthing design to optimize power supply continuity to the

reefer containers in case of an earth fault.

VibrationVibration in the structure of large vessels, such as the ULCS, can arise from several sources.

Wave action, particularly slamming, can result in high vibratory response. Propeller inducedpressure fluctuations on the hull and the propulsion system can also be responsible for

significant dynamic response.

Larger ship structures tend to be more flexible than smaller ones. This flexibility translates into

lower hull girder natural frequencies and, depending on the nature of dynamic loading, large

vessels, such as ultra-large containerships, may be more responsive and exhibit high vibratorylevels in service. Substructures, such as the deckhouse, and local structure such as decks and

bulkheads can also exhibit high response levels. The degree of responsiveness depends on,

among other things, how close the natural frequencies of the ship structure match those of thedynamic loading. Vibration characteristics of a vessel should be examined early in the design, as

modifications to the structure after the vessel has been constructed can be very costly.

In certain circumstances, regular wave loading may result in a steady state response known as

“springing”; long flexible ships are the most vulnerable. Slamming, both at the bow and at the

stern, can induce uncomfortable response levels. At a more local level it is prudent to investigatevibration response induced by propellers and machinery. In more extreme cases the energy from

these sources can induce fatigue failures in local structure.

Modern analytical tools are able to model the dynamic forces and the response such that any

deficiencies can be addressed early in the design cycle. Wave loading, whether steady state or

transient phenomena such as slamming, can be simulated using advanced tools at the disposalof ABS. While model tests are one source of information on pressure fluctuations caused by

propellers, ABS has up-to-date software tools for predicting such forces. The response of ship

structures to these forces is estimated using, after suitable modification, the finite elementmodels described earlier.

ABS has been performing vibration analyses of commercial vessels since the early 1970s andhas amassed considerable experience in analyzing the vibratory response of a wide range of

vessel types. The latter include tankers, passenger vessels, roro vessels, as well as container-

ships. In these tasks experienced ABS engineers and analysts apply modern software tools tomodel vibration-causing forces and to predict vibration response. The vibration levels are then

compared with criteria contained in standards, or the customer’s specification. The primary

objectives are to avoid vibration levels that interfere with crew operations and comfort, and toensure structural integrity is not compromised. Where high levels of vibration are predicted ABS

engineers and analysts can work with those responsible for the design in seeking solutions.


ABS SafeShip

ABS SafeShip integrates existing programs to provide a complete life cycle management

program to follow the life cycle of a SafeHull ship from design and construction to service and

surveys. This program provides owners with the highest level of information available foroperational efficiency and ship safety.

All large containerships built to ABS class meet the initial requirement of a SafeHull designedvessel, as the ABS Rules dictate that all containerships over 130 meters in length are to be built

to SafeHull specifications. This is the qualifying feature for enrollment in the ABS SafeShip

program. Once enrolled in the program, owners are empowered to better manage the entire lifecycle of their vessels.

Combining the expertise of ABS SafeHull, ABS SafeNetand ABS SafeHull Construction Monitoring, ABS

SafeShip provides:

• SafeHull engineering analysis techniques

• Construction monitoring

• Hull Maintenance

• Survey Status

• Maintenance & Repair

• Marine Information

• Vessel Drawing Storage

ABS provides the SafeShip program to clients to limit

risk through comprehensive life cycle care. This isaccomplished through the application of advanced

technology to reduce risk in the design, construction

and maintenance. Successful management of thisinformation is the key through all stages of a vessel’s

performance. The importance of information technology

will continue to increase in the role of successful shipoperations and maintenance.

23ABS SafeShip

Case Study

Samsung Heavy Industries: 9,000 teu

ABS is proud to have contributed technically to Samsung Heavy Industry’s (SHI) development of

a 9,000 teu container vessel design. Following are excerpts from the Samsung press release of

31 October 2000 detailing the project.

SHI Develops 9,000 TEU Container Vessel“Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) (President Hai-Kyoo Lee) has started its efforts for the sales

[sic] of the 9,000 teu-class jumbo container vessels, completing development of a new vesselprototype recently.

“The Company has endeavored to develop an optimum vessel prototype in consideration of thepresent status of the facilities and cargo-handling equipment at major ports of the world and their

plans for expansion of the facilities. It also revealed that the new vessels have been designed in

such a way as will make the speed as high as 26 knots, equipping the most powerful existingengine for a vessel with the maximum capacity of 93,000 hp. The new prototype can be loaded

with 9,000 containers in its 10 cargo sections, being sized 330m (L) x 45.6m (W) x 14.5m

(Draft), whose total weight comes to close to 0.15 million ton when loaded with cargo. It is alsofeatured with the environment-friendly consideration given with the double-hull of the oil tank

which is located at the bottom to prevent a chance of oil spill at the time of entry to a port or an

accident.

“SHI has been conducting the performance evaluation, such as analysis of resistance associated

with fluid mechanics and vessel prototype interpretation etc. of the new jumbo vessel in theshipbuilder’s towing tank, which is one of the largest of its kind in the world (400m x 14m x 7m-

sized) in the Research InstituteDaeduk and the vessel successfully underwent the inspection on

vessel structure interpretation and safety at ABS (American Bureau of Shipping).”

25Case Study

Services provided by ABS to SamsungABS teamed with Samsung to review the concept designs for a new large post-Panamax vessel.

Using the initial scantling criteria (Phase A) and the FEM total strength assessment (Phase B) of

the Rules specifications from SafeHull, the initial design was developed. Torsional analysis of 22design variations using DYSOS was then performed to determine the effects of hull design

parameters such as wing tank breadth, ship depth, double bottom height, scantling of coaming

top flange on torsional response of the proposed structural designs.

Based on the structural responses on deck stress and distorsion of hatch openings calculated by

DYSOS, Samsung refined the structure design. SHI and ABS verified the final hull design withthe nonlinear hydrodynamic load using LAMP and full length FEM analysis, using NASTRAN, to

further refine the detailed design.

Technical review and analysis of the proposed vessel design has been achieved through one of

the most advanced computer simulation tools that account for dynamic load distribution and

structural response. This analysis is invaluable to the shipyard as they proceed with the finaldesigns of the 9,000 teu containership.


Conclusions

ABS continues to provide the tools necessary to develop new generation ULCS, just as it did or

the first containership almost 50 years ago. Building on its history of firsts, ABS remains an

industry leader. ABS’ current market share demonstrates market dominance in the post-Panamax size and positions ABS to continue its leadership as market factors make the

expansion of containership size more profitable.

Extending beyond ABS SafeHull and SH-DLA, services offered by ABS provide the technical

expertise necessary to differentiate your vessel. ABS’ programs are technically rational and

scientific. These programs combine to provide the most comprehensive review. From MPUF3Apropeller analysis to the nonlinear LAMP-NASTRAN analysis, ABS’ experience extends beyond

basic structural considerations and is available as a reference for every feature of a vessel.

ABS’ experience extends to include operational considerations, from effective ballast water

management to lashing arrangements and strives to provide up-to-date information for the

modern container operators.

ABS-classed ULCS vessels are also eligible for enrollment in the ABS SafeShip program.

Information from this program provides a tool for the total life cycle management of the ship.

Using ABS as your classification society for the next generation of ULCS brings a rational,

scientific approach backed by decades of containership classification.

27Conclusions

Appendix 1

Fleet Information and Market Share

Class Society Market Comparison

Post-Panamax Market ShareSource: Seaway, December 2000

ABS the classification society of choice for post-Panamax

vessels with a 35% market share. It also has significantshares of the Panamax, medium and feeder sectors.

For Vessels >4000 teu

Countries of Build ABS BV GL K R LR N K TotalDEU (Germany) 8 0 1 0 9 0 18DNK (Denmark) 11 0 0 0 0 0 11JPN (Japan) 35 0 0 0 25 27 87KOR (Korea) 23 2 51 32 10 2 120TWN (Taiwan) 2 0 0 0 0 0 2Total 79 2 52 32 44 29

ABS containership classification activity is divided between all countries with newbuilding activity.

These numbers represent that ABS’ experience is recognized in prominent countries ofcontainership building. This diversity of experience is unparalleled (Seaway, November 2000).

29Appendix 1

Existing Post-Panamax Containerships

Appendix 2

Sampling of ABS-classed Post-Panamax Vessels

APL Agate, APL Cyprine, APL PearlNeptune Shipmanagement Services

5,000 teu

Builder: Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.1997 - 1998

APL Agate

APL Korea, APL Philippines, APL Singapore

American Ship Management LLC

4,800 teuBuilder: Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering

1995 - 1996

DLA

APL Phillipines

APL China, APL Japan, APL Thailand


4,800 teuBuilder: Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG

1995

DLAAPL Thailand

A. P. Moller, Caroline Maersk, Carsten Maersk, Clifford Maersk, Cornelius Maersk, Sine Maersk,

Skagen Maersk, Sofie Maersk, Soro Maersk,

Svend Maersk, Svendborg MaerskRederiet A. P. Moeller

6,600 teu

Builder: Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd.1998 - 2000S Class MaerskDLA and SafeHull


Ever Ultra, Ever Union, Ever Unique, Ever Unison,

LT UnitedEvergreen International Corp.

5,300 teu

Builder: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries1996 - 1997

U Type Vessel

Ever Uberty, Ever Unific, Ever Uranus, Ever Useful,

LT Unicorn, LT Unity, LT Urban, LT Ursula, LT Usodimare,

LT Utile, LT UlyssesEvergreen International Corp.

5,600 teu

Builder: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries1999 - 2000

SafeHullU Type Vessel

Ming Plum

YangMing Marine Transport Corp.5,500 teu

Builder: Hyundai Heavy Ind. Co., Ltd.

September 2000SafeHull

Ming Plum

OOCL America, OOCL Britain, OOCL California,

OOCL JapanOrient Overseas Container Line Ltd.

4,900 teu

Builder: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.1995 - 1996

OOCL Japan

31Appendix 2

OOCL China, OOCL Hong Kong

Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.4,900 teu

Builder: Samsung Heavy Industries

1995 - 1996

OOCL China

President Adams, President Polk

American Ship Management LLC4,300 teu

Builder: Bremer Vulkan A.G.

July 1988

President Polk

President Jackson, President Kennedy, President Truman


4,300 teuBuilder: Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG

1988

President Truman


Appendix 3

Listing of ABS-classed container vessels>4000 teu

Vessel Name Owner Name TEU Builder Name Build DateA. P. Moller*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 08-Jun-00

APL Agate Neptune Shipmanagement Services 5020 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 08-Sep-97

APL China** Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4832 Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag 19-May-95

APL Cyprine Neptune Shipmanagement Services 5020 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 01-Dec-97

APL France P & O Nedlloyd B.V. 4158 Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin 01-Mar-96

APL Garnet** Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4391 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 12-Aug-95

APL Germany P & O Nedlloyd B.V. 4158 Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin 01-Mar-96

APL Indonesia P & O Nedlloyd B.V. 4158 Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin 21-Jun-96

APL Ivory Zodiac Maritime Agencies 4100 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 01-Jul-80

APL Jade Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4391 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 21-Oct-95

APL Japan** Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4832 Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag 01-Sep-95

APL Korea** American Ship Management LLC 4826 Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin 27-Sep-95

APL Pearl Neptune Shipmanagement Services 5020 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 27-Feb-98

APL Philippines** American Ship Management LLC 4826 Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin 04-Jan-96

APL Sardonyx** Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4391 Samsung Heavy Industries Co.Ltd. 08-Jun-95

APL Singapore** American Ship Management LLC 4826 Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin 10-Nov-95

APL Spinel** Neptune Orient Lines Ltd. 4391 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 22-Jan-96

APL Thailand** American Ship Management LLC 4832 Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag 29-Nov-95

APL Tourmaline** Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4434 Koyo Dockyard Co., Ltd. 02-Jan-96

APL Turquoise** Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4434 Koyo Dockyard Co., Ltd. 26-Mar-96

Caroline Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 04-Sep-00

Carsten Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 17-Nov-00

Clifford Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 19-Nov-99

Cornelius Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 19-Mar-00

CSCL Shanghai* Costamare Shipping Co., SA 5551 Hyundai Heavy Ind. Co., Ltd. 30-Nov-00

Ever Dainty*** Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 25-Jul-97

Ever Decent*** Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 06-Nov-97

Ever Deluxe*** Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 20-Jan-98

Ever Devote*** Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 14-May-98

Ever Diadem*** Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 03-Jul-98

Ever Divine*** Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 04-Sep-98

Ever Uberty* Evergreen International Corp. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 26-Jan-99

Ever Ultra Greencompass Marine S.A. 5364 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 31-May-96

Ever Unific* Evergreen International Corp. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 18-Mar-99

Ever Union Greencompass Marine S.A. 5364 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 07-May-97

Ever Unique Evergreen International Corp. 5364 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 31-Jan-97

Ever Unison Evergreen International Corp. 5364 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 29-Nov-96

Ever Uranus* Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 10-Jun-99

Ever Useful* Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 15-Dec-99

LT Unicorn* Evergreen International Corp. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 13-Sep-00

LT United Evergreen International Corp. 5364 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 30-Aug-96

LT Unity* Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 05-Aug-99

LT Urban* Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 13-Jan-00

LT Ursula* Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 07-Oct-99

LT Usodimare* Lloyd Triestino Di Navigazione S. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 29-Nov-00

LT Utile* Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 30-Mar-00

33Appendix 3

*ABS SafeHull Vessel**ABS SH-DLA Vessel

***ABS SH-DLA and SafeHull Vessel

Post-Panamax Vessel

Source: ABS Record, December 2000

LT Ulysses* Evergreen International Corp. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 21-Jun-00

Ming Plum* Yangming Marine Transport Corp. 5551 Hyundai Heavy Ind. Co., Ltd. 08-Sep-00

Ming Orchid* Yangming Marine Transport Corp. 5551 Hyundai Heavy Ind. Co., Ltd. 29-Dec-00

NOL Coral Neptune Shipmanagement Services 5020 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 08-May-98

OOCL America Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 4960 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 28-Nov-95

OOCL Britain Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 4960 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 15-Mar-96

OOCL California Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 4960 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 29-Aug-95

OOCL Chicago*** Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 5714 China Shipbuilding Corp. 21-Dec-00

OOCL China Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 4960 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 19-Mar-96

OOCL Hong Kong Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 4960 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 08-Dec-95

OOCL Japan Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 4960 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 23-Feb-96

OOCL Netherlands Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 5006 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 05-Dec-97

OOCL San Francisco*** Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 5714 China Shipbuilding Corp. 15-Sep-00

OOCL Singapore Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 5006 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 28-Aug-97

President Adams American Ship Management LLC 4340 Bremer Vulkan A.G. 01-Sep-88

President Jackson American Ship Management LLC 4332 Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag 01-Sep-88

President Kennedy American Ship Management LLC 4332 Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag 01-Jul-88

President Polk American Ship Management LLC 4340 Bremer Vulkan A.G. 01-Jul-88

President Truman American Ship Management LLC 4332 Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag 01-Apr-88

Sea-Land Achiever U.S. Ship Management, Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machine Co. 01-Oct-84

Sea-Land Atlantic U.S. Ship Management, Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machinery Ltd. 01-May-85

Sea-Land Champion Chesham Containerships Ltd. 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 23-Jun-95

Sea-Land Charger Chesham Containerships Ltd. 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 31-Mar-97

Sea-Land Comet Chesham Containerships Ltd. 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 30-Oct-95

Sea-Land Commitment U.S. Ship Management, Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machinery Ltd. 01-Jul-85

Sea-Land Eagle Chesham Containerships Ltd. 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 27-Jun-97

Sea-Land Florida U.S. Ship Management, Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machine Co. 01-Jun-84

Sea-Land Integrity U.S. Ship Management, Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machine Co. 01-Dec-84

Sea-Land Intrepid Rederiet A. P. Moller 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 29-Aug-97

Sea-Land Lightning Rederiet A. P. Moller 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 25-Sep-97

Sea-Land Mercury Chesham Containerships Ltd. 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 30-Nov-95

Sea-Land Meteor Chesham Containerships Ltd. 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 30-Jan-96

Sea-Land Oregon U.S. Ship Management,Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machine Co. 01-Apr-85

Sea-Land Performance U.S. Ship Management, Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machinery Ltd. 01-Sep-85

Sea-Land Quality U.S. Ship Management, Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machinery Ltd. 01-Jun-85

Sea-Land Racer Chesham Containerships Ltd. 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 28-Feb-96

Sine Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 29-Jun-98

Skagen Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 10-Sep-99

Sofie Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 15-Dec-98

Soro Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 04-Jun-99

Svend Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 15-Mar-99

Svendborg Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 25-Sep-98


*ABS SafeHull Vessel**ABS SH-DLA Vessel

***ABS SH-DLA and SafeHull VesselPost Panamax Vessel

Source: ABS Record, December 2000

Appendix 4

Shipyards with ABS approved designs (To either SH or SH-DLA criteria)

over 4000 teu

China Shipbuilding Corporation Taiwan

Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd.Korea

Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AGGermany

Hyundai Heavy IndustriesKorea

Kawasaki Heavy IndustriesJapan

Koyo DockyardJapan

Mitsubishi Heavy IndustriesJapan

Nantong Ocean EngineeringChina

Odense Steel ShipyardDenmark

Samsung Heavy IndustriesKorea

35Appendix 4

Produced by ABS Marketing Development & Corporate Communications

16855 Northchase DriveHouston, TX 77060-6008 USA

ABS American Bureau of Shipping Profile

Documents

Transcript of ABS American Bureau of Shipping Profile