DNV CG 0134

CLASS GUIDELINE
DNV-CG-0134 Edition October 2021
Liquefied gas carriers with spherical tanks

of type B
The content of this service document is the subject of intellectual property rights reserved by DNV AS (“DNV”). The user
accepts that it is prohibited by anyone else but DNV and/or its licensees to offer and/or perform classification, certification
and/or verification services, including the issuance of certificates and/or declarations of conformity, wholly or partly, on the
basis of and/or pursuant to this document whether free of charge or chargeable, without DNV’s prior written consent. DNV
is not responsible for the consequences arising from any use of this document by others.
The PDF electronic version of this document available at the DNV website dnv.com is the official version. If there
are any inconsistencies between the PDF version and any other available version, the PDF version shall prevail.
DNV AS
FOREWORD
DNV class guidelines contain methods, technical requirements, principles and acceptance criteria
related to classed objects as referred to from the rules.
© DNV AS October 2021
Any comments may be sent by e-mail to rules@dnv.com
This service document has been prepared based on available knowledge, technology and/or information at the time of issuance of this
document. The use of this document by other parties than DNV is at the user's sole risk. Unless otherwise stated in an applicable contract,
or following from mandatory law, the liability of DNV AS, its parent companies and subsidiaries as well as their officers, directors and
employees (“DNV”) for proved loss or damage arising from or in connection with any act or omission of DNV, whether in contract or in tort
(including negligence), shall be limited to direct losses and under any circumstance be limited to 300,000 USD.
CHANGES – CURRENT
Changes - current
This document supersedes the October 2018 edition of DNVGL-CG-0134.
The numbering and/or title of items containing changes is highlighted in red.
Changes October 2021
Topic Reference Description
Buckling criteria App.D Alignment of buckling criteria in the appendix with the
requirements of the class guideline without impact on existing
Moss tank designs.
Rebranding to DNV All This document has been revised due to the rebranding of DNV
GL to DNV. The following have been updated: the company
name, material and certificate designations, and references to
other documents in the DNV portfolio. Some of the documents
referred to may not yet have been rebranded. If so, please see
the relevant DNV GL document.
Editorial corrections
In addition to the above stated changes, editorial corrections may have been made.
Class guideline — DNV-CG-0134. Edition October 2021 Page 3

Liquefied gas carriers with spherical tanks of type B
DNV AS
CONTENTS
Contents
Changes – current.................................................................................................. 3
Section 1 General.................................................................................................... 7
1 Introduction.........................................................................................7
2 The spherical tank concept..................................................................8
3 References........................................................................................... 8
4 Symbols and definitions...................................................................... 9
5 Calculation tools................................................................................ 12
6 Scope of analyses.............................................................................. 13
7 Assumptions...................................................................................... 16
Section 2 Hull structural analysis......................................................................... 17

1 Introduction.......................................................................................17
2 Cargo hold analysis........................................................................... 18
3 Local fine mesh analysis....................................................................27
Section 3 Global analysis...................................................................................... 28

1 General.............................................................................................. 28
2 Structural model................................................................................ 28
3 Analysis steps.................................................................................... 29
Section 4 Strength analysis of cargo hold covers and supporting structure.......... 30

1 Introduction.......................................................................................30
2 Strength assessment of the cargo hold covers.................................. 30
3 Buckling code and acceptance criteria for tank covers.......................34
4 Supporting structure..........................................................................36
5 Cross deck structure..........................................................................36
Section 5 Strength analysis of the spherical cargo tank....................................... 37

1 Introduction.......................................................................................37
2 Required analyses of the cargo tanks................................................37
3 Prototype testing............................................................................... 38
4 Design loads for allowable stress and buckling analysis.................... 39
5 Finite element analysis of the spherical tank.....................................54
6 Summary............................................................................................65
7 Strength assessment of other types of spherical type geometry........ 66
Section 6 Loads and strength of the pump tower................................................. 71

DNV AS
1 Description.........................................................................................71
Contents
2 Loads for pump tower design............................................................ 71
3 Sloshing loads....................................................................................71
4 Inertia and gravity loads................................................................... 82
5 Thermal loads.................................................................................... 83
6 Combination of loads......................................................................... 83
7 Modelling of tower structure............................................................. 84
8 Capacity assessment..........................................................................84
Section 7 Strength analysis of the skirt................................................................ 87

1 Introduction.......................................................................................87
2 General.............................................................................................. 87
3 Main geometry................................................................................... 87
4 Design loads and stress summation.................................................. 89
5 Procedure for finite element analysis of the skirt.............................. 92
6 Buckling code and acceptance criteria for the skirt........................... 94
Section 8 Fatigue and crack propagation analysis of cargo tanks......................... 97

1 Introduction.......................................................................................97
2 Loading conditions.............................................................................98
3 Fatigue loads and load combinations.................................................98
4 Stress combinations for fatigue and fracture mechanics analyses......99
5 Fatigue damage evaluations............................................................ 100
6 S-N Curves for fatigue analyses...................................................... 101
7 Typical areas to be checked for fatigue........................................... 101
8 Crack propagation analysis.............................................................. 101
9 Leakage calculation......................................................................... 105
Section 9 Fatigue assessment of the hull structure............................................ 109

1 General............................................................................................ 109
2 Definitions........................................................................................109
3 Fatigue analysis procedures............................................................ 109
4 Loading conditions...........................................................................109
5 Details to be checked for fatigue.....................................................109
6 Minimum section modulus to gain satisfactory fatigue life of the
upper deck..........................................................................................110
7 Other areas to be checked for fatigue............................................. 114
Section 10 Vibration analysis.............................................................................. 121

1 General............................................................................................ 121

DNV AS
2 Analysis procedure.......................................................................... 121
Contents
Section 11 Bibliography...................................................................................... 124
1 Bibliography list...............................................................................124
Appendix A Forces in spherical tanks................................................................. 125

1 Force calculation..............................................................................125
Appendix B Derivation of the skew-symmetric equation..................................... 127

1 Skew-symmetric ULS loads..............................................................127
Appendix C Sloshing design of spherical LNG tanks............................................130

1 General............................................................................................ 130
2 Acceptable sloshing design approaches........................................... 130
3 Background...................................................................................... 130
4 Sloshing assessment procedures..................................................... 131
Appendix D Buckling criteria of LNG spherical cargo tank containment systems

– skirt and sphere.............................................................................................. 132
1 General............................................................................................ 132
2 Design principles............................................................................. 132
3 Skirt buckling...................................................................................132
4 Sphere buckling............................................................................... 143
5 Definitions – skirt............................................................................ 148
6 Definitions – sphere........................................................................ 149
7 Tables.............................................................................................. 150
8 Figures............................................................................................. 152
9 Skirt buckling – explicit buckling strength and allowable stresses... 154
10 Sphere buckling – explicit buckling strength and allowable
stresses.............................................................................................. 155
Changes – historic.............................................................................................. 157

DNV AS
SECTION 1 GENERAL
Section 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Objective
This class guideline (CG) provides guidance to DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 and DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 for
design of liquefied gas carriers with spherical independent tanks of type-B.
1.2 Scope
The class guidline covers the design and assessment procedures for hull structures, cargo tanks and
supporting structures of liquefied gas carriers with independent spherical tanks type-B, including guidance on
fatigue strength assessment and fracture mechanics analyses.
1.3 Application
Structural analysis carried out in accordance with the procedures/methods described in this CG is accepted as
basis for plan approval.
In cases where there are any contradiction between this CG and rules, the rules shall prevail.
Additional guidelines for direct structural analysis of liquefied gas carriers with spherical tanks are given in
DNV-CG-0127 Finite element analysis, DNV-CG-0128 Buckling, and DNV-CG-0129 Fatigue assessment of
ship structures, and DNV-CG-0130 Wave loads.
1.4 Recognised analysis tools

With respect to finite element analysis, any recognized calculation method and computer program may be
utilized provided the effects of bending, shear, axial and torsion deflections are considered when relevant.
With respect to buckling analysis of the tank and the skirt any computer program may in principle be utilized
applying the design criteria given in this document. There are DNV developed computer programs for that
purpose which may be made available upon request, see Sec.5.
With respect to hydrodynamic analysis, for the purpose of calculation of wave loads and accelerations, it is
required to use recognized software. Recognized software refers to any wave load program that can show
results to the satisfaction of the Society.
1.5 Sloshing loads

Methods for estimation of the sloshing loads in partly filled tanks (for assessment of buckling capacity of tank
and strength of pump tower) may be based on:
— model tests for a particular ship
— computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis, to be verified and approved by the Society
— semi-empirical/simplified method as described in Sec.6 [3].
See also App.C.

DNV AS
Section 1
2 The spherical tank concept
2.1 Safety philosophy

Spherical tanks of type B require a partial secondary barrier. The underlying safety philosophy is referred to
as the leak-before-failure (LBF) principle in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.4 [2.2.6]. This means that the cargo
tanks shall be so well designed and verified that a possible crack will not lead to uncontrollable leakages that
will impair the safety of the ship.
The rules require that the following analysis are carried out:
1) direct hydrodynamic load analysis
2) stress analysis
3) fatigue
4) fracture mechanics analyses
to determine possible leakage rates and verify the integrity of the tank system.
2.2 Local bending stresses

If local bending stresses are larger than the membrane stresses, defects/cracks will grow in length rather
than in depth. In such cases the crack may reach a critical size without growing through the thickness.
Therefore, a critical situation can therefore not be detected by gas detection devices and leak-before-failure
(LBF). To mitigate this risk enhanced fatigue and fracture requirements shall be applied, see DNV-RU-SHIP
Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 Table 2. Fatigue and fracture mechanics analyses are further described in Sec.7.
3 References
Table 1 lists DNV references used in this document.
Table 1 DNV references
Document code Title
DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.2 Ch.2 Metallic materials
DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.1 General principles
DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.4 Loads
DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.7 Finite element analysis
DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.8 Buckling
DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.9 Fatigue
DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.10 Special requirements
DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Liquefied gas tankers
DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.6 Ch.1 Structural strength and integrity
DNV-CG-0127 Finite element analysis
DNV-CG-0128 Buckling
DNV-CG-0129 Fatigue assessment of ship structures
DNV-CG-0130 Wave loads

DNV AS
Section 1
4 Symbols and definitions
4.1 Symbols
For symbols not defined in this document, see DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.1 Sec.4 and DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
Sec.1.
TA = actual draught in m for considered loading condition from loading manual

d = diameter of the spherical tank in mm
2
E = Young’s modulus of elasticity in N/mm
5 2
2.06 · 10 N/mm for steel
4 2
7.00 · 10 N/mm for aluminium.
4.2 Abbreviations
The abbreviations described in Table 2 are used in this document.
Table 2 Abbreviations
Abbreviation Description
AC acceptance criteria
ULS ultimate limit state
FLS fatigue limit state
ALS accidental limit state
BSP as defined in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.4 Sec.2 [1.1]
BSR as defined in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.4 Sec.2 [1.1]
CDF computational fluid dynamics
CL center line
CTOD crack tip opening displacement
d.o.f. degrees of freedom
EDW equivalent design wave
FE finite element
FSRU floating storage and regas unit
GM metacentric hight
GRP glass reinforced plastic
LC loading condition
LNG liquefied natural gas
LPG liquefied petroleum gas
MCR maximum continuous rating

DNV AS
Abbreviation Description
Section 1
OSA as defined in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.4 Sec.2 [1.1]
OST as defined in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.4 Sec.2 [1.1]
PIV particle image velocimetry
RPM revolutions per minute
SCF stress concentration factor
SRSS square root of the sum of squares
SRV shuttel and regas vessel
4.3 Nomenclature
Figure 1 to Figure 4 show the nomenclature for a typical LNG carrier with spherical tanks.
Cargo hold cover
Deck line Upper deck

Sheer strake
Passage way
Pipe
Passage way ring
tower
CARGO Passage deck
Inner side plating
TANK and longitudinals Side shell plate
and longitudinals
Hopper ring Side stringer

girder, deck
Hopper deck Skirt
Web frame
Hopper web knuckle
frame
Hopper Foundation deck
Inner bottom knuckle,
plating and Skirt bracket
lower & upper
longitudinals
Double
side WB
Bilge plate and
longitudinals
Pipe tunnel
Bilge keel
CL No. 1 No. 2
Double bottom girders
Transverse floor Bottom plate and
longitudinals
Figure 1 Nomenclature for a typical LNG carrier with spherical tanks

DNV AS
Section 1
Figure 2 Nomenclature for a typical girder
Figure 3 Nomenclature for longitudinal details

DNV AS
Section 1
Void Cross decks
Void
Bulkhead
Passage tunnel
WB tank
Ring girder
Double side w/
stringers/tween Skirt
decks
Stool with or
without WB Stool frames and
Foundation bulkheads
WB tank deck
Hopper frame
structure
Double bottom
Pipe
passage
Figure 4 Typical arrangement of the cargo hold, the tank left out for clarity
5 Calculation tools
5.1 DNV software

In order to achieve above objectives, the following software tools may be used depending upon the
characteristics of the vessel and the required analysis scope:
1)
— Local rules scantling for typical midship section and other necessary cross sections using Nauticus Hull
cross section analysis.
— Cargo hold analysis for the assessment of primary structures in the midship area using Nauticus Hull FE
analyses or equivalent.
— Global analysis modelling the complete ship length and using load cases obtained by either direct wave
load analysis or rule defined loads.
2) 3)
— Wave load analysis as part of a global analysis using WASIM or equivalent.
4)
— ULS strength analysis of the cargo tank using NVSPHERE .
5)
— ULS strength analysis of the skirt using NVSKIRT .
6)
— Prediction of sloshing loads for the pipe tower, TTSlosh .
7)
— ULS and FLS strength analysis of the cargo tank system (tank, skirt and tower) using Nauticus Hull .
1) Nauticus Hull is a computer program, offered by DNV, suitable for the prescriptive scantling calculations.
2) For cargo hold analysis, direct wave load analysis is not mandatory for the ship hull structures and is
therefore to be carried out at owner’s and/or builder’s discretion. For verification of the type B spherical

DNV AS
independent tank (cargo containment system), a direct wave load analysis is required to obtain hull girder
Section 1
loads and design accelerations for the cargo tanks, see DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [1.3.3].
3) WASIM is a linear/non-linear frequency domain/time domain computational tool for sea keeping and load
analysis of ships. The complete 3D interaction between waves and hull at forward speed is included. The
computer program is not limited to small waves but can simulate also extreme wave conditions.
4) NVSPHERE is a computer program offered by DNV suitable for scantling assessment for the cargo tank.
The offered calculation cannot completely replace a finite element analysis of the cargo tank system, as
only the membrane stresses are considered in NVSPHERE. In areas where bending stresses are present
FEM models are needed i.e. for equator profile and tower supports. The program requires input of directly
calculated interaction forces.
5) NVSKIRT is a computer program offered by DNV suitable for buckling assessment of the cargo tank skirt
in accordance with the required buckling code, see App.D. The offered calculation is not mandatory but will
be accepted as basis for approval of the buckling capacity of the skirt. The program requires input of directly
calculated stresses.
6) TTSlosh is a computer program developed by DNV based on new sloshing tests, see /17/ and /18/.
7) The Nauticus Hull program package includes tools comprising pre-processors, environmental analysis
programs, structural analysis programs and postprocessors for the purpose of finite element analyses.
6 Scope of analyses
6.1 Hull structure

Required analyses for approval of the hull structure of liquefied gas carriers with independent spherical tanks
are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3 Overview – hull structure
Classification requirements – hull structures
Items to be
Task summary Reference
addressed
Damage stability — The ship shall comply with the requirements for ship type 2G.
and separation of — The calculation shall include all relevant loading conditions with partially DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
cargo hold spaces Sec.2
filled tanks.
Hull loads — Rule loads. DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.4
Cargo hold — A three dimensional integrated ship hull cargo hold and cargo tank DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
analysis model FE analysis shall be carried out. Sec.21 [1.3.2] and
— A complete global (full ship) model with cargo hold mesh in the cargo
DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
area can be used with application of boundary conditions on different
Sec.21 [2.1.2]
location depending on the considered cargo hold.
Local fine mesh — According to rules scope.

structural DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.7
analysis
Hull fatigue — Fatigue strength assessment to be carried out for the hull structure
strength according to general rule scope as detailed in this document. Sec.9 [5]
— Design target life of minimum 25 years based on world-wide operation
(scatter diagram).
— Rules defined loads to be applied, unless CSA notation is specified.

DNV AS
Classification requirements – hull structures
Section 1
Items to be
addressed
Slamming — A calculation of stern slamming and bottom slamming to be DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3

analysis documented, if found necessary. Ch.10 Sec.2 and DNV-
RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.10
Sec.3
Temperature — If not known from similar designs, a temperature calculation to be DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
calculation documented for material selection of hull structures shall be carried out. Sec.21 [4.1.1] and
Sec.21 [4.1.2]
— For definition of ambient temperatures see the listed references. DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
Sec.4 [5.1.1]
Hull material — To be selected based on temperature calculation. DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7

Sec.4 [5.1.1] item 2
6.2 Cargo tanks and supporting structure

Required analyses for approval of the cargo tanks and the supporting hull structure of liquefied gas carriers
with independent spherical tanks are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 Overview – Cargo tanks and supporting structures in way of cargo tanks
Classification requirements
Cargo tanks and supporting structures in way of cargo tanks
Items to be
addressed
Design loads -8
— A complete wave load analysis is required. Loads at 10 probability DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
level in North Atlantic environment. Sec.4 [2.1.2]
— Before direct wave load analyses results are available, design loads for
the tanks can be determined according to the rule equations in DNV-RU-
Sec.4 [6.1.2]
SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.4.
Stress analysis — A whole ship global three dimensional FE analysis is required. Hull DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
of cargo tanks model with cargo tanks and covers to be applied. Sec.21 [2.1.2]
and supporting
structures in way — The calculations including modelling, loading conditions, strength
of cargo tanks assessment and allowable stress checks shall be carried out according Sec.3
to the procedure described in this class guideline.
— Mechanical properties for the material of cargo tanks to be documented. DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
Sec.6
— For buckling analysis fabrication tolerances shall be considered. DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
Sec.21 [3.2.3]
Fatigue analysis — Fatigue analysis shall be carried out for the details listed in Sec.8 [7]. Sec.8 [7]

DNV AS
Section 1
Items to be
addressed
— The calculated fatigue life time in North Atlantic environmental DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
8 Sec.4 [2.1.2],
conditions during 10 wave encounters shall not have a fatigue damage
factor larger than CW=0.5. In any case the fatigue life shall not be less DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
than 25 years (the minimum design life for ships according to DNV Sec.4 [4.3.3] 7-9
rules).
— S-N curves shall be relevant for the actual design detail. DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
Sec.4 [4.3.3] item 4.1
— Cumulative effect of fatigue, Miner’s sum, shall be based on mean value

minus two standard deviations of the S-N test data according to current
Sec.4 [4.3.3] item 4.2
industry standard.
Crack — A fatigue crack propagation analysis shall be carried out for areas with
propagation high dynamic stresses. The analysis shall consider propagation rates in
Sec.4 [4.3.3] item 6
analysis parent material, weld metal and heat-affected zone.
— Detailed requirements for the analysis are given in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
Ch.7. Sec.4 [4.3.3] 7-9
Leakage rate — Leak analysis to determine potential leakage rates shall be carried
determination out as basis for design and dimensioning of the small leak protection
Sec.4 [2.4.2]
system.
Sloshing loads — Sloshing loads shall be based on model testing and/or numerical DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
sloshing analyses. Sec.4 [3.4.4],
Sec.21 [5.1]
See also App.C.
Vibration analysis The potentially damaging effects of vibration on the cargo containment
system shall be considered.
— Determination of natural frequencies to be carried out. DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
— Forced vibration analysis may be carried out to show that no harmful Sec.4 [3.3.5]
vibrations will be excited by the propulsion system or other machinery.
Added mass of LNG to be considered as relevant.
Thermal analysis If not available from similar designs, steady state thermal analysis of the
cargo hold area and the cargo tanks shall be performed to
— determine steel temperature distribution in the tank system; skirt, DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
sphere and equator area as. Sec.21 [4.1.1]
— basis for structural integrity analyses of the cargo tank with respect to
yield and buckling in partial and full load conditions.
Transient thermally induced loads during cooling down periods shall be DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
considered for tanks intended for cargo temperatures below -55 °C. Sec.21 [4.1.2]

DNV AS
Section 1
Items to be
addressed
Partial secondary — Leak rates shall be determined for the purpose of sizing the partial DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
barrier and secondary barrier in order to keep the temperature of the hull structure Sec.4 [2.2.1]
primary barrier at a safe level. and DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5
small leak Ch.7 Sec.4 [2.4.2] item
protection system 1
— Insulation system for cargo containment system to be documented with DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
respect to material and design. Sec.4 [2.8]
— Documentation of the suitability of the insulation system acting as a

spray shield to deflect any liquid cargo down into the space between the
Sec.4 [2.5.1]
primary and secondary barrier at low temperature.
— Verification that any leaks are contained by the drip tray for at least DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
15 days and that the leaked gas can be disposed of in a safe way. Due Sec.4 [2.2.6],
account shall be taken of liquid evaporation, rate of leakage, pumping DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
capacity etc. Sec.4 [2.5.2] and
Sec.4 [4.3.3] item 6.3
Material — Tank materials, tank shell and secondary drip tray. DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
Sec.4 [5.1.2]
— Thermal insulation materials. DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7

Sec.4 [5.1.3]
7 Assumptions
7.1 Separate cargo hold covers

The analysis procedure described in Sec.4 assumes that each tank is fitted with separate hemispherical steel
cargo hold covers welded to the strength deck. For typical designs the presence of the covers may reduce the
torsional stresses in the hull by about 70%.
If the vessel is intended fitted with more flexible covers, e.g. GRP covers or similar, the torsional loads (and
stresses) will increase significantly on the hull structure due to the more flexible covers.
7.2 Integrated hold covers

If an integrated hold cover spanning the full length of the cargo area is used, the beneficial effect that the
cover will take part in the longitudinal strength of the ship should be taken into account.

DNV AS
SECTION 2 HULL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
Section 2
1 Introduction
1.1 Structural modelling and analysis procedures

An integrated cargo hold and cargo tank finite element model needs to be be established to determine
reaction forces in supports and to assess the structural adequacy of primary members of the cargo tank,
tanks supports and associated hull structure under hull girder bending, torsion, external and internal loads.
Direct strength calculations shall be carried out in accordance with DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.7 and DNV-
CG-0127. In addition, acceptable methods and analysis procedures are described in the following. The
analysis shall confirm that the stress levels are acceptable when the structures are loaded in accordance with
described design conditions.
1.2 Cargo hold analysis

The analysis aims to confirm the hull scantlings of the cargo area and to provide interaction forces/deflections
in the tank and skirt structure. If the analysis model satisfies the criteria in Sec.4 and Sec.7, the FE model
may also be applied to verify the strength of the cargo hold covers and the skirt. The tank modelling of the
spherical tank system is described in Sec.5.
1.3 Tank and skirt

The descriptions of tank and skirt in this section do not give modelling guidance for the purpose of strength
assessment of the tank system as such, but is aimed at determining interaction forces between the hull
foundation and the cargo tanks as input to strength evaluation of the cargo tank system. In order to avoid
making different models of the same structural parts it is recommended to make one FE model with mesh
fineness suitable for ULS analysis of hull, cargo hold covers and the cargo tanks. For the ship hull structure
this means to model the whole cargo area with a cargo hold mesh as described in DNV-CG-0127 Sec.3.
1.4 Loading conditions

Loading conditions shall be considered as relevant with respect to actual loading manual and include the
conditions in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [2.2].
For gas carriers with spherical tanks designed for one cargo only (LNG), examples of governing loading
conditions for a 4-tank LNG carrier are listed in Table 1 below. The design cargo density shall not be taken
3
less than the maximum acceptable cargo density (usually 0.5 t/m ) and the design overpressure (P0) shall
not be less than 0.025 MPa and shall be applied for all loaded cargo tanks.
Table 1 Examples of loading conditions for vessel with 4 cargo tanks
No. Loading Condition Full Empty Part full Comment
1 Full load, homogenous all - ULS and FLS design.
2 Ballast - all ULS and FLS design.
1, 2, 3 4
1, 2, 4 3
3 1 tank empty, other tanks full ULS design.
1, 3, 4 2
2, 3, 4 1

DNV AS
No. Loading Condition Full Empty Part full Comment
Section 2
1, 3 2, 4
2, 4 1, 3
4 2 tanks full, 2 empty ULS design.
2, 3 1, 4
1, 4 2, 3
1 2, 3, 4
2 1, 3, 4
5 One tank full, others empty ULS design.
3 1, 2, 4
4 1, 2, 3
Buckling design of the tank shell =>

2, 3, 4 1
6 One tank partially filled - aims for high GM => high transverse
1, 3, 4 2
acceleration 60 -70 % filling.
Fatigue design of tower supports for a

One or more tanks with varying
7 - - Any tank specified fraction of the lifetime. Filling
partial filling
level 0-100%.
LC3, LC4 and LC5 consist of several combinations of full and empty tanks designed to give relatively high
bending moments and shear forces on the ship for ULS design. In addition to LC1 and LC2, normally LC3 is
specified together with either LC4 or LC5. These conditions reflect the degree of operational flexibility which
usually is requested to build into the ship. Any limitation to the loading conditions or load combinations will
be noted in the loading manual. For LC7 applied filling levels and corresponding time fractions will depend on
operational profile.
2 Cargo hold analysis
2.1 General
Procedures of cargo hold FE analysis for generic ship types are given in DNV-CG-0127 Sec.3. In the
following, additional description is given with particular consideration on gas carriers with spherical tanks.
2.2 Application
An FE model is made to represent the cargo holds to such an extent that the yield and buckling strength of
the double hull structure could be confirmed to a satisfactory level for the complete cargo area. This requires
as minimum FE analysis of midship holds and no.1 hold (the foremost hold).
Whether or not the aftmost cargo hold analysis should be carried out is dependent on the geometry of the
double hull and the support of the tank in this hold. This should be assessed and decided on a case-by-case
basis to the satisfaction of the Society.
2.3 Structural model

2.3.1 Model extent
The model longitudinal extent of a separate cargo hold analysis is shown in Figure 1 for a standard 4-tank
LNG carrier. A standard midship cargo hold model is shown in Figure 2.

DNV AS
Section 2
Figure 1 Model extent for individual cargo hold analysis
2.3.2 General model idealization

The hull, the cargo tank covers, the cargo tanks, the cargo tank skirt with supporting brackets below
foundation deck and all main longitudinal and transverse hull geometry should be included in the model.
Since the model may be used for assessment of the buckling strength of the skirt, ring stiffeners and vertical
stiffening of the skirt should be included.
For the ships with large openings on deck warping constraint should be provided in the model. It can be done
by applying end beams in accordance with DNV-CG-0127 Sec.3 [3.2.2].
Figure 2 Example of 3 cargo hold model within midship region of a LNG carrier (shows only port
side of the full breadth model)
2.3.3 Hull model idealization

In practice, the following may be applied:

DNV AS
a) The curvature of the hopper ring girder shall be modelled to give a realistic presentation of the forces
Section 2
in the flange as well as the normal and shear stresses in the web, see Figure 3. The flanges can be
modelled with 2-node beam elements.
b) The stool frames, if any, should be modelled in the same manner as the hopper frames.
c) The interface between the inner side and the foundation deck shall be modelled with supporting structure
(brackets, girders) included. This is to give a realistic presentation of the vertical stresses in the inner
side for buckling assessment.
Figure 3 Typical mesh topology for web frames
2.3.4 Tank model idealization

The spherical tanks should be modelled with sufficient accuracy to represent the stiffness. A mesh density
in the order of 40-50 elements around the circumference of a tank would normally be sufficient. This
corresponds to a mesh size at the equator area of about d/15 where d is the tank diameter. However, the
transition towards the hull may have a substantially finer mesh.
The mesh density of the tank cover needs to be consistent with the hull mesh. Special attention should be
given to the deck/cover interaction as this is a fatigue critical area.
The cargo tanks should preferably be modelled with 8-node and 6-node curved shell elements to represent
the stiffness of the tank for the purpose of interaction between the hull and the tank system. 4-node and 3-
node flat shell elements may also be used, but this requires a denser element mesh (≈d/70) resulting in a
larger system of equations than with higher order quadratic element. However, in order to avoid remodelling
later on, the tank mesh can be made for stress analysis as defined in Sec.5 [5.2].
The equator profile needs no accurate modelling at this point and the skirt may be attached to the cargo
tank by means of shell elements. For the sake of yield and buckling strength analysis of the hull main girder
system, the pipe tower need not be included in the model.
In Figure 4 typical mesh arrangements for the cargo tanks in a cargo hold model are shown. A mesh size of
approximately d/15 has been applied in the equator area. Coarser mesh may be applied for the tank but the
skirt should have appropriate mesh arrangement to enable proper skirt analysis.

DNV AS
Section 2
Figure 4 Typical mesh arrangements for the cargo tank for use in cargo hold analysis
2.3.5 Model of the cargo tank skirt and its supports

The cargo hold model may be applied for buckling strength analysis of the skirt, provided modelling and load
magnitude/application requirements as given in Sec.7 are complied with. Especially in the lower part of the
skirt where local supports below the foundation deck concentrate the vertical forces in the skirt, a cargo hold
model including all supporting structure will be a better representation of the reality than a separate cargo
tank system model with a continuous fixation along the lower skirt edge.
Care should be taken when modelling the skirt in interface with the foundation deck. Three different
geometries should be analysed; the skirt, the brackets and the foundation deck, and each part deserve equal
focus on a good mesh arrangement along the circumference of the skirt for a reliable stress analysis.
Due to the stiffener arrangement in the foundation deck, it may be difficult to get the correct stiffener
distance in the skirt without getting a complicated mesh arrangement. This may be dealt with as follows:
1) Model 'correct' stiffener arrangement for the foundation deck as this also may influence on other parts of
the structure.
2) The stiffener distance of the skirt may then be varied to a limited degree to match the nodes along the
lower end of the skirt. Appropriate stiffener spacing in the model is most important at 90º to the CL
(outboard), at 45º and in way of the CL. These are the three locations that shall be considered in the
evaluation of the buckling strength of the skirt.
Typical arrangement of the skirt and foundation deck can be referred to Sec.1 Figure 4.
The following element types may be applied:
— The skirt plating may be modelled with 4-node shell elements, alternatively with 8-node elements. Ring
stiffener webs may be modelled with 4 node shell elements and with one element along the height of
the web. The flanges may be modelled with 2-node beam or truss elements or alternatively with shell
elements.
— The vertical stiffeners should be included in the model and may be modelled with 2-node eccentric beam
elements or alternatively with shell elements.
— The STJ may, for the sake of the buckling analysis of the skirt, be disregarded.
— The brackets below the skirt may be modelled with 4-node shell elements with size typical in line with the
stiffener spacing. Possible edge stiffening may be modelled with truss elements or 2-node beam elements.

DNV AS
— The web of the ring girder may be modelled with 4-node shell elements, typically 2 or 3 elements over the
Section 2
height of the girder depending on the height, and the flange may be modelled with truss elements or 2-
node beam elements.
2.4 Design loads

2.4.1 Design load combinations for cargo hold analysis
A minimum number of load combinations to be applied for strength analysis of the cargo hold area are given
in Table 2. If more severe loading conditions, e.g. two adjacent cargo tanks empty or full, etc. are given in
the loading manual, these conditions should also be taken into account.
Due to the significant weight of the ballast tanks compared to the cargo weight, the internal pressures
in the ballast tanks should be included in the part load conditions. Based on operational limitations, e.g.
if surrounding ballast tanks in way of an empty cargo tank are always filled, the given standard loading
patterns in Table 2 may be modified.
Load combinations given in Table 2 apply for midship area, cargo tank 2 and 3 for standard arrangement of
LNG carrier with four cargo tanks. For cargo tank 1 and 4 Table 2 may be applied with a special consideration
to still water hull girder loads to given loading pattern.
Table 2 Design load combinations for cargo hold analysis in midship area
Application
% of % of
Draught
Dynamic load
No. Loading pattern perm. perm.
cases/comments
SWBM SWSF
Static load cases, (S), ULS
Hull
Mw=0
and 100%
LC1
tank
TSC (hog.)
≤100% Tank load (S)
sup. Sea Pressure (S)

DNV AS
Section 2
Application
% of % of
Draught
Dynamic load
cases/comments
SWBM SWSF
Mw=0
100%
LC2 Hull TSC1) (hog.)
Sea Pressure (S)
Hull
Mw=0
and 100%
LC3
tank
TA2)3) (sag.)
sup. Sea Pressure (S)
Mw=0
100%
LC4 Hull TBAL (hog.)
Sea Pressure (S)

DNV AS
Section 2
Application
% of % of
Draught
Dynamic load
cases/ comments
SWBM SWSF
Seagoing load cases, (S+D), ULS
Hull HSM-2, FSM-2, HSA-2,

and 100% BSR-1P, BSR-2P, BSP-1P,
LC5
tank
TSC (hog.)
≤100%
BSP-2P, OST-1P, OST-2P,
4)
sup. OSA-1P, OSA-2P
HSM-2, FSM-2
100% HSA-2, BSR-1P, BSR-2P,
LC6 Hull TSC1) (hog.)
≤100%
BSP-1P, BSP-2P, OST-1P,
4)
OST-2P, OSA-1P, OSA-2P
Hull HSM-1, FSM-1

6) and 100% HSA-1, BSR-1P, BSR-2P,
LC7
tank
TA 2)3)
(sag.)
≤100%
BSP-1P, BSP-2P, OST-1P,
4)
sup. OST-2P, OSA-1P, OSA-2P

DNV AS
Section 2
Application
% of % of
Draught
Dynamic load
cases/ comments
SWBM SWSF
HSM-2, FSM-2, HSA-2,

100% BSR-1P, BSR-2P, BSP-1P,
LC8 Hull TBAL (hog.)
≤100%
BSP-2P, OST-1P, OST-2P,
4)
OSA-1P, OSA-2P
Accidental load cases, ALS
Mw=0
Inclination of 30° with tank
Cargo
pressure corresponding
tank
5) 100% to g and a transverse
LC9 and TSC (hog.)
≤100%
acceleration equal to
tank
sup.
g·sin30°=0.5g (S)
Inclined static sea pressure
(S)
Mw=0
Inclination of 30° with tank
Cargo pressure corresponding
tank
5) 100% to g and a transverse
LC10 and TA2)3) (sag.)
≤100%
acceleration equal to
tank
sup. g·sin30°=0.5g (S)
Inclined static sea pressure
(S)

DNV AS
Section 2
Application
% of % of
Draught
Dynamic load
cases/ comments
SWBM SWSF
Collision crash stop

(forward) condition
Cargo
tank
Mw=0
5) 100%
LC11 and TSC (hog.)
≤100% Tank load (S+D)
tank Sea pressure (S)
sup.
Longitudinal acceleration
ax = 0.5g forward.
Collision crash stop

(aftward) condition
Mw=0
Cargo
tank Tank load (S+D)
5) 100%
LC12 and TSC (hog.)
≤100% Sea pressure (S)
tank Longitudinal acceleration
sup.
ax = 0.25g aftward.
LC11 is normally more
critical
Notes:
1) Maximum draft with one cargo tank empty may be used instead of scantling draft TSC, if this is stated as operational
information in the loading manual.
2) Actual minimum draft with one cargo tank full from the loading manual.
3) Draught not to be taken greater than minimum of 2+0.02L and the minimum ballast draught.
4) Applicable for ships symmetrical to the centre line. For ship asymmetrical to the centre line, the beam sea and
oblique sea EDWs for both port and starboard shall be applied on the model. This means that BSP-1S, BSP-2S,
BSR-1S, BSR-2S, OSA-1S, OSA-2S, OST-1S and OST-2S EDWs are required in addition to the EDWs given in the
table.
5) This load case is to evaluate cargo tank and supporting structures in way of cargo tank. Therefore it is relevant only
when this case is not covered by other mean such as global analysis for example.
6) If it is confirmed that one tank full and others empty is not relevant condition, this load case can be waived or
modified.

DNV AS
Section 2
2.5 Analysis criteria
2.5.1 General
Acceptance criteria are given in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [3.1], for ULS of the hull structures. See
DNV-CG-0127 for acceptance criteria.
For cargo tank and it's supporting skirt structure, acceptance criteria are given in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
Sec.21 [3.2] for ULS and in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [3.4] for ALS.
3 Local fine mesh analysis
3.1 Local hull analysis

Procedures and acceptance criteria are given in DNV-CG-0127 Sec.4 and DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.7 Sec.4.
3.2 Tank/hull detail interface

The following details shall be assessed by the utilization of local fine meshed models:
1) The supporting structure of the skirt – brackets and hopper frames.
2) The lower part of the double side, in way of foundation deck, including access opening. This detail should
preferably be combined with detail 1).
3) The connection between the stool structure and the double bottom.
4) The supporting brackets for the cargo hold covers.
3.3 Acceptance criteria for cargo tank system

Governing acceptance criteria are given in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [3].

DNV AS
SECTION 3 GLOBAL ANALYSIS
Section 3
1 General
1.1 Objective and scope

The global analysis shall be carried out in order to determine cargo tank structures and supporting structures
in way of cargo tanks by direct hydrodynamic analysis for all dynamic loads, hull girder loads, local loads and
accelerations for the tank design, see DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [1.3.3].
Procedures of global FE analysis for generic ship types are given in DNV-CG-0127 Sec.2. In the following,
additional description is given with particular consideration on gas carriers with spherical tanks.
Simplified global analysis may be accepted by the Society case by case.
1.2 Loading conditions and load application

Loading conditions described in Sec.2 [1.4] shall be considered.
Results of direct wave analysis should be applied according to DNV-CG-0130 Wave loads. When simplified
global analysis is performed simplified loads, i.e unit loads, may be applied to the global model.
2 Structural model
2.1 Model idealization

The entire ship should be modelled including hull, cargo tanks and the cargo hold covers according to DNV-
RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [2.1.1].
2.2 Elements and mesh size

2.2.1 Global stiffness model
The criteria on Table 1 can be used as a guideline for the minimum element sizes to be used in the global
stiffness model.
Table 1 Mesh density for global stiffness models
Type/part Mesh density
General One element between transverse frames/girders
Girders One element over the height. Beam elements may be used for stiffness representation
Girder brackets One element
Stringers One element over width
Stringer brackets One element
Hopper plate One to two elements over the height depending on plate size
Bilge Two elements over curved area
Stiffener brackets May be disregarded
All areas not mentioned above should have equal element sizes.

DNV AS
However global model can be made with finer mesh for entire cargo area or for selected area. Finer mesh
Section 3
size is normally in accordance with the mesh size of cargo hold model described in Sec.2. But it should be
decided based on the purpose of the calculation given in each section from Sec.4 to Sec.11.
2.3 Mass balancing and load application

The model needs to be balanced to ensure vertical equilibrium. This can be achieved by mass balancing of
the FE model to match the buoyancy forces and thereby minimising the vertical reaction forces in the fixation
points. This can be done by for instance adjusting the mass density of the steel. The model can then be used
in an integrated stochastic (spectral) analyses process with automatic load transfer from a hydrodynamic
model to the structural FE model. For more details see DNV-CG-0130 Wave loads.
3 Analysis steps
In a direct global structural analysis, state-of-the-art analysis procedures should be used. The following steps
of analysis will normally be included:
a) selection of design environment in form of a wave scatter diagram
b) hydrostatic (still water) load analyses based on selected loading conditions from the loading manual
c) hydrodynamic motion and load analysis with a recognised hydrodynamic analysis programme
d) development of an integrated hull, tank structure and tank cover global structural FE model for the whole
ship
e) automatic load transfer (pressures) to the global structural FE model
f) global structural response analyses
g) FE model refinement as necessary for ULS (yield and buckling) analysis
h) carry out yield capacity checks, buckling checks and hull girder capacity check as required
i) carry out fatigue screening analysis based on global model with cargo hold mesh
j) zoom in at fatigue critical areas and carry out component stochastic and/or full spectral (stochastic)
fatigue analyses to determine fatigue lives.
These analyses are described in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.6 Ch.1 Sec.7 and DNV-CG-0130 and will therefore not be
repeated here.
Some examples of direct analysis of spherical type LNG carriers are published in /12/ and /13/.
Figure 1 Global FE model with pressure transferred from the wave load analysis, see /13/

DNV AS
SECTION 4 STRENGTH ANALYSIS OF CARGO HOLD COVERS AND
Section 4
SUPPORTING STRUCTURE
1 Introduction
1.1 General
1.1.1 The following treats hemi-spherical cargo hold covers with respect to:
1) buckling strength
2) support at main deck.
Fatigue is covered in Sec.9.
1.1.2 Hemi-spherical cargo hold covers are normally not stiffened and hence very sensitive to compressive
shell forces. The contributing load is the ship’s global bending moment combined with torsion moment and in
addition possible internal overpressure or under pressure in the cargo hold.
1.1.3 The cargo hold covers provides torsional stiffness to the ship hull girder. Without covers the hull girder
may be subjected to significantly increased deformations.
1.1.4 The deformation of the strength deck due to hull girder bending generates vertical compression and
tension stresses in the covers. This results in local bending deformations and high local stresses in the
connection area between the cover and the ship deck and shall be checked with respect to fatigue, see Sec.9
[7.5].
1.1.5 The covers, apart from providing additional torsional stiffness of the hull girder, do not contribute much
to the global bending strength of the ship, but will, due to continuity between the cover and the weather
deck, force considerable local loads onto the supporting structure. The magnitude of these loads is dependent
of the magnitude of the longitudinal bending moment and the stiffness of the cover compared to the hull
girder.
The stiffness of the cover makes a minor contribution to hull girder bending. Hence, the hull girder section
modulus should be determined based on hull girder without any effect from the covers.
2 Strength assessment of the cargo hold covers
2.1 Finite element models

A global FE model should be applied in order to determine the correct torsional stiffness. This means that the
global model shown in Sec.5 Figure 2 should preferably be used. However cargo hold analysis in accordance
with Sec.2 [2] also can be used alternatively. When cargo hold analysis is used, special attention should be
given to torsional stiffness of the model and torsional bending moment adjustment.
The supporting structure for the covers i.e. the brackets and frames/bulkheads should be modelled to give
a reasonable representation of the stress concentrations in way of the supports as well as the bending and
shear stresses in the same areas.
2.2 General model idealization

The mesh size in the covers should be adjusted as necessary to give adequate accuracy in the resulting
stresses. Too coarse mesh may hide possible local buckling problems in way of supports and knuckles. The
covers may be modelled with 4-node quadrilateral elements or preferably 8-node curved shell elements.
Secondary stiffeners should normally be modelled, typically by the means of 2 or 3-node beam elements.

DNV AS
Section 4
2.3 Load cases and boundary conditions
The boundary conditions should be the same as specified for global analysis in Sec.3.
Following load cases at the considered hold should be taken into consideration as a minimum for analysis of
the covers:
1) maximum vertical bending moment
2) maximum horizontal bending moment
3) maximum torsion moment
4) maximum internal/external pressure.
2.4 Stress analysis

2.4.1 General stress distribution due to global bending
The maximum stresses in the covers from hull girder bending moments are found at CL and at the sides.
This is due to the bending of the cover. The maximum stresses in the covers from torsion are normally found
at 45 degrees from the CL, where the stresses in the covers caused by hull girder bending should be at a
minimum.
In the vertical bending moment conditions, the stresses are symmetrical about the centreline. In the torsion
loading condition the stresses are symmetrical diagonally about the centreline. The stress picture in the
spherical part of the cover is more or less repeated in the cylindrical part of the cover, with exception of the
lowermost part where stress concentrations will be present due to the deck support.
The covers are sensitive with respect to buckling. Hence local peak stresses towards deck supports are
normally not critical with respect to buckling. For fatigue local peak stresses at the cover/deck connection are
high and shall be subject to fatigue evaluation, see Sec.9 [7.5].
Figure 1 Bending of cover. The vertical sum of forces acting on the cover ΣF = 0

DNV AS
Section 4
Figure 2 Principal stresses in tank cover for a sagging bending moment condition

DNV AS
Section 4
Figure 3 Principal stresses in tank cover when subjected to torsional loads
2.4.2 General stress distribution due to internal/external overpressure

The cargo hold covers may be exposed to internal or external overpressure defined by the safety relief valve
settings of the cargo hold. However, minimum design pressures shall be taken as follows:
Buckling assessment Yield stress assessment
External overpressure 0.005 MPa 0.005 MPa
Internal overpressure - 0.005 MPa
For conical or cylindrical parts, the pressure will contribute with hoop and axial stresses equal to:
For a spherical cover, the pressure induces equal axial and hoop stresses in both directions equal to:
where:
R = radius of tank cover, in mm.

DNV AS
Section 4
P
Figure 4 Axial stresses and hoop stresses in spherical tank cover when subjected to overpressure
2.4.3 Allowable stresses for yield stress assessment

The equivalent von Mises stress may be taken as:
The allowable equivalent stress for AC-II is:
3 Buckling code and acceptance criteria for tank covers
3.1 General
In the following acceptable buckling codes for cylindrical and spherical parts of cargo hold covers are given.
For other configurations, the applicable buckling code should be specially considered.
The following should be applied when considering the cover with respect to AC-II based on the method given
in App.D:
1) all load safety factors (i.e. gamma) shall be taken as 1.0
2) the material safety factor shall be taken as 1.0.
3.2 Non-spherical parts of cover

If the cover has a cylindrical or conical shape, this may be assessed against buckling as described in App.D
for the tank skirt, alternatively as defined in Sec.6 [8.2] for the pipe tower. The lower cylindrical part may
also be analysed by the computer program NVSKIRT.
All relevant buckling modes should be analysed, dependant of the stiffening arrangement of the cover.
3.3 Spherical parts of the cover

For a spherical cargo hold cover configuration, two ways for assessment of the buckling strength of the
covers are given in the following, both requiring an iterative solution for finding the imperfection knock down
factor ρ. The first method is a conservative method for preliminary design of the cover. The second method
takes into account design tolerances and utilizes a less conservative imperfection factor ρ.
The cover shell should be checked against buckling at the most critical locations with the highest principal
compressive stresses.
The buckling criterion for AC-II is:

DNV AS
Section 4
, where the stress designations are defined in the following.
where the stress designations are defined in the following.

-8
The acceptance criteria as defined above is for loads on 10 probability level, combined with the external
overpressure as defined in [2.4.2].
The critical stress should be taken as:
where:
2
σ1 = largest compressive principal membrane stress, positive in compression, in N/mm
σ2 = principal membrane stress normal to σ1 (compressive or tensile), in N/mm2
2
σE = elastic buckling stress, in N/mm .
The elastic buckling stress should be taken as:
where:
ρ = the imperfection factor found from h=0

Solved explicitly in ρ by iterations where h is defined as:
where:
In lieu of more detailed information, the combined imperfection amplitude should be taken as:
As an alternative, when the actual tolerance area known, δ should be taken as:
δ1 and δ2 should be measured by means of templates of lengths

DNV AS
Section 4
i.e. as given in App.D.
Allowable usage factor shall be applied as given above regardless of the applied imperfection amplitude.
3.4 Cover built up of flat panels

Local plate panels between stiffeners may be subject to uni-axial or bi-axial compressive stresses, in some
cases also combined with shear stresses. Stiffeners may be subject to axial compressive stresses. Covers
built up of flat panels may be assessed against buckling with explicit equations or the more advanced PULS
code as described in DNV-CG-0128.
4 Supporting structure
Due to the enforced bending of the cargo covers from the longitudinal still water and wave bending moments,
a considerable load will be transferred from the covers to the support in way of the strength deck. The covers
should have a rigid/stiff connection to the hull structure, and the brackets and connection structure should be
modelled to a sufficient detail necessary for obtaining reliable results.
For analysis acceptance criteria concerning brackets and supporting structure, see [2.4.3].
5 Cross deck structure

-8
The cross deck structure should be analysed in connection with the load cases for torsion. For 10 loads as
defined and described in [2.3], stress criteria's as defined in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [3.1] should be
applied.

DNV AS
SECTION 5 STRENGTH ANALYSIS OF THE SPHERICAL CARGO TANK
Section 5
1 Introduction
In the following, acceptable procedures for strength analysis of the cargo tank are outlined. Procedures for
strength analysis of pipe tower and skirt constructions are given in Sec.6 and Sec.7 respectively. To perform
an effective analysis of the complete cargo tank system, it is advised that Sec.5, Sec.6 and Sec.7 are all
considered coherently.
2 Required analyses of the cargo tanks
2.1 Types of analyses

The following calculations shouldbe documented to the satisfaction of the Society:
1) wave load analysis of the ship
2) assessment of interaction forces
3) analysis of sloshing loads in cargo tanks
4) analysis of skirt and tank structure including stationary thermal loads
5) buckling analysis
6) fatigue analysis
7) crack propagation analysis
8) leak rate analysis
9) steady state temperature and stress analysis to determine the temperature distribution in the tank
system. The temperature gradient in the upper part of the skirt is of particular significance
10) transient thermal stresses (cool down analysis). This is not a design analysis as such but shall be carried
out on the final tank design in order to ensure that the tank (i.e. the equator area) is not overstressed
due to too rapid cool down and filling up of the tank.
2.2 Stress analyses

The stress analysis of the cargo tank system may be separated as follows:
1) Basic membrane stress analysis of the sphere, the tower and the skirt, based on:
a) external pressure
b) internal pressure/accelerations including inertia sloshing effects
c) interaction forces from the ship hull due to hull girder loads and double bottom bending.
Finite element analysis is normally used. Alternatively, the Society's computer program NVSPHERE may
be utilized for conventional spherical cargo tanks.
2) Detailed stress analysis of stress concentration areas for FLS, ULS and leak-before-failure (LBF)
evaluation. This involves fine mesh FE analysis of the following areas/details:
a) the tower and dome connections to the sphere
b) the equator profile
c) the STJ connection and the
d) bending effect from change of plate thickness. Geometric stress concentration factors given in DNV-
CG-0129 may normally be applied.
3) Buckling analysis of the sphere, the pipe tower and the skirt shouldbe performed in accordance with
DNV-CG-0128, based on direct stress analysis. For the undisturbed membrane parts of the sphere this
can most conveniently be carried out by the computer programs NVSPHERE. For the skirt construction

DNV AS
NVSKIRT can be used for check of the buckling strength based on stresses from the FE analysis. Analysis
Section 5
procedures for the pipe tower are given in Sec.6.
4) Fatigue and crack propagation analysis can be carried out according to Sec.8.
3 Prototype testing
Prototype testing shall be carried out as required in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [6.1.1] to verify that the
allowable stresses set by the Society's rules are adhered to, and the buckling strength of the spherical tank
system is in order. Two physical full scale tests are required to be carried out.
3.1 Test no. 1: Verification of the static strength of the skirt

To verify the strength of the skirt, the tank shall be filled 50% with fresh water. Normally only one tank of
each geometry, typically the foremost tank and one of the remaining tanks will be required for the test.
During filling up with fresh water, it shall be checked that buckling of the lower hemisphere of the tank shell
does not occur.
3.2 Test no. 2: Verification of the static strength of the spherical tank
Each tank shall be tested with a combination of fresh water filling and air pressure determined as follows:
The tank shall be filled with water with no additional air pressure on top until the tank wall approaches the
design buckling limit just above the liquid surface. Then gas pressure shall be applied on top to a level that
gives an equivalent membrane stress in the tank wall not larger than the following, see DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5
Ch.7 Sec.21 [6.1.1]:
where:
2
σm = allowable von Mises primary membrane stress, in N/mm , see DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21
[3.2.2]
2
ReH = minimum specified yield stress at room (test) temperature, in N/mm .
Figure 1 Typical pressure diagrams for tank testing and emergency discharge conditions

DNV AS
Section 5
4 Design loads for allowable stress and buckling analysis
4.1 Loads to be considered

The analysis is to take into account a proper combination of static and dynamic loads in accordance with
Table 1.
Table 1 Static and dynamic loads for spherical tanks
A. Static loads B. Dynamic loads C. Thermal loads
1) Cargo weight 1) Vertical, transverse and 1) Stationary temperature

2) Tank system self-weight longitudinal accelerations acting on distribution
the system 2) Transient temperature
— Sphere and skirt
2) Dynamic interaction forces from distribution of initial cool down
— Insulation *
wave loads
— Tower and dome
3) Sloshing loads
3) Internal and external overpressure
*
4) Still water interaction forces
*Both the hull girder bending moment contribution and local double bottom bending shouldbe included.
4.2 Static loads

The weight of the tower is normally supported vertically at the upper end (at the dome connection) and
the tower is horizontally supported at the lower end. The internal and external overpressures should be in
accordance with Table 2.
Table 2 Design pressures for various loading conditions
Loading condition Design pressure Applicability
Internal overpressure, not less than Po = 0.025 MPa (0.25 barg) which
1.Fully loaded tank
equals the maximum vapour pressure or the maximum allowable pressure
condition:
setting of the pressure relief valve (MARVS).
a) Int. overpressure = the pressure needed for discharging the cargo

from full tank, typically 0.11 MPa for a 40 m diameter tank. Applies
Applicable for
for 50 – 100 % filling of cargo.
allowable stress
b) Int. overpressure = the pressure needed for discharging the cargo of analysis only.
2.Emergency discharge
a half full tank, typically 0.22 MPa for a 40 m diameter tank. Applies
conditions*:
for less than 50% filling of cargo.
The pressure is dependent on the diameter of the tank and should be
defined by the designer. The overpressure margin for emptying the tank
need not be taken to be larger than 10%.
External overpressure, not less thanPo = 0.005 MPa.

3.Empty tank condition: Maximum allowable pressure difference between hold and sphere i.e. Applicable for
opening pressure of the vacuum relief valves. buckling strength
analysis only.
4.Partly filled tank
condition:
External overpressure, not less than Po = 0.005 MPa.

DNV AS
Loading condition Design pressure Applicability
Section 5
* This is not a DNV rule requirement. The emergency discharge condition has however evolved to become a standard
loading condition. (Mandatory if only one cargo pump is fitted in each tank).
The interaction forces from the still water bending moment should be calculated as described in [4.5] taking
into account the actual still water and wave bending moment, draught and acceleration for the given loading
condition and tank position.
4.3 Emergency discharge condition

The emergency discharge condition is a structural design condition for the tank only.
If only one cargo pump is installed the tank shall be prepared for emergency discharge operations under
the conditions given in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.5 [6.1.1] and DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.5 [6.1.2].
However, if two cargo pumps are installed in each tank emergency discharge operation with the application of
internal overpressure need not be considered.
The acceptance criteria for the tanks during emergency discharge operation are the same as for the ULS
condition, see DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [3.2].
A two-step procedure as illustrated in Figure 1and Table 2 is normally used.
4.4 Dynamic loads

A spherical tank is defined as an independent type B tank and should therefore be designed based on state-
of-the-art analyses. Hence, wave loads (accelerations, pressures bending moments and shear forces) shall be
determined from direct hydrodynamic calculations as required in the DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [1.3.3].
The ship motion analysis should be based on the following:
— Ship speed of 5 knots.
— A known wave spectrum with short crested waves based on North Atlantic wave environment.
— All headings should be considered equally probable and the average load values over all headings should
be used.
-8
— Exceedance probability 10 for evaluation of extreme values. This corresponds to the most probable
8
largest load the ship will experience during 10 wave encounters in the North Atlantic and is interpreted as
being equivalent to a service life of 25 years.
Design accelerations should be calculated for all tanks. The accelerations calculated at the tank centres are
used as reference for the design.
The loading conditions assumed in the hydrodynamic analysis are to reflect the vessels loading manual with
full load and part loading conditions as relevant, see Sec.2 [1.4] and DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [2.2.1].
The interaction forces from hull girder bending and double bottom bending should be calculated as described
in [4.5].
4.5 Interaction forces

4.5.1 General
The interaction forces from hull girder bending and double bottom bending should be based on an integrated
finite element cargo hold model in which the ship hull, the tank system and the tank covers are modelled.
Figure 2 shows two alternative FE models. The cargo area model must have appropriate mesh fineness
to represent the hull and the tank foundation deck with correct stiffness and give correct interaction force
distribution in the skirt and the spherical tanks.
The best estimates will be obtained by using the global FE model for the calculation of the interaction
forces. It is important to include also the local double bottom bending effect that has been found to result in
interaction forces of the same magnitude as the global hull girder bending part.

DNV AS
However simplified procedure to determine interaction forces may be acceptable by the Society case by case.
Section 5
When skirt structure is designed close to boundary of cargo hold so that double bottom bending effect is
considered ignorable, it may be acceptable to exempt it for the interaction force calculation.
Figure 2 Alternative models for determination of interaction forces
4.5.2 Direct analysis of interaction forces

A better and more precise way is to model the cargo tanks as shown in Figure 2 with sufficient accuracy for
reading out the interaction forces directly from the tank shell model. The interaction forces can be calculated
based on design loads and the calculated interaction forces can be used directly.
If unit loads are applied in global analysis, the results can then be scaled to the design values (still water and
wave) by the actual bending moments, design draughts and accelerations in the tank centres as follows.
Static interaction forces:
Dynamic interaction forces:
where:
Nij = interaction force componenti at tank position j, in kN

i = φ,θ and φθ, i.e. meridional, circumferential and shear directions
NijS‐BM = shell force, in kN, from application ofMref
Mref = reference hull girder bending moment, in kNm
MjS = static (stillwater) hull girder bending moment, in kNm, at tank j
MjD = dynamic (wave) hull girder bending moment, in kNm, at tank j
NijS‐DB = shell forces, in kN, from application of external static pressure at Tref
Tref = reference draught, in m
Tj = draught, in m, at tankj
ajZ = dimensionlessvertical accelerationat tank j.

DNV AS
An example of shell force interaction results from hull girder bending are shown in Figure 3.
Section 5
Figure 3 Typical distribution of the axial and circumferential interaction force in the tank shell
4.6 Design loads for partial filling conditions

4.6.1 General
Various methods may be used to estimate design sloshing loads in spherical tanks including,
— results from model tests for considered ship
— computational fluid dynamics (CFD) programs approved by the Society
— simplified approach described in the following.
See also App.C.
4.6.2 Sloshing loads

Sloshing in cargo tanks is a phenomenon acting when the tank is partly filled with cargo. Laboratory tests to
1
predict responses due to sloshing , see/1/ and /2/, have shown the following phenomena:
1
The system was only given a sinusoidal, horizontal motion and represents sway motions only. Roll
motion was not included.

DNV AS
Section 5
S1 S2 — Standing wave (S1, S2) (same as for prismatic
tanks)
— Breaking wave (BR): the velocities of liquid
particles at the surface layer of the wave crest are
DS
higher than the propagation velocity of the wave.
— Swirling (SW): awave crest rotating along
latitudes of the sphere.
— (DS):it has been observed during testing that a
BR SW standing wave can be combined with both lateral
and vertical liquid movements resulting in a wave
top at the middle of the tank.
Figure 4 Typical sloshing waves in a spherical cargo tank
At low frequencies:
For a given frequency of excitation well below liquid resonance, the height of the waves in the tank increases
until a stable maximum is reached after a relatively long time.
At frequencies around resonance:

When the frequency is increased towards resonance (the natural frequency of the liquid in the tank), the
liquid motion increases steeply and forms a heavy sloshing wave. The system seems to remain stable at
resonance with the wave moving in the direction of excitation. Increasing the frequency further makes the
system unstable and the liquid goes, through a narrow frequency band with combined swirling and sloshing,
into a stable condition of swirling. The combined sloshing and swirling phenomenon builds a complicated
wave system that sometimes forms big waves sloshing in random directions.
At frequencies above resonance:

Above the resonance frequencies swirling of the liquid may occur, creating a radial liquid force rotating
about the vertical centre line of the sphere. The test results also revealed that the phase angle between the
maximum longitudinal and transverse swirling forces is always 90º and that, if the resulting force on the
tank is wanted, the sloshing forces Fy andFx cannot be added vectorially. As the transverse roll create higher
accelerations than the longitudinal pitch, only the transverse acceleration need to be considered.
4.6.3 Transverse sloshing force in the spherical cargo tank

The geometrical centres of the ship and the tank do not have the same location. Hence, the motion of the
tank is a combination of sway and rolling, causing the wave patterns shown in Figure 2 in combination with a
rolling motion. This motion causes a transverse force on the tank system, often denoted as Fx, Figure 4 and
see /1/. A long term prediction of this force has been established for the purpose of calculating the apparent
transverse acceleration ay*. This gives an extra transverse acceleration effect to the liquid in addition to the
normal transverse acceleration. The combined effect is a skewed gravity field in the direction of the resulting
acceleration ar. This defines a liquid surface that for stress calculation purposes is regarded as a 'frozen'
surface as shown in Figure 3. The resulting acceleration shown below is the result ofay,ay*,g and az.

DNV AS
4.6.4 The circumferential critical shell force
Section 5
Figure 5 The transverse force on the tank and the resulting acceleration of the liquid
For the purpose of buckling assessment of the tank, the compressive forces in the tank shell will normally
only be critical when the surface of the cargo is below the equator profile. The weight of the cargo will
then generate a significant meridional tension as the southern hemisphere is ‘hanging’ in the equator.
The circumferential shell force will however, as there is virtually noexternal lateral load on the shell, have
approximately the same magnitude as the meridional shell force but with opposite sign i.e. compression. To
take this into account a minimum external design pressure of 0.005 MPa shallbe applied as a safety measure,
see Table 2. The surface of the liquid may also be below the equator for filling ratios above 50 % if the liquid
surface has a skew angle to the equator plane. Filling ratios above 50 % with a certain skew angle of the
liquid plane will then give higher tension in the critical area due to the increased weight of the cargo and
hence higher circumferential compression which can be seen from the shell equation below.
where:
P = external pressure acting on the sphere, in MPa

Nφ = as defined in [4.5.2]
Nθ = as defined in [4.5.2]
R = radius of tank, in mm.
FE analysis has been performed to establish a procedure to calculate the compressive stresses in the shell,
2
see/3/. Four critical calculation points were decided on; 50º, 60º, 70º and 81º on the southern hemisphere,
where non-dimensional maximum compressive membrane forces were calculated for different skew angles β
(angle between the liquid surface and the equator plane), see Figure 7 to Figure 11.
2
The positions of the chosen calculations points were entirely based on the locations of the weld seams
between changing plate thicknesses on the original spherical LNG carriers built at the Moss Rosenberg.

DNV AS
Section 5
Fx at 10-8probability level. The force
Figure 6 Long term distribution of horizontal sloshing force
is non-dimensional and may be applied to any ship length, tank diameter and cargo density (d =
sphere diameter)

DNV AS
Section 5
Figure 7 Maximum compressive circumferential membrane force at φ = 81°, t1/t2 ≥ 1.3
Note that two graphs exist for the location 81º. At the reference tank this location had a step in plate
thickness which also has been the case for subsequent vessels.
Figure 8 Maximum compressive circumferential membrane force at φ = 81°, t1/t2 < 1.3

DNV AS
Section 5
Figure 9 Maximum compressive circumferential membrane force at φ = 70°

DNV AS
Section 5
For stretched spherical tanks, or tanks with other significant geometrical differences from the test tank,
similar analysis as carried out in/3/ may have to be carried out for at least one position of the subject tank to
establish the critical membrane forces.
Alternatively, tests and/or analyses according to App.C should be carried out to determine sloshing forces
together with direct structural FE analyses for determination of the shell forces.
4.6.5 Determination of the critical heel angle and apparent transverse acceleration
In the following a procedure for calculating the apparent transverse acceleration is presented, as first
outlined in /1/. The procedure uses results from a reference ship but takes into account the changes in
sloshing forces for different ship lengths and speeds, tank positions and loading conditions.
1) The original ship used in the sloshing tests, see/1/, had certain geometrical properties which shall be
maintained in order to establish a reference value for the transverse acceleration, ayR= ay of the actual
ship. As the sloshing tests summarized in Figure 4 were carried out by a horizontal regular motion
with no roll effect included, the weight component due to rolling (heel angle) shall be omitted in the
calculation. A modified ship speed corresponding to the Froude number of the original ship shall be

DNV AS
applied as given below and the values GM/B, z/B and x/L0 must be taken equal to those of the original
Section 5
ship. The ship length should be taken equal to the length of the actual ship L0.
where:
L0 = rule length of ship, in m

x = longitudinal distance, in m, from amidships to the centre of gravity of the tank with contents;
positive forward and negative aft of amidships
z = vertical distance, in m, from the ship’s actual waterline to the centre of gravity of the tank with
contents; positive above and negative below the waterline
ay = maximum transverse acceleration as a fraction of gravity
V0 = ship speed, in knots
a0 = acceleration parameter
=
, where
κ =
x/L0= -0.05, z/B = 0.237, GM/B = 0.175,κ = 2.275.

For the referenceship:
2) The weight component is excluded by settingψ = 0. The above equations is the guidance acceleration
equations in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.4 [6.1.2]. With the geometrical relations set equal to those of
the original ship the reference horizontal acceleration to be used for scaling of the sloshing force from
Figure 4 is then
The roll motion amplitude may generally be calculated according to DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.4 Sec.3
[2.1.1].
3) The tangential transverse weight component due to rolling may be calculated as:
Fθ =γ·V·θ
4) Calculate the transverse acceleration,ay, according to the same equations as given in step 1, but with
the ship speed and the geometrical relations for the actual ship.
3
5) Find the reference value for the transverse force on the tank, FxR = Fx/γ·d , for the actual ship length
according to Figure 4 for h/d = 0.29, 0.50 and 0.65.
6) Calculate the amplification factor for the dynamic effect due to sloshing. The amplification factor is
assumed to be constant for each filling level.
7) Calculate the sloshing force for the actual ship according to:
by scaling the sloshing force with the accelerations determined by the rule equations.

DNV AS
8) Transverse sloshing force and apparent transverse acceleration are calculated as:
Section 5
The above procedure is entirely based on empirical equations and is suitable for an initial design evaluation.
However, final verification of the actual ship tank design should be based on direct hydrodynamic
calculations. Hence, the roll angle in steps 3 and 4 above shouldbe based on direct analyses. Please note that
the horizontal accelerations used for scaling of the sloshing force Fx should be based on the equation above
and be calculated without the weight component (ψ = 0) as this is included in the Fθ term in step 4.

DNV AS
Section 5
Figure 12 Procedure for calculation of the apparent transverse acceleration

DNV AS
4.6.6 Determination of the critical circumferential force
Section 5
The objective of the following is to present a calculation procedure to obtain the maximum compressive
3
force in the tank shell just above the liquid surface plane in a heeled condition. The procedure is best
suitable for computer programming as it involves an iteration routine. The procedure is incorporated in the
NVSPHERE programme, see /4/, and is illustrated in Figure 13 below:
Figure 13 Procedure for determination of the critical circumferential force
3
Often denoted as the minimum circumferential membrane force in reference literature.

DNV AS
Section 5
4.7 Thermal loads
For the yield and buckling analysis of the cargo tank system, for any loading condition where LNG is present
in the tank, thermal stresses should be calculated based on a stationary temperature distribution in the tank
and skirt. Warm weather conditions should be used for the estimation of the temperature distribution which
should be based on a heat flow analysis at full load condition, see Figure 14. The ambient temperatures
are normally to be taken as given below, but may be taken lower or higher with due consideration of the
intended trade, see DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.7 [2.1.1]:
— air temperature: 45º C
— sea temperature: 32º C.
The cargo temperature shall be taken as -163º C.
Figure 14 Typical temperature distribution in the tank and skirt
4.8 Design acceptability

The spherical cargo tank shall be considered with respect to the following design conditions:
1) The design shall be such that, under exposure of the design loads as given above and in the following,
the stresses derived from the analysis shall not exceed the design limits as given by DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5
Ch.7 Sec.21 [3.2.2].
2) As compressive stresses will be present both in the tank and in the skirt, the critical buckling strength of
the shell and the skirt shall be taken into account, see [5.6.4].
3) For the cargo tank, the minimum thickness requirement as given in App.D shall be fulfilled.

DNV AS
Section 5
5 Finite element analysis of the spherical tank
The following describes one acceptable procedure for how to perform a finite element analysis of a spherical
cargo tank for verification of the allowable stress level and buckling strength. Alternative methods may be
applied subject to special consideration by the Society.
The analysis shouldconfirm that the stress levels are acceptable when the tank is loaded in accordance with
described design conditions.
Any recognised calculation method or computer program may be applied, provided the combined effects
of axial, bending, and shear deformations are adequately considered. Strength analysis carried out in
accordance with the following will be accepted as a basis for class approval in general.
5.1 General
In general the element model must provide results suitable for evaluation of:
a) The general membrane stress level of the sphere and the skirt (see Sec.7 where modelling and stress
assessment of the skirt is further elaborated) with respect to the allowable design stresses.
b) The local stresses in way of the:
— equator profile, Figure 15 A
— upper tower/dome connection, Figure 15 B
— lower tower connection, Figure 15 C
— the STJ connection, see Sec.6 for allowable stress and fatigue of the skirt.
c) The membrane stresses of the sphere and the skirt with respect to buckling.
One of the two following different approaches is typically applied;
1) Full geometry shell element model with sub models for fine mesh solid element idealization of the stress
concentration areas.
2) Axisymmetric strip model with solid elements including fine mesh idealization.
5.2 Elements and mesh size

The sphere is normally to be modelled by 8-node shell elements with a typical mesh size of d/30 where d is
the tank diameter. With this mesh size 8-node shell elements are necessary for avoiding spurious results at
the intersection between the element boundaries. Alternatively, if flat 4-node quadrilateral elements are used
the mesh size should be in the order ofd/150. This gives, however, a system of equations about 4-5 times
larger than with the coarser 8-node element model.
A spherical LNG tank is an extremely thin shell (d/t ≈ 1000) in which eccentricities shall be modelled
correctly in order to capture local bending effects that are important for fatigue and leak-before-failure (LBF)
evaluations. In most cases the inside of the shell is made flush while all thickness steps are made on the
outside. This gives eccentricities and local moments where steps in thicknesses occur. If shell eccentricities
are not modelled, the geometric stress increase due to the thickness change eccentricity can be calculated
from equations in DNV-CG-0129.
For a correct determination of the equator stresses this area should be modelled with curved 20-node solid
elements.
No yielding is allowed in the tank construction such that linear elastic response analysis is in most cases
sufficient. However, in some cases (when buckling capacity of upper part of skirt is highly utilized) nonlinear
analyses may be necessary, particularly for buckling strength evaluation at the upper unstiffened part of the
skirt for including the effect of the radial eccentricity due to thermal shrinking.
The skirt may be modelled with 4-node quadrilateral shell elements of size d/30 or equal to the spacing of
the vertical stiffeners in the skirt whichever best fits the actual geometry.

DNV AS
The tower connection area, the dome connection area, the equator profile and the STJ connection in way of
Section 5
scallops or other areas where stress concentrations may be expected, may be modelled by very fine meshed
solid element models. A global shell element model may be used and refined with sub-models as necessary
in detailed areas.
Where radii of welds and equator groove are modelled, the mesh density may normally be 5 elements along
the radius (i.e. 20 elements around a full circle).
For determination of hot-spot stresses with fine mesh sub-models, see DNV-CG-0127.
Axisymmetric tank models may be used if they allow for the application of non-axisymmetric loads.
Figure 15 Details subject to stress concentration assessment
The arrows in Figure 15 identify typical areas of stress concentration. Some are subject to yield stress
assessment and all are subject the fatigue limit assessment.

DNV AS
Section 5
Figure 16 2-D plane shell element models of the dome and tower connections illustrating typical
mesh density

DNV AS
Section 5
Figure 17 Groove detail of equator profile with cross section illustrating typical mesh density for
solid model
5.3 Material properties

Standard material properties for rolled Al 5083-0, which is the typical alloy used for the cargo tank structure,
are listed in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.2 Ch.2 Sec.10 Table 4 However subject to special consideration by the Society,
enhanced yield strength and tensile strength at design temperatures below -105 °C according to DNV-RU-
SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.4 [4.1.4] may be applied.
Due to the insufficiency of some FE programs to use different material properties for different load cases,
a separate model may be needed for buckling verification of 'warm'load cases i.e. with empty tank or with
fresh water in the tank (test condition).
5.4 Boundary conditions

The global FE models are to include the complete spherical shell and the cylindrical skirt including tower
construction and the equator profile. Boundary conditions according to Sec.3 shall be taken into accounted. If
the model is analysed separately, i.e. not including the ship hull, the following boundary conditions apply:
1) The lower edge of the skirt should be restricted from rigid body displacement and rotation.
2) The interaction load cases, d) and i) in Table 3, should be applied along the bottom of the skirt as
vertical and circumferential interaction displacements calculated in the integrated cargo hold model, see
[4.5.2].

DNV AS
Section 5
5.5 Design load cases for ULS stress assessment
5.5.1 General
For ULS design stress check, the model should be analysed for the following load cases:
Table 3 Load cases for ULS stress control
Load Case Loads Notes
a) Tank system self-weight (tank material, insulation

and piping etc.).
b) Cargo weight 100 % filling.
c) Internal overpressure 0.025 MPa.
d) Still water interaction forces.
LC 1S: e) Thermal loads.
Full load condition f) Transverse acceleration.
g) Longitudinal acceleration.
h) Vertical acceleration.
i) Dynamic interaction forces. Note: Typical governing load
condition for the plating right
above the equator profile.

and piping etc.).
c) Internal overpressure as defined by the designer.
LC 2S: d) Still water interaction forces.
Emergency discharge e) Thermal loads.
condition I
Note: Pure static condition.

and piping etc.).
c) Internal overpressure as defined by the designer.
LC 3S: d) Still water interaction forces.
Emergency discharge
e) Thermal loads.
condition II
Note: Tank test condition to be checked with respect to yield and buckling according to [3] and Table 7 (with internal
pressure).
5.5.2 Load application for cargo loads

The full load case LC 1S described above is a skew symmetric load. The internal static and dynamic pressure
loads can be applied either,

DNV AS
1) as a skewed acceleration field,aR, directly to the FE model, or
Section 5
2) alternatively, if the FE software does not have this facility, apply component loads as outlined below:
in alternative 1 above the skewed acceleration field aR is combining the LC 1S b (static) and f-g-h (dynamic)
components and will produce the same resulting pressure distribution as will result from alternative 2 below.
For alternative 2 load components are applied with reference to an upright coordinate system.
To be able to combine the static and dynamic stresses as described in [5.5.3], static and dynamic load
components (LC1S a, b, c, and f, g, h, in Table 3) may be applied as shown below as separate loads (full
tank). For definition of symbols, see App.B:
1) Static pressure components due to weight of cargo, see LC 1 b above:
Pstatic =γR(1+cosφ), (=2γR at the bottom for a full (α=π) perfect spherical tank)
2) Dynamic pressure components due to longitudinal acceleration of cargo, refer to load case 1g. above:
3) Dynamic pressure components due to transverse acceleration of cargo, refer to load case 1f. above:
(uniform part) + (varying part)

4) Dynamic pressure components due to vertical acceleration of cargo, refer to load case 1h. above:
Paz = γRaz(1+cosφ), (=2γazR at the bottom for a perfect spherical tank)
where:
γ =ρg = 500 kg/m3 × 9.81 m/s2
ax, ay and azshould be taken as the most severe accelerations from the required hydrodynamic analysis.
Generic rule accelerations may be used, but these are in most cases conservative.
R,φ and θ are defined in App.D.
Constant and varying parts of the dynamic loads can be applied as separate load cases in the FE model.
Figure 18 The pressure components resulting in the skew symmetric load condition
5.5.3 Stress summation for ULS stress assessment

In principle, three positions around the tank circumference should be considered and documented;
— at CL
— at 45º to CL
— 90º outboard.

DNV AS
For an ocean-going traditional spherical LNG carrier the following may be applied:
Section 5
— With respect to the seagoing fully loaded condition, for the sake of the overall membrane check of the
sphere, only the outboard 90º position needs to be documented. This is due to the dominating transverse
acceleration.
— For the sake of peak stress investigation in way of the tower connections, the equator profile and the STJ
joint, two positions should in principle be assessed and documentedat CL and at 90º.
For new and novel designs where the vessel motions may be expected to deviate from that of the traditional
hull design or where the stress picture in the tank may be expected to deviate from the traditional tank
design, all three positions should be documented.
Note that the presented method for stress summation assumes that the most severe directly calculated
accelerations are adopted in the analysis. Total static and dynamic stresses in the meridional and
circumferential directions are then combined with square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS)summation
assuming the stress components are statistically independent, see DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.4 [4.2.3]:
Table 4 Stress summation for different element types
For thin shell elements Additional for thick shells and solid elements
For the emergency discharge conditions, all the applicable load cases are static and may be combined by
directly linear summation in the FE analysis.
For the full load condition, the stresses given by the static and dynamic load cases shouldbe split in separate
components and combined according to the above equations as follows:
where:
σi is σφ, σθ, σz and τφθτφz, τθz.

and the indexes means:
sw = self weight
sp = static pressure
sm = static mass of cargo
sf = static interaction
st = stationary temperature
df = dynamic interaction.
The equivalent stress shouldbe calculated according to the following equations:
Thin shells:

DNV AS
Section 5
Thick shells and solids:
All equivalent stress alternatives shall be verified against the ULS design stress criterion (allowable code
stresses).
For the membrane check atθ = 90º, shear stresses exist only for the longitudinal acceleration (ax) condition.
The shear stress to be included in the von Mises criterion (see Table 5) will hence only be:
τφθ = τφθ,ax (membrane check atθ = 90º).

As shear stresses only occur for longitudinal acceleration, the following four combinations shall be analysed,
resulting in four results for the equivalent stress.
Table 5 Stress combination for the membrane design stress capacity assessment at 90º outboard
σφ σθ τ σvm
1 => σvm‐1
2 => σvm‐2
3 => σvm‐3
4 => σvm‐4
The required shell thickness may finally be calculated according to the following:
See [5.5.4] for allowable stress levels.
If the loads are applied according to alternative 1 above, [5.5.2], the accelerations are combined with the
acceleration ellipse and considered to act simultaneously in the direction of the resulting acceleration vector
aR. The following linear stress combination can then be applied.
Please note that even though aR contain the staticg component and the dynamic acceleration components,
the term aRσi sm is considered to be a dynamic term as it will move like a pendulum with the movement of
the ship.
The stresses associated with the resulting acceleration aR should be determined by applying the static and
dynamic mass loads in the direction of aR in the FE analysis.

DNV AS
5.5.4 Design stresses for ULS stress assessment
Section 5
The allowable stresses for the different parts of the cargo tank shall be taken according to DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5
Ch.7 Sec.21 [3.2.2].
5.6 Design load cases for ULS buckling assessment

5.6.1 General
Compressive stresses in the spherical tank are generated when the tank is subject to empty condition by
interaction forces or partially loaded by circumferential compression.
For the buckling capacity check, the model should be analysed considering load cases and load combinations
as given in Table 6:
Table 6 Load cases for ULS buckling assessment of the spherical tank
Load cases Loads Notes

and piping etc.).
b) Partial filling of fresh water.
c) Static interaction force due to still water bending
moment and external static pressure [4.5.2].
LC 1B:
Tank test condition
('H2O'= 'fresh water')


and piping etc.).
b) Static interaction force due to still water bending
moment and external static pressure.
c) External pressure 0.005 MPa.
LC 2B: d) Dynamic interaction force due to wave bending
Sea going with empty moment and external wave pressure [4.5.2].
tank
Note: Governing LC for buckling of

upper hemisphere.

DNV AS
Load cases Loads Notes
Section 5
and piping etc.).
b) External pressure 0.005 MPa.
c) Static interaction force due to still water bending
moment and external static pressure [4.5.2].
d) Partial filling of cargo: static and dynamic part
LC 3B:
combined based on resulting skewed acceleration
Sea going with part filling
aR from the acceleration ellipse, see Figure 11.
e) Dynamic interaction force due to wave bending
moment and external wave pressure [4.5.2].
Note: Governing LC for buckling of

lower hemisphere.
5.6.2 Stress summation for buckling assessment

For the buckling capacity assessment, the inertia forces on the cargo tank are decided based on the
acceleration ellipse. Accelerations determined from the ellipse are considered to act simultaneously and
combines static and dynamic parts. The design stresses for the tank with respect to the buckling capacity
criteria are defined below:
Upper hemisphere (ballast, empty tank upright conditionβ= 0):

The design shell forces (N = σt) in N for buckling assessment of the upper hemisphere is governed by LC 2B
in Table 6 and is normally dominated by meridional (vertical) compressive interaction forces.
Primary design force (meridional):
Secondary design force (circumferential):
Characteristic forces N1C and N2C are found by setting the load factors equal to one (γfi= 1.0). For definition
of symbols see App.D.
The largest compressive force should be taken as the largest compressive primary force component
regardless of whether it is a meridional or a circumferential force. All realistic combinations of signs on
acceleration (aZ) and force components (N1df andN2df) should be checked in order to determine the largest
compressive value.
Lower hemisphere (part skew filling β ≥ 0):

The largest principal compressive force N1 is determined from LC 3B in Table 6 using a skewed acceleration
field according to the acceleration ellipse accounting for the horizontal (transverse) sloshing force effect, see
Figure 12 and Figure 13. The force combination is as given below:
Primary design force (circumferential):
Secondary design force (meridional):

DNV AS
The shell forces N1 and N2maybe determined from FE analyses with the tank subjected to the combined
Section 5
skewed acceleration field at the actual liquid filling level.
Systematic analyses of a sphere subjected to a range of filling levels and skew angles have been carried out
in the past, see /3/. The key results are shown in Figure 7 to Figure 11 and are incorporated in the analysis
procedure in the design programme NVSPHERE, see /4/.
For a pure spherical shell:
N1 +N2 + PovR = 0
N2 = – N1 – PovR
where:
Pov is the external overpressure usually taken as 0.005 MPa.
The partial safety factors/load factors are given as follows, see App.D:
γf1 = 1.2 for forces caused by static weights and inertia forces
γf2 = 1.4 for forces caused by deflection of the foundation deck
γf3 = 1.5 for forces caused by external overpressure.
5.6.3 Load application of the static and dynamic stresses
If the FE software allows for it and a half (180°) or a full (360°) circumference model of the tank is made,
the skewed pressure load distribution can be obtained by applying the loads directly in the direction of
the acceleration vector aR. Then only one contribution that includes both static and dynamic liquid cargo
pressures will be needed, see LC 3B d above.
The same pressure distribution can be obtained by applying pressure components in an upright coordinate
system as shown below:
The equations for component based load application have the same form as for the allowable design stress
model, however somewhat difference due to the partial filling.
1) Static pressure components due to weight of cargo, refer to load case 3b. above:
2) Note that ay here is the instantaneous value of the apparent transverse acceleration. The maximum
value should be determined as shown in Figure 12 and the instantaneous value is found by the
procedure in Figure 13:
(uniform part) + (varying part)

3) Dynamic pressure components due to vertical acceleration of cargo, refer to load case 3e. above:
,( at the bottom for a perfect spherical tank)
5.6.4 Buckling assessment

The buckling capacity of the spherical cargo tank (and skirt) should be confirmed in accordance with App.D.
Other codes may be accepted upon the discretion of the Society. See also below.
With respect to the given buckling code, the following should be specially noted:

DNV AS
1) The buckling code given in App.D is written in a partial safety format taking into account loads, load
Section 5
factors, shell geometry and thickness, imperfections and safety factors such that:
f (loads, load factors, shell geometry and thickness, imperfections, safety factors) ≤ 1.0
This means that the whole code shall be seen in its own context and it is in principle not acceptable to
mix this code with other codes with other load factors, imperfections, safety factors or other boundary
conditions. The equations for h,
is a direct extract of the Koiter theory while the post buckling factor b,
is derived from the same theory and adjusted according to laboratory test results, see /11/. The b-factor
is dependent on several parameters such as geometrical proportions, boundary conditions and load
application. Minimum thickness requirement, t >R/750 for aluminium, is absolute and applies for the
spherical shell only.
2) The tolerances may be set by the designer subject to the building manufacturer’s production capabilities.
The required tolerance may be decided by the Society taking into account the manufacturer’s experience
from previous production, shell thickness and type of material. See App.D.
3) All four combinations of σ10 and σ20 should be checked to identify the most severe situation. Note
however that the buckling control of the sphere under bi-axial loading is only relevant when one principal
stress is in compression. Compression is defined as positive stress in App.D:
σ10 – largest positive principal stress (always positive, i.e. compression) in N/mm2, design stress value
σ20 – principal stress normal to σ10, positive(compression) or negative(tension) in N/mm2, design stress
value.
For the southern hemisphere, partial fillings with skew angle of the liquid plane are the governing loads
and the area with the highest compressive stresses is then found in way of the liquid surface. In this
case σ10 = σθ.
For the northern hemisphere, the empty seagoing condition will be the governing load. In this case σ10 =
σθ.
6 Summary
The following is a short summary of applicable loading conditions and acceptance criteria for the allowable
design stress assessment and buckling strength assessment of the spherical cargo tank.

DNV AS
Table 7 Applicable loading conditions and acceptance criteria for allowable design stress and
Section 5
buckling strength assessment
Static loading conditions Dynamic loading conditions
Steady-state thermal distribution

Static weight of LNG / (water)
pressure,Minimum0.025 MPa
Acceleration of tank system

EM discharge overpressure
Acceptance criteria
External overpressure,
Self weight of system
Still water interaction
Dynamic interaction
Minimum0.005 MPa
Acceleration of LNG
Part load sloshing

Internal
Full
X X X X X X X X
load
EM I X X X (X) X
stress assessment
Allowable design
Acc. to [5.5.4]
EM II X X X (X) X
Tank
X (X) X
test
Empty
Buckling strength
X X X X X
tank
Acc. to App.D
assessment
Partly
X X X X X X X X X
filled
7 Strength assessment of other types of spherical type geometry
7.1 Introduction
In order to increase the cargo capacity and to reduce the void space in the traditional spherical tank LNG
carriers other configurations of independent B-tanks have been developed.
— One is the stretched spherical cargo tank with a cylindrical ‘belt’ right above the equator profile, see
Figure 17.
— Another is a cylindrical tank with to ro-spherical top and/or bottom.

DNV AS
— Combinations of spherical, cylindrical, ellipsoidal and to ro-spherical forms.
Section 5
Common for tank systems deviating from the ideal spherical shape is that the tank shell needs to be thicker
to compensate for the extra membrane and bending stresses in the tank shell. Cylindrical shells will in
general need to be twice as thick as spherical shells.
Figure 19 Principal arrangement of a stretched cargo tank with a cylindrical belt above equator
Applicable procedures for yield and buckling strength assessment of for different types of B-type cargo tanks
will necessarily depend on the geometrical properties of the tank and the support. The basis will always
be DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 stating the requirements for independent tank of type B both for constructions
primarily constructed of bodies of revolution, DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21, and constructions primarily
constructed of plane surfaces, DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.20. In principle the procedure for allowable design
stress and buckling strength analysis will be similar for these two, but the critical load cases and buckling
criteria may vary. In the following, the two named tank constructions constructed of bodies of revolution will
be discussed briefly.
7.2 Allowable design stress analysis

Independent of geometrical shape, cylindrical, spherical or ellipsoidal, the analyses for a cargo tank
constructed of bodies of revolution shall be based on the same principles as given earlier. The different
geometries will however experience different deformation behaviours when exposed to the design loads than
the conventional designs, resulting in a different stress picture.
A concern with the stretched tank design is also that it due to inertia forces (transverse acceleration) will
experience a deformation as shown in Figure 20 (exaggerated). Similar deformation effects will also appear
on the lower hemisphere, but not to the same extent.
— With a stretched tank the centre of gravity of the tank will be above the equator. This will create a
dynamic moment that will increase the loading on the equator and the skirt.
— This will increase the local bending stresses in way of equator as well as in way of the connection to the
dome.
7.3 Buckling strength analysis for the stretched spherical tank

7.3.1 General
For the northern and southern hemispheres, the buckling criteria, i.e. the load cases and the buckling code,
can be taken as for the conventional spherical cargo tank. The following should however be noted.

DNV AS
7.3.2 Determination of the apparent transverse acceleration
Section 5
The procedure as described in [4.6.5] is developed for conventional spherical cargo tanks. It may however be
assumed that, for a limited extension of the stretched part, the sloshing pattern will be somewhat similar to
that of the conventional design, and the described procedure may be applied with some adjustments:
1) For estimating (reading) the horizontal sloshing force from Figure 4 it is recommended that an equivalent
tank diameter equal to the total tank height be applied.
2) For the buckling analysis the true diameter (radius) of the hemispherical parts shouldbe used and the
density of the cargo be increased to reflect the higher pressure head (height of tank).
For tank constructions deviating more significantly from the true spherical shape new sloshing investigations
will normally be required, see App.C.
Figure 20 Deformation patterns
7.3.3 Determination of the minimum circumferential shell forces

The cylindrical part of the tank will modify the stress distribution in the tank compared to the conventional
design when exposed to partial fillings and skew angles of the liquid. The minimum circumferential shell
forces are therefore to be found by a finite element analysis checking several filling conditions and skew
angles.
7.3.4 Applicable buckling code

For the cylindrical part, the following empirical method may be applied.
The characteristic buckling resistance may be taken as:

DNV AS
Section 5
where:
σφ0 = 0 if tension (σφ < 0)
σφ if compression (σφ > 0), i.e. compression is positive

σθ0 = 0 if tension (σθ < 0)
σθ if compression (σθ > 0)
2
σφ0 = design axial stress in the shell due to axial forces in N/mm
2
σθ0 = design circumferential stress to interaction, external pressure or partial filling, in N/mm
2
τ = design shear stress, in N/mm
2
σEφ = elastic buckling strength for axial force, in N/mm
2
σEθ = elastic buckling strength, in N/mm , for hydrostatic pressure, lateral pressure and circumferential
compression.
2
τE = elastic shear buckling stress in N/mm .
Local bending of the plate is considered small and is hence neglected. For simplicity is has further been
assumed that no shear stress is present i.e. pure sway motion and circumferential position at θ = 90º is
considered. For other positions where shear may be present, see /5/.
The elastic buckling resistance of an unstiffened circular cylindrical shell may be taken as:
where:
C = reduced buckling coefficient. This may be taken as:
ψ,ζ and ρ may be taken from Table 8.

Table 8 Buckling coefficients for unstiffened cylindrical shells
ψ ζ ρ
Axial stress 1 0.702 Z
Circumferential stress 4 1.04 Z1/2 0.6
Torsion and shear 5.34 0.856 Z3/4 0.6
The curvature parameter given in the table is:

DNV AS
where:
Section 5
r,t and ℓ denotes the radius, the thickness and the length of the cylinder respectively, in mm.
The usage factor is given by:
The maximum allowable usage factor is given by:
where:
The material factor: γm= 1.15

κ = 1.0 ifλ < 0.2
The slenderness factor: κ = 0.925+0.375λ if 0.2 < λ < 1.0

κ = 1.3 ifλ > 1.0

DNV AS
SECTION 6 LOADS AND STRENGTH OF THE PUMP TOWER
Section 6
1 Description
Early designs of spherical tanks incorporated a pump tower consisting of a 3D tubular truss structure with a
triangular overall cross-section, the three vertical members being cargo flow pipes. The tower was tapered
down to a pinned connection to the tank at each end. The earliest sloshing experiments carried out in the
1970’s, see /1/, were conducted with a model of such a tower mounted inside the tank.
No vessels with spherical tanks were actually built with this truss design of pump tower. Instead a cylindrical
tower was used, enclosing the pipework and protecting it from the fluid motion in the tank. A series of
sloshing experiments was also carried out in the 1970’s, see /2/ with this type of tower. In some early
designs the tower was supported on pads at its base and restrained horizontally by additional pads at the
base and near the top. In more recent tower designs the cylindrical tube is flared out to a larger diameter
at the upper end and being terminated as a tank dome as shown in Sec.5 Figure 15 B and C . The tower
is vertically supported at the top end. The base is welded directly to a seating consisting of a horizontal
diaphragm plate that is supported on a larger diameter cylinder that is in turn welded to the tank shell. The
horizontal diaphragm plate is relatively thin, thereby providing flexibility in the vertical direction that reduces
the vertical forces and moments that are transferred from the lower end of the pipe tower to the cargo tank
shell.
2 Loads for pump tower design

The design loads specified in Sec.5 [4] are those that induce maximum stresses at critical locations in the
sphere and skirt. These design loads have only a minor influence on the stress level in the tower and give no
bending moment or reaction forces in the tower.
The relevant loads for dimensioning the pump tower are those due to the ship motion, the motion of the LNG
in the cargo tanks. The predominant loads on the tower are due to the velocity of the LNG relative to the
tower (drag forces) due to sway and rolling motions, with contributions also from surge and pitch motions,
and in some cases also the temperature of the cargo. Loads that may need to be taken into account in the
strength assessment are thus the following:
— sloshing loads
— gravity and inertia loads
— thermal loads.
Thermal loads are not normally significant provided the tower and tank shell is fabricated from the same
material and the temperature is reasonably uniform through the tank and tower structure. However, thermal
loads may be relevant if there are significant temperature gradients, e.g. with partial fillings.
The pump tower structure shall be designed to withstand the extreme value (ULS) loads and the long term
fatigue (FLS) loads.
3 Sloshing loads
3.1 Introduction
Sloshing loads on the pump tower structure occur due to motion of the liquid inside the cargo tanks. The
sloshing loads should be considered for various filling levels according to the ship’s filling restrictions and
operating profile. Normally the foremost tank or the adjacent tank is considered to be critical for sloshing,
depending on their relative dimensions and motions. If the tanks are of equal size, then the foremost tank
will normally be the more critical one. If the foremost tank is smaller, then the adjacent tank may be critical.
Methods for estimation of the sloshing loads in partly filled tanks may be based on followings, see App.C:
— model tests for a particular ship
— computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analyses, to be approved by the Society

DNV AS
— semi-empirical/simplified method described below.
Section 6
3.2 Ship loading conditions
The ship loading conditions that are considered to be critical for sloshing motion in the tanks shall be
determined. Loading conditions that may need to be considered are:
— full load condition
— ballast condition
— part load conditions.
3.3 Filling levels

3.3.1 General approach
The sloshing loads should be considered for various filling levels according to the ship’s filling restrictions, if
any. At least three different filling levels should be considered.
3.3.2 Filling level selection based on early sloshing tests

Sloshing tests on a tank model with cylindrical tower with diameter dt, see /2/, have provided data for the
maximum lateral forces (irrespective of excitation period) shown in Figure 1, in which the vertical axis shows
the dimensionless quantity:
where γ is the specific weight of the LNG. The results shown were based on tests in which the model was
subjected to a horizontal excitation motion with fixed amplitude equal to 5% of the tank diameter d. This
represents the combined effect of the horizontal motion of the ship (sway and/or surge) and the horizontal
motion of the tank due to rotation of the ship (roll and/or pitch), but does not include the rotational motion of
the tank about its centre.
Figure 1 indicates the following:
— The maximum reaction forces at the tower bottom occur for a tank filling level h/d = 0.3.
— The reaction force at the tower top increases with tank filling level; the maximum tank filling level
investigated was h/d = 0.8 and it was concluded that the force was unlikely to exceed this value
significantly at higher h/d. Normal practice has been to assume that this is the worst case.
— The total horizontal force on the tower is greatest for h/d = 0.3 but is approximately constant for 0.3 <
h/d < 0.7.
Based on the same test series, it has been found that the largest bending effects and tower stresses occur
for a tank filling level h/d = 0.5.
On the basis of the above observations, it has been normal practice to consider the three filling levels h/d =
0.3, 0.5 and either 0.7 or 0.8.

DNV AS
Section 6
Figure 1 Lateral forces on tower due to horizontal motion, from /2/
3.4 Environmental conditions, determination of long-term distribution

3.4.1 General
Speed reduction should be taken into account where appropriate. For the case of ULS, this may be achieved
by considering a 5 knot speed. For the case of FLS, refer to DNV-CG-0129.
For calculation of FLS loads, an operational profile through the lifetime of the shipshall be assumed. The
design assumptions related to time fraction in full load, ballast and part load conditions will be stated in the
ships papers (for normal trading, see Sec.8 Table 1).
Critical wave headings shall be determined. In principle, all headings from 0º to 180º should be considered
for all filling levels.
The sea states that are critical for sloshing motion in the tanks shall be determined. A scatter diagram is used
to describe the probability of occurrence of short-term sea states. The North Atlantic scatter diagram should
be used, as given in /8/. Alternatively, a simplified scatter diagram as described in [3.4.2] may be used. The

DNV AS
short-term sea states are described by a wave spectrum. In general the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum should
Section 6
be used in combination with a cosine squared wave spreading function.
For the relevant loading conditions, ship motion analyses should be carried out. The analyses are to provide
linear ship motion transfer functions, which can be used to generate ship motions for specified sea states.
The tank motions are then calculated by accounting for the distance from the ship’s rotational centre to the
centre of the tank.
For the sea states assumed to be critical with respect to sloshing motion, irregular time series of motion
should be calculated using the ship motion transfer functions. The sloshing loads on the pump tower
structure due to the irregular tank motions are then determined, using experiments or analyses.
The ship motion and dynamic sea/tank pressure loads can be considered as linear functions of the sea
state variables, and can be obtained using standard spectral analysis methods. The sloshing load, however,
is a non-linear function of the sea state variables and requires a different treatment. In principle the
determination of the long term distribution requires consideration of the full duration of all sea state
combinations described by the scatter diagram combined with a description of the relation between heading
and sea state. The procedure thus consists of the following steps:
— Step 1: an operational profile for the lifetime of the ship is determined.
— Step 2: ship motion analyses are performed for each relevant loading condition and heading.
— Step 3: short term sloshing load statistics are determined for the given filling levels and headings and the
relevant sea states, specified in terms of mean wave period and significant wave height, obtained from
the scatter diagram. The short term sloshing load statistics may be established either by model testing or
by numerical analyses using CFD, or by a combination of both.
— Step 4: the short term statistics are combined to give a long term statistical distribution of the tower
sloshing loads for each individual filling level accounting for the operational profile determined in step 1.
If a CFD approach is used in step 3, the liquid velocities at the tower may be calculated and the forces acting
on the tower may be determined using Morison’s equation. A CFD approach is most suitable for predicting
loads at medium and high filling ratios. At low fillings (h/d < 0.4) the sloshing motion is characterised by
steeper and breaking waves that may cause more abrupt loads on the pump tower, hence the CFD procedure
should be verified by the Society for its intended use and specified filling condition.
3.4.2 Simplified scatter diagram

It is generally not feasible to establish the long term sloshing load distribution for the pump tower by
considering the full duration of all sea states covered by the scatter diagram for all relevant filling levels
and wave headings. A possible approach is to apply a coarse discretisation (simplification) of the scatter
diagram, where selected reference sea states cover an interval of significant wave heights and wave periods.
An example of such a discretisation is shown in Figure 2. This approach can be combined with interpolation if
the results allow for it.
Because sloshing primarily is a resonance and large amplitude motion phenomenon, the contribution to
the long term load distribution is dominated by sea states close to the resonance period of the tank and
potentially by the most severe sea states in the scatter diagram. It is therefore required to use a fine
resolution of the scatter diagram around these sea states, whereas the resolution can be reduced for sea
states expected to give small contributions to the long term value. The resonance period and hence the
discretisation of the scatter diagram may vary with the wave heading and the tank filling.

DNV AS
Section 6
Figure 2 Example of a coarse discretisation of a scatter diagram
3.5 Load prediction

3.5.1 General
Based on the set of ship and environmental conditions a sloshing test experimental or calculation programme
should be devised. The testing is most conveniently divided into a screening phase and a design phase.
The screening phase is to evaluate all the relevant combinations of loading conditions, filling level and wave
heading to identify the sea state giving the worst sloshing loads. Based on the results from the screening
phase the design condition(s) are determined. These design conditions are tested or calculated for a long
duration in order to obtain sufficient data for proper statistical analysis of the sloshing loads. An appropriate
method should be used for statistical post-processing of the load-time histories.
The 25 years contour of significant wave height and period of the scatter diagram may be used to identify the
worst conditions for the sloshing motion. For beam sea conditions, the 25 years contour may be reduced by
20% to reflect voluntary heading changes in severe beam seas.
The sloshing load for the ULS assessment should be taken as the load occurring once during the lifetime of
the ship, as determined from the long-term load distribution. The actual long-term distribution of sloshing
loads should in principle be determined as a weighted sum over all the sea states given in the scatter
diagram and all headings considered, as explained in [3.5.2]. The procedure may also be found in DNV-
CG-0129. If no evaluation of the long term distribution is made, the ULS load may be determined by
increasing the load calculated for the critical short-term sea state by a factor of 1.15:
The short term values shall be based on a 25 years contour.

DNV AS
3.5.2 Establishing the long-term distribution
Section 6
In order to establish the long-term distribution of sloshing loads, the cumulative distribution may be
estimated by a weighted sum over the sea states used for estimating the sloshing load. The long-term stress
range distribution is then calculated from;
where:
pij = the probability of occurrence of a given sea state i combined with a heading j
rij = νij/ν0
the ratio between the response crossing rates in a given sea state and the average crossing rate
: the average crossing rate
the response zero-crossing rate in sea state i and heading j

Q(σ)ij = weibull distribution from the experiment or CFD calculation in sea state i combined with heading j.
For the case of unrestricted filling, special consideration of the long term value of the load should be made.
The FLS assessment should be carried out using the same long-term load distribution as applied for the ULS
assessment.
3.5.3 Simplified long-term distribution

Alternatively, the long-term distribution for FLS may for simplicity be assumed as a Weibull distribution:
where Q(σ) is the probability of exceedance of the stress σ, h is the shape parameter, and q is the scale
parameter, defined as
where:
σ0 = reference stress value exceeded once out of n0 cycles

h = shape factor ( = 1.0).

DNV AS
Section 6
3.6 Sloshing experiments and analysis
3.6.1 Available approaches
The sloshing loads on the pump tower resulting from the applied tank motion are a function of the liquid
velocities and accelerations. The velocities and, if possible, accelerations should be determined at several
vertical locations along the axis (height) of the tower.
The fluid forces on the pump tower shell structure may be assumed to be drag dominated, so that the fluid
acceleration is of secondary importance relative to the fluid velocity. The velocities and accelerations may be
determined by one of the following methods:
— experimental tests on scaled-down models
— analysis with (CFD)
— a semi-empirical approach based partly on earlier test results.
The forces acting on the full-scale pump tower can then be calculated using Morison’s equation, [3.6.5].
As an alternative to the above methods, experiments may be carried out to establish more directly the forces
on the tower as described in [3.6.7].
3.6.2 Fluid velocity components and combination

The fluid velocity in m/s at the tower location may be considered to consist of the following components:
— velocity VH(z) due to horizontal motion of the tank
— velocity VR(z) due to rotational motion of the tank.
The horizontal motion used as a basis for calculating VH(z) is the combined effect (vector sum) of the
horizontal motions in the transverse and longitudinal directions. The transverse component relates to the
combination of sway motion and the horizontal motion at the tank centre resulting from roll. The longitudinal
component is similarly the combination of surge motion and the horizontal motion at the tank centre
resulting from pitch. When combining the effects of transverse and longitudinal motions due account should
be taken of the fact that maximum values in these directions do not occur simultaneously so that taking the
vector sum of the extreme velocities may be unduly conservative.
The rotational motion used as a basis for calculating VR(z) is the combined effect of roll and pitch. Generally
the pitch rotational component may be neglected.
These horizontal and rotational motion components may if desired be established separately and combined
assuming they are statistically independent, so that the combined velocity is given by:
All components should in principle be established for the same ship motion conditions, of which the dominant
ones are those which induce resonant sloshing. However, a conservative estimate may be obtained by basing
the rotational motion component on the extreme motion of the ship, as indicated in [3.6.5].
3.6.3 Fluid velocities and accelerations based on experiments

Sloshing tests can be performed with the tank model containing only the liquid; the tower itself is not present
but particle velocities are measured at points on the vertical axis of the tank, where the axis of the tower
would be in the full-scale situation. The configuration is shown schematically in Figure 3.
A direct flow velocity measurement can be achieved by use of particle image velocimetry (PIV). The fluid
is seeded with tiny reflective particles with density close to that of the fluid. The particles are assumed to
follow the flow, and they are illuminated by e.g. a laser sheet. One or more cameras are used to capture two
frames within a short time interval. With two cameras in a stereoscopic setup, particle displacements along
all three axes can be found. The velocity field in the imaged part of the laser sheet is typically found based
on particle displacements from a cross-correlation analysis and the time separation between the images. The
challenge of light reflection from the free surface can be partly overcome by use of fluorescent particles. PIV
can also be used to estimate fluid accelerations.

DNV AS
The experiments should facilitate velocity estimates at about ten points along the vertical axis.
Section 6
This method assumes that the presence of the tower does not disturb the fluid flow significantly in the full-
scale application.
Figure 3 Monitoring locations for velocities and accelerations
3.6.4 Fluid velocities and accelerations from CFD

If analyses are carried out using CFD, the following requirements should be fulfilled:
— The adequacy of the program used should be documented, especially for low filling heights where
breaking waves are expected. The adequacy is strongly related to the treatment of the free surface. To
ensure that the software is capable of describing the physical sloshing phenomenon, the CFD software
should be verified with model tests.
— The program should be capable of handling irregular tank motions and long simulation length.
— Requirements related to modelling, mesh, and time step should be given careful consideration. The
requirements are important for numerical stability and an adequate discretisation of the problem which
can provide a physical solution.
— For calculations with an Eulerian grid, the discretisation is recommended to be at least 30 elements in
each of the three directions.
Velocities and accelerations in the liquid at the location of the pump tower should be determined. The
velocities and accelerations may be calculated for a vertical line located at the tower axis. The number of
positions should be sufficient to describe the flow field along the pump tower length accurately. Typically
more than 10 positions should be used.
3.6.5 Fluid velocities by semi-empirical approach

The fluid velocities should preferably be obtained by experiments or CFD calculations as described in [3.6.3]
and [3.6.4]. However, in the absence of such results semi-empirical approaches may be used based, for
example, on the sloshing tests reported in /2/.
Based on observations from these tests, see /2/, the distribution, as a function of the distance z along the
tower from its base, of the liquid velocity caused by horizontal motion of the tank (including the horizontal
motion of the tank centre due to roll and/or pitch) may be estimated from:

DNV AS
For conditions at or close to resonance the velocity at the surface, VSurface, may be estimated from Figure 4,
Section 6
U = VSurface.
Figure 4 Distribution of maximum fluid velocities at tower over liquid depth for horizontal
excitation amplitude equal to 5% of tank diameter d, from /2/
The velocities in Figure 4 refer to a horizontal excitation of the tank of 5% of the tank diameter at the
resonance sloshing period. For other magnitudes of the tank excitations at resonance the velocities in Figure
4 may be scaled according to
maximum horizontal excitation amplitude of tank at sloshing resonance period.
The magnitude of ηres may be determined from calculation of the long term distribution of horizontal tank/
ship motions, by only taking into account contributions from wave components with periods within ±10% of
the tank resonance period for the considered filling height ('filtered response spectra').
An estimate of the velocity caused by rotational motion due to roll may be obtained as:

DNV AS
Section 6
where θ is the roll amplitude and TR the period of roll motion VR should in principle be established for the
same ship motion conditions as VH, namely those which induce resonant sloshing. However, θ and TR may
be taken in accordance with the rules if not found by a direct ship motion analysis. Note that the estimate
may be unduly conservative if based on the extreme value of roll amplitude.
3.6.6 Load calculation from fluid velocity and acceleration

Based on the time series of the velocity field, the time instant of maximum bending moment and upper and
lower reaction force are determined. Maximum bending moment and reaction force should preferably be
considered both for the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction.
The post-processing should be carried out on each of these time series, in order to determine design bending
moment and reaction forces. From these, the critical time instants for the top and bottom supports and the
main structure may be determined. The velocity fields at each of these time instants should be selected for
the structural analysis, and the sloshing loads acting on the tower at these instants should be applied to the
structural model.
The loads on the pump tower segment can then be calculated using Morison’s equation, as described in /8/.
The force per unit length q(z) acting on the tower is
where ρL is the liquid density, Cm is an added mass coefficient, dt is the tower diameter, a is the particle
acceleration normal to the member axis, CD is the tower drag coefficient, and v is the liquid particle velocity
normal to the tower axis.
Values of CD and Cm should be determined for each structural member according to recommendations given
in /8/. For a cylindrical tube Cm is normally to be taken as 1.0.
For oscillatory motions, CD is a function of the Keulegan-Carpenter number:
where:
dt = diameter of tower in m
T = sloshing resonance period in second
UM = maximum sloshing velocity in m/s.
CD may be taken from Figure 5, see also /8/. For pump towers of aluminium or other
The drag coefficient
smooth material the lowest curve (k/dt < 10 ) may be assumed.
-4
The following alternative equation may be used to estimate the combined effect of the drag and acceleration
terms in the Morison equation:
If this equation is used for CD, the acceleration term in the Morison equation should be omitted. The equation
is also illustrated in Figure 5.

DNV AS
When the load on each segment is determined, a beam model may be used to determine top and bottom
Section 6
support forces and bending moments. The boundary conditions assumed in the model should reflect the
actual boundary conditions of the pump tower. Alternatively the loads may be applied to a finite element
model of the tower and tank.
Figure 5 Drag coefficient CD as function of KC for cylinders in waves, Re > 5.0*105. Note that dt in
this figure refers to the tower diameter
3.6.7 Measurement of bending moments in the tower

An alternative to a direct velocity measurement method is to include a pipe at the tower location in the tank
and calculate the bending moment in the pipe from vertical strains measured with strain gauges placed at
intervals along the tower. The arrangement is shown schematically in Figure 6. The pipe diameter should
be selected to represent as closely as possible the pump tower scaled down to the model dimensions. In
addition to the strain gauges, force transducers should be fitted at the top and bottom, in order to measure
the total reaction forces on the pipe. By fitting for instance a spline function to the measured bending
moments, the shear force may be found as the derivative of the bending moment. By requiring force balance
for a pipe segment, the difference between the shear forces at the two ends of the segment equals the
external force on the segment. This external force contains gravity, inertia, buoyancy and hydrodynamic
components.

DNV AS
Section 6
Figure 6 Example of test setup for pump tower loads
The inertia effect may be found by measuring the acceleration by an accelerometer. The gravity and
buoyancy should also be accounted for. Then the fluid force on the segment is obtained.
4 Inertia and gravity loads
4.1 General
Inertia loads on the pump tower are due to the accelerations of the vessel. Translational tank accelerations
due to the pitch and roll accelerations of the ship should be accounted for. The weight of liquid inside the
tower should be included in the calculation of inertia loads where appropriate.
Gravity loads are due to the self-weight of the pump tower, taking account of the roll and pitch angles for the
ship. When the gravity loads are calculated, the buoyancy of the tower should be deducted if appropriate.
For inertia and gravity loads, the pump tower in the foremost tank is usually the most critical, due to its
distance from the ship centre of motion. However, both the foremost tank and the adjacent tank shall
be considered, in order to determine which one is most critical with respect to the combined effect of
sloshing loads and inertia loads. The effects of sloshing and inertia load should be summed to provide a total
combined load.
For both inertia load and gravity load calculation, the weight of additional elements (structural members
and equipment) that are not included in the finite element model used for the response analysis should be
included as lumped or distributed masses.
4.2 Loading conditions

The ship loading conditions that are considered critical with respect to ship accelerations and motions shall be
determined. The loading conditions that should be considered are given in [3.2].
For calculation of FLS loads, an operational profile through the lifetime of the ship should be assumed.

DNV AS
Section 6
4.3 Design load
The long-term distribution of inertia and gravity loads should be determined as a weighted sum over all sea
states given in the scatter diagram and all headings, as explained in DNV-CG-0129. The loads to be used
for the ULS assessment should be taken as the load occurring once during the lifetime of the ship. The FLS
assessment should be carried out using the actual long-term load distribution.
For the relevant loading conditions, ship motion analyses should be carried out. The analyses are to provide
linear ship motion transfer functions, which can be used to generate ship motions for specified sea states.
The inertia and gravity loads may be calculated for a vertical axis located at the tower axis. The loads will
vary in the vertical direction, but for each vertical position the accelerations may be taken as equal for all
points on the tower circumference and for all internal components.
5 Thermal loads
5.1 General
Thermal loads are due to thermal shrinkage of the pump tower material in the low temperature condition,
relative to the room temperature condition. However, thermal loads on the pump tower are generally much
smaller for spherical tank systems than for membrane tank systems as the tower and tank materials are
generally the same or very similar.
The temperature effect, if present, is most important for the upper and lower supports of the pump tower. If
thermal loads should be considered, the temperature distribution over the height of the pump tower should
be determined for each filling level. For filling levels h/d > 0.7, the temperature can be taken as constant
and equal to -163ºC. For filling levels h/d < 0.2, the temperature of the submerged part of the pump tower
can be taken as -163ºC, while the temperature of the non-submerged part can be assumed to vary linearly
from -163ºC at the liquid surface to -30ºC at the top of the pump tower.
5.2 Thermal calculation

The initial temperature of the pump tower material can be taken as 20ºC. Thermal expansion coefficients
relevant for this material should be applied.
The temperature field should be applied to the model used for the response analysis, in order to determine
the stress field in the structure resulting from the thermal shrinkage.
Low-cycle fatigue due to cyclic variation of the thermal stresses between the empty and loaded condition
may need to be included in the fatigue life calculations.
6 Combination of loads
6.1 Ultimate limit state (ULS)

For ULS assessment, the worst possible combination of sloshing load and inertia load on the pump tower
should be determined. In principle, this can be done by investigating a time series of irregular tank motion,
and monitoring the combined effect of sloshing load and inertia load. By post-processing the combined load
effect, the maximum load may be determined. Alternatively, a conservative approach is to add together the
maximum values of sloshing loads and inertia loads:

DNV AS
If for some reason more dynamic force components should be included these can be added using a square
Section 6
root sum of squares summation.
The static loads due to gravity and thermal gradients should be added:
The total load is found by adding the static loads to the total dynamic load:
The summation of forces should be carried out component-wise, i.e.
It should be noted that both positive and negative values of the dynamic loads shall be considered when the
total load is calculated, i.e. ±Finertia. For the allowable stress check, the maximum stress is of interest, while
for the buckling check the maximum compression stress is of interest.
6.2 Fatigue limit state (FLS)

For FLS assessment, four long-term load distributions should be determined; one for the full load condition,
one for the ballast condition, one for the part load condition with all tanks equally filled, and one for the part
load condition with one tank partly filled and the other tanks empty. The fatigue damage should be calculated
for each condition, and the total damage is found by addition of the four contributions. An operational profile
for the ship should be established.
In principle, the long-term load distributions should be determined for the total load, consisting of all load
effects. For simplicity, however, the sloshing loads and inertia loads may be combined by assuming that the
number of occurrences is approximately the same for both contributions.
The long-term stress distribution may then be determined for the dominating load, i.e. either the inertia or
sloshing load, and the reference stress level is found by adding the stress distribution due to the sloshing
load and the inertia load.
7 Modelling of tower structure

The tower should be included in the FE model used to analyse the respective cargo tank as described in
Sec.5. However, assessment of the tower may also be performed using a simple tubular beam model. In this
case care should be taken to ensure correct representation of the boundary conditions at the top and bottom
of the tower.
8 Capacity assessment
8.1 Allowable stresses

Allowable ULS stresses shall be in accordance with DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [3.2.2].
8.2 Buckling assessment

The following give an acceptable buckling capacity formulation for a cylindrical tower construction. Since the
tower is usually filled with cargo to the same liquid level as the tank, the effect of external pressure on the
cylinder due to the liquid velocity can also be neglected. It has further been assumed that the axial force in
the tower can be neglected as well. Only stresses associated with global bending of the tower are taken into
account.

DNV AS
The following buckling requirement should be satisfied:
Section 6
The actual usage factor η is given by:
where σb denotes the max bending stress in the tower on the compression side and σcr is the corresponding
characteristic buckling resistance.
The characteristic buckling resistance may be taken as:
where:
The elastic buckling resistance of an unstiffened circular cylindrical shell may be taken as:
where:
ζ = 0.702 Z
The maximum allowable usage factor is given by:
The material factor is given by:
γm = 1.15
The slenderness factor κ is given by:

κ = 1.0 if λ < 0.2
κ = 0.925+0.375λ if 0.2 < λ < 1.0

DNV AS
κ = 1.3 if λ > 1.0
Section 6
where:
ℓ = cylinder length between radial stiff supports such as rings, platform decks, in mm
r = cylinder radius, in mm
t = shell thickness, in mm
2
σb = maximum bending stress in the tower on the compression side, in N/mm
2
σE = elastic buckling resistance, in N/mm .
8.3 Fatigue assessment

Fatigue assessment of the pump tower and its supports is addressed in Sec.8.

DNV AS
SECTION 7 STRENGTH ANALYSIS OF THE SKIRT
Section 7
1 Introduction
In the following, acceptable procedures for strength analysis of the skirt are outlined. Procedures for strength
analysis of the tank constructions and the hull structure are given in Sec.5 and Sec.2 respectively. To perform
an effective analysis of the complete cargo tank system, it is advised that Sec.2, Sec.5 and this section are
considered coherently.
2 General
Spherical cargo tanks are supported by cylindrical skirts transferring the loads for the cargo tank, via the
equator profile, and down to the foundation deck. The skirt also protects the hull structure against the low
cargo temperature by an upper part constructed of aluminium and stainless steel where the latter acts as a
thermal brake, see Sec.5 Figure 12.
The skirt shall be assessed for allowable rule stresses and buckling.
— The allowable stresses of the skirt are to fulfil DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [3.2.2].
— The buckling strength of the skirt is to fulfil the criteria given in App.D.
For class approval, the Society will require the skirt to be analysed by the means of a linear finite element
shell analysis to derive the stresses in the skirt.
3 Main geometry
3.1 Material parts

The skirt is traditionally built up of three main parts, see Figure 1 and Figure 2:
1) aluminium part, with or without ring stiffeners
2) stainless steel part, normally ring stiffened
3) steel part, orthogonally stiffened and/or ring stiffened.
3.2 Structural items

Main structural items are:
1) The structural transition joint (STJ).
Connection bond between the aluminium part and the stainless steel part fitted to assure a satisfactory
weld transition between the two parts, see Figure 1.
2) Ring girders.
Defining the boundaries between the main sections and assuring the global buckling capacity of the skirt.
3) Vertical stiffeners.
Normally only used in the lower steel part of the skirt to secure the local buckling capacity of this part.
4) The upper aluminium part is normally unstiffened to allow thermal shrinking/contraction of the skirt
without imposing undue rotation and bending stresses in the equator profile.

DNV AS
Section 7
Figure 1 The main geometry of the tank skirt
Figure 2 Definitions of positions on the skirt

DNV AS
Section 7
4 Design loads and stress summation
4.1 General
In the following, it will be assumed that the skirt is evenly supported along the intersection to the foundation
deck. In reality the loads in the skirt will concentrate in way of web frames and stool frames (hard points)
and this shall be assessed after the arrangement and scantlings of the hull structure have been decided, see
Sec.2.
4.2 Design loads

The stresses in the skirt are governed by the following loads types:
1) Static weights
The forces in the skirt from the static weight of the cargo and the cargo tank system are evenly distributed
around the skirt. The static cargo weight causes vertical membrane stresses in the skirt. Hoop stresses are
very limited and locally distributed in way of radial restraints and bending stiffness changes around equator,
STJ joint, ring stiffeners and foundation deck areas.
2) Steady state temperature difference
The static temperature difference between the cargo tank and the atmosphere shrinks the tank forcing the
skirt to follow. This gives alternating membrane hoop tension and hoop compressive stresses in limited
Static loads
parts of the skirt. The compressive hoop membrane stresses should be considered in the buckling strength
assessment. These stresses should be averaged over the regions where they act. Axial bending stresses due
to temperature differences may be neglected.
3) Static deflection of foundation deck due to still water hull girder bending and double bottom bending
The typical LNG carrier is a hogging ship and the still water bending of the hull girder will induce vertical
tension stresses fore and aft in way of CL of the skirt. For the skirt to be in equilibrium, the sum of forces
along the connection to the foundation deck should be zero. The vertical stresses in the skirt at the outboard
positions are therefore in compression, with absolute value equal to the load in way of CL.
In addition the interaction forces from double bottom bending will depend on the ship bottom and tank
foundation design but will normally be of a magnitude equal to the interaction forces from hull girder
bending.
1) Acceleration of masses
Acceleration of masses are divided in three natural components:
a) Longitudinal acceleration ax.
Causes shear stresses at the outboard sides of the skirt and vertical stresses in way of the CL of the
Dynamic loads
skirt.
b) Transverse acceleration ay.
Causes shear stresses in way of CL and vertical stresses outboard.
c) Vertical acceleration az.
Causes vertical stresses in the skirt.
2) Dynamic deflection of foundation deck due to hull girder bending and double bottom bending
This load will have the same characteristics as the static no. 3 case above, however with the difference that
the load will vary between compression and tension at both positions, outboard and inboard (i.w.o. CL).

DNV AS
Section 7
4.3 Stress summation for allowable stress assessment
4.3.1 General
The design stresses for the skirt should be taken in accordance with one of the methods described below.
Only membrane stresses are considered.
4.3.2 Method 1
It is assumed that dynamic stresses from wave responses:
i) vertical acceleration
ii) transverse acceleration
iii) longitudinal acceleration
iv) interaction hull/tank
act independently and may be caused by different design wave conditions. The dynamic stress components
may then be considered as statistically independent and can be combined with a square root sum of squares
summation (SRSS)
where the indexes denote:
sm = static mass
st = stationary temperature
sf = static interaction force
da = dynamic acceleration
df = dynamic interaction force.
Axial stress:
Hoop stress:
Shear stress:
Equivalent von Mises stress:
This approach requires one FE analysis for each dynamic load i.-iv. above.
4.3.3 Method 2
If simultaneously acting accelerations are applied, e.g. by using the acceleration ellipse, the dynamic stresses
can be added linearly.
Axial Stress:
Hoop stress:

DNV AS
Section 7
Shear:
where:
aR = is the apparent resulting acceleration from the acceleration ellipse which also includes the sloshing
effect, see Sec.5 Figure 10.
Please note that (aR-1)σφsm is the dynamic stress (the inertia term of the static mass). The stresses
associated with the resulting acceleration aR should be determined by applying the static and dynamic mass
loads in the direction of aR in the FE analysis.
4.3.4 Method 3
If a stochastic (spectral) analysis approach is used, as for the CSA class notation, the stresses can be read
directly from the FE results on the skirt. This is on the condition that design waves maximising the axial
forces in the skirt at the actual locations have been used. Note that in this case the inertia effect from the
sloshing acting inside the spherical tanks shall be specifically considered, ref the apparent acceleration
approach in Sec.5 [4.6] and Sec.5 Figure 10.
4.4 Allowable stress acceptance criteria for the skirt

The equivalent stress in the skirt is not to exceed the following values:
— general membrane primary stress: σm ≤ f
— local primary membrane stress: σL ≤ 1.5f
where f is defined in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [3.2.2].
4.5 Stress summation for the buckling capacity assessment

4.5.1 General
The design of the skirt is to comply with the buckling criteria given in App.D. The dynamic stress combination
can be either one of the methods in [4.3] above.
4.5.2 Method 1
Axial stress:
Hoop stress:
Shear stress:
4.5.3 Method 2
Axial stress:
Hoop stress:

DNV AS
Section 7
Shear:
where aR = is the resulting acceleration from the acceleration ellipse, see Sec.5 Figure 11.
The term (aR-1)σφm is the dynamic stress (the inertia term of the static mass). The stresses associated with
the resulting acceleration aR should be determined by applying the static and dynamic mass loads in the
direction of aR in the FE analysis.
The partial safety factors/load factors are given in App.D:
γf1 = 1.1 for forces caused by static weights

γf2 = 1.2 for forces caused by temperature differences
γf3 = 1.4 for forces caused by deflection of the foundation deck, static
γf4 = 1.3 for forces caused by accelerations
γf5 = 1.4 for forces caused by deflection of the foundation deck, dynamic.
4.5.4 Method 3
The stresses can easily be split in static and dynamic parts, but not into components load effects as for
method 1 and 2. The partial load factors above can therefore not be directly applied. As an initial estimate
γS = 1.15 and γd = 1.32 can be used for the static and dynamic parts respectively. However, the Society will
decide the applicable load factors on a case-by-case basis.
5 Procedure for finite element analysis of the skirt
5.1 General
The analysis should confirm that the stress levels are acceptable when the structure is loaded in accordance
with described design conditions.
Any recognised calculation method or computer program may be applied, provided the combined effects
of axial, bending and shear deformations are adequately considered. Strength analysis carried out in
accordance with the following will be accepted as a basis for class approval in general.
5.2 Computer models

The analysis may be carried out by means of an axis-symmetric model with solid element representation of
the equator area
However, the same 8-node model used in Sec.5 [5] should preferably be used with a modelling of the
equator profile preferably with 20-node solid elements in order to give the correct deformations and rotations
at the top of the skirt. The top of the skirt is the most important part to model correctly for arriving at a
representative buckling strength assessment.
The skirt should be modelled with ring stiffeners and vertical stiffeners properly represented. 8-node
quadrilateral shell elements should preferably be applied for modelling of the skirt plating and the ring girder
webs and 3 node beam or truss elements for the flanges of the ring girder and the vertical stiffeners.

DNV AS
Section 7
5.3 Mesh size
The mesh size of the skirt may typically follow the distance between the vertical stiffeners. The stresses will
however peak in way of the STJ both in way of CL and outboard due to local bending phenomena. This can
only be assessed with fine mesh in these areas. The stressed area may be modelled with fine mesh shell or
solid elements. The size of the elements may be approximately 2t × 2t (t × t for 4 node elements) where t is
the shell thickness.
Figure 3 Typical distribution of equivalent membrane stress in the skirt. The equivalent stress is
higher in way of CL due to the shear stress level
5.4 Load cases

The analysis of the tank shall include the design loads in [4.2] and in principle only one load case is
necessary. However, for the sake of the finite element model and correct summation of stresses, the
applicable load case shall be divided in one static condition and three dynamic conditions (interaction forces
excluded). The interaction forces shall be found from the FE model with vertical hull girder bending moments
and bottom pressure to determine the deformation of the skirt foundation, see Sec.5 [4.5.2] and Table 1.

DNV AS
Table 1 Load case for finite element analysis of the skirt
Section 7
Loading condition Full load condition Notes
a) Tank system self-weight, tank and cargo.
b) Interaction force due to still water bending moment and double

Static
bottom bending.
c) Thermal loads.
d) Transverse acceleration.
e) Longitudinal acceleration.
f) Vertical acceleration.
Dynamic
g) Interaction force due to wave bending moment and double

bottom bending due to dynamic bottom pressure.
6 Buckling code and acceptance criteria for the skirt
6.1 General
The skirt, being a stiffened cylindrical shell construction, shall be dimensioned against several buckling failure
modes, Table 1. To exclude local buckling of plating, longitudinal stiffeners and rings, explicit requirements
are given in App.D.
6.2 Other buckling codes

Buckling assessment based on other codes than given in App.D may be accepted upon the discretion of the
Society. Stress summation, load factors and partial safety factors are then in principle to be taken as given in
App.D.
Closed form method (CFM) and semi analytical buckling code PULS with application as described in the rule
DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.8 Sec.1 [3.3.2] and DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.8 Sec.1 [3.3.3] respectively, may be used
for different structural parts whenever considered relevant by the Society. The safety factors for strength as
defined in App.D should be used.
6.3 Alternative buckling calculation methods

Alternative calculations methods are outlined in:
1) non-linear calculations, App.D [3.7.1]
2) semi-direct method, App.D [3.7.2]
3) direct elasto-plastic analysis, App.D [3.7.3].
6.4 Buckling modes

6.4.1 General
The table below shows typical buckling modes to which the skirts should be checked.
6.4.2 Local buckling

The local buckling modes are defined as:

DNV AS
— A1: shell buckling between rings, unstiffened cylinders between rings. m is the number of vertical half
Section 7
waves between the rings or between a ring and one end (or between the two ends). n is the number of
full waves around the cylinder. Relevant for unstiffened and ring stiffened cylinders.
— A2: shell buckling between rings and vertical stiffeners; cylindrical panel. m is the number of vertical
half waves between rings. k is the number of circumferential half waves between the vertical stiffeners.
Relevant for ring and vertically stiffened cylinders, orthogonally stiffened.
6.4.3 Global buckling

The global buckling modes are defined as:
— A3: panel stiffener buckling. m is the number of vertical half waves between the rings or the ring and the
end (or between to ends). n is the circumferential number of full waves around the cylinder. The stiffeners
are bent out of the shell plane and rings are nodal lines. Relevant for vertically and orthogonally stiffened
cylinders.
— A4: panel ring buckling. m is the number of vertical half waves along the cylinder length (or along the
investigated part). n is the number of full waves around the cylinder. The rings are bent out of the shell
plane. Relevant for ring stiffened cylinders.
— A5: general buckling. m is the number of vertical half waves along the cylinder length (or along the
investigated part). n is the number of full circumferential waves around the cylinder. Relevant for
orthogonally stiffened cylinders.
The buckling modes are schematically drawn in Table 2. A1 to A5 refers to the buckling modes as defined in
the computer program NVSKIRT.
Table 2 Applicable buckling modes for the skirt
Type of skirt cylinder geometry

Buckling mode type
Ring stiffened Vertically stiffened Orthogonally stiffened
A1 A2 A2
m = 1,2,... m = 1,2,... m = 1,2,...
Shell buckling n = 0,1,2,... k = 1,2,... k = 1,2,...
m = half waves between ℓ;
n = full waves around
cylinder;
k = half waves between
stiffeners
A3 A3
m = 1,2,... m = 1,2,...
n = 0,1,2,... n = 0,1,2,...
Panel stiffener buckling
m = half waves between ℓ;
NA
cylinder

DNV AS
Section 7
Buckling mode type
Ring stiffened Vertically stiffened Orthogonally stiffened
A4
m = 1,2,...
n = 0,1,2,...
Panel ring buckling
m = half waves between L;
NA NA
cylinder
A5
m = 1,2,...
n = 0,1,2,...
General buckling
m = half waves between L;
NA NA
cylinder
Note: A1 to A5 refers to the buckling modes as defined in the computer program NVSKIRT.

DNV AS
SECTION 8 FATIGUE AND CRACK PROPAGATION ANALYSIS OF
Section 8
CARGO TANKS
1 Introduction
1.1 General
In accordance with DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 [1.1.2] and DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.4 [4.3.3], fatigue
analyses and a crack propagation analyses shall be carried out at areas where high dynamic stresses or large
stress concentrations may be expected.
Fatigue cracks may start in originally un-cracked bodies due to internal in-homogeneities in the material or in
grain boundaries in the material. The main concern is however macroscopic pre-cracks:
— along the weld toe due to undercut, poor weld profile or root defect
— as lamellar tearing, lack of fusion or lack of penetration
— due to hydrogen cracking or solidification cracking.
Figure 1 Various types of weld defects which typically initiate fatigue cracks
1.2 Fatigue
The objective of the fatigue control is to ensure that all parts of the cargo tank system subject to dynamic
loading have an adequate fatigue life. Fatigue life can be described by three phases:
1) initiation, Ni
2) crack growth, Ns
3) failure.
The fatigue life is defined by N = Ni + Ns. For both welded and unwelded details the major part of the
fatigue life lies in the initiation phase. For welded constructions the crack starts to grow from an initial defect
of the type discussed above to the end of the initiation stage that can be defined by for instance a detectable
crack size or a certain change in stress (strain) close to the crack toe.

DNV AS
Section 8
1.3 Crack propagation
Structural failure may develop in one of the two following ways:
-4 -2
1) Most of the crack growth (fatigue damage) takes place under pulsating loads in the 10 to 10
probability range. Here the stress ranges are smaller and the number of cycle higher than in the extreme
-8
10 load range that just experiences some few cycles.
2) A rapid brittle or plastic crack growth takes place when the crack has developed to a size (length and
depth) that can be defined as critical subject to a sudden high load. In the present context the high
8
load is taken as the largest expected load during 10 wave encounters in the North Atlantic (static plus
dynamic).
2 Loading conditions
2.1 General
The ship loading conditions to be used in the fatigue and fracture mechanics analyses are given in Table
1 below for a normal trading carrier (trading with full load on entire laden voyage and in ballast for return
transit). For vessels intended for trades with part load conditions, the exposure fractions should be specially
considered. The design loading conditions and exposure times giving basis for the fatigue calculations will be
stated explicitly in the ships papers.
2.2 Special trade and operation

Other distributions of time fractions (exposure times) may be of interest. Examples of this are special trades
and operations that require the ship to operate more of the time in part loaded conditions. Examples of this
are vessels engaged in shuttle and regas operations (SRVs) offloading at offshore discharge buoys or vessels
loading and/or discharging cargo at floating terminals (FSRU). In such cases the exposure time for the part
load condition should be by owner’s specification, but not less than 5% of the total design lifetime.
Table 1 Design loading conditions and exposure times
Fraction of life Fraction of life time,

Loading Condition
time, tank and skirt tower and tower supports
Full Load, all tanks full 45% -
Ballast, all tanks empty 40% *
Part load condition - 5%
* If the tank is sailing with heel (e.g. up to 10% filling height) at ballast voyage, this should be taken into account for the
duration of the ballast voyage.
A simplified approach for tank and skirt may be to calculate the fatigue damage from full load condition 50%
of life time, assuming this will incorporate the damage effect from ballast operation. To be agreed with class.
3 Fatigue loads and load combinations
3.1 General
The nominal FLS stresses in the tank at a probability level of Q = 10-2 should be found by combining all the
following load effects:

DNV AS
a) inertia stresses from accelerations of static weights (cargo and self-weights of the tank system)
Section 8
b) dynamic stresses caused by interaction between hull and tank due to hull girder bending and double
bottom bending causing deformation of the tank foundation deck
c) dynamic stresses due to liquid sloshing loads at reduced tank fillings
d) stresses caused by temperature differences.
The governing loads for fatigue of the tank shell are due to full tank loads (load type a) and interaction forces
(load type b). The tower, and in particular the tower supports will be governed by liquid motion loads at
reduced tank fillings (load type c).
3.2 Thermal load

Temperature stresses may contribute to low cycle fatigue effects in connection with cooling down and
warming up of the tanks. DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.4 [4.3.3] requires low cycle fatigue from unloading and
loading considering 1000 cycles over the lifetime (40 cycles per year). For spherical tanks this normally gives
minor effects on fatigue.
3.3 Dynamic load

The dynamic stress components can be combined with the square root summation of the sum of squares
(SRSS) method (duly observing the +/- sign of the stress components). With this combination the phase
information is lost. Hence, care shall be exercised in order to select conservative combinations of the
stresses. However, an alternative and better way would be to carry out analyses in which the real phase
relationship between the stress components is maintained. This requires a global model and local models
assessed via direct analyses, similar to the specification for the CSA notation, DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.6 Ch.1 Sec.7.
3.4 Stresses to be considered

Fatigue and fracture mechanics analyses should be carried out based on the largest principal stress at the
considered location.
3.5 Others to be considered

Geometrical stress concentration factors not accounted for in the FE-model, e.g. shell thickness changes, can
be calculated according to DNV-CG-0129 and applied to the analysed stress ranges. Fabrication tolerances
are given in App.D.
4 Stress combinations for fatigue and fracture mechanics analyses
4.1 General
Dynamic (cyclic) stresses are driving the fatigue crack growth, whereas the rupture at a given crack size is
governed by the maximum encountered stress amplitude (static plus dynamic).
The primary parameter for final rupture given a certain crack size is the most probable largest one time
8
stress amplitude (static plus dynamic) during 10 cycles in the North Atlantic. This value equals the extreme
ultimate limit state (ULS) load used for allowable stress and buckling capacity checks. Since fatigue crack
growth and final rupture are parts of the same fracture mechanics analysis and normally checked by the
same software, the total fatigue load stress spectrum should be taken as the most probable largest load
8
spectrum the ship will experience during 10 wave encounters in the North Atlantic.

DNV AS
Section 8
4.2 Fatigue and fracture mechanics analysis
In order to evaluate residual fracture of fatigue cracks over the lifetime of the vessel fracture mechanics
analysis shall be carried out based on the extreme ULS long term stress distribution instead of the Q = 10
-2
probability level to be used for SN-curve fatigue analysis. The stress components should be combined as
follows;
For Miner-Palmgren SN-curve fatigue analysis:

a) Determine the static stress and dynamic SRSS (square root of the sum of squares) combination for each
(all) surface stress component, meridional, circumferential and shear paying due attention to the sign of
the dynamic components compared to the static ones. This should be done at the inside and the outside
of the shell wall.
b) Calculate principal dynamic stress ranges at the inside and the outside of the shell wall. The largest
principal dynamic surface stress range within ±45 degrees off the perpendicular to the weld (crack)
should be used in the SN-curve fatigue analysis.
Additional, for fracture mechanics analysis:

a) In order to correctly evaluate crack propagation and potential rupture, the static value plus the dynamic
design life ULS amplitude of the surface stresses should be calculated.
b) Based on the inside and outside values of the principal surface stresses, split the stresses in the shell
wall into membrane and bending parts separately for dynamic stress ranges and for static plus ULS
amplitude values. This is essential for the fracture mechanics analyses but is not necessary for the SN-
curve fatigue analysis.
c) Select the largest membrane stress for the analysis. This will give the fastest crack growth through the
thickness and hence the shortest fatigue life. However, in some cases it might be necessary also to check
the maximum bending combination in which the crack will grow faster in length than in depth.
4.3 Weibull parameter

The long term distributions of the stress ranges and ULS stress levels may be described by their respective
probability levels and the associated Weibull slope parameters for input to the SN-curve and fracture
mechanics analyses. However, if no better estimate is available a Weibull slope parameter of ξ =1.0 may be
used.
5 Fatigue damage evaluations
5.1 Fatigue damage analysis

The long term distributions of stresses at the critical weld locations should be determined for the loaded, part
load and ballast conditions. The combined effect for the fatigue analysis can be determines as outlined in
bullets a. and b. below. The operational profile is defining the fraction of the total lifetime spent in the actual
loading conditions – full load, ballast, part loads and at various heading angles.
The fatigue life can be determined in basically two different ways.

DNV AS
a) By adding up damage contributions
Section 8
— Fatigue damage contributions (Miner sums) calculated for each loading condition can be added
according to the operational profile of the vessel to give the total fatigue damage contribution over
the design lifetime of the vessel.
— For the part load condition the fatigue damage contributions from the considered filling levels can
be added according to the operating time at each filling level. A minimum of three part filling levels
should be used.
b) By establishing a resulting long term Weibull stress distribution. This can be done by combining the long
term stress distribution for all the load cases as a weighted sum according to the operational profile for
the vessel. This reduces the number of stress cycles in each operating mode with the corresponding
fractions. Fatigue analysis on this basis should be compared to the total design lifetime.
5.2 Fatigue damage acceptance criteria

The fatigue acceptance criteria for the containment system are not only dependent on S-N curve analyses
but are combined with fracture mechanics analyses of remaining failure development time depending on
possibility of leakage detection, access for in-service inspection and crack development detection, see DNV-
RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.21 Table 2.
Fatigue damages should be calculated according to the Miner-Palmgren damage hypothesis in combination
with a relevant S-N curve for the material and the weld type in question.
Crack propagation analysis is described in [8].
6 S-N Curves for fatigue analyses

The S-N Curves used for the fatigue analysis should be developed based on the statistical probability level
of 97,5% of survival, i.e mean value - 2x standard deviation. For Al 5083-0 the corresponding S-N curves
can be selected from /6/. The corresponding SN curves for SUS-steel can be selected from DNV-CG-0129 for
steel.
7 Typical areas to be checked for fatigue

The following areas/details should be evaluated for fatigue damage:
a) horizontal thickness transition welds in the tank
b) vertical welds in the tank
c) equator horizontal welds
d) equator vertical welds
e) equator groove area
f) shell connection to tower dome
g) shell connection to tower base
h) STJ parent material
i) STJ weld toes.
8 Crack propagation analysis
8.1 Design requirements

According to the rules a crack propagation analysis should be carried out for areas with high dynamic
stresses in order to document if leak-before-failure (LBF) can be demonstrated or not. If not, more strict
requirements apply dependent on access and detectability of possible leaks, see DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7
Sec.4 [4.3.3] 7 to 9.

DNV AS
Unstable cracks is characterised by either spontaneous crack growth with no additional input of driving
Section 8
strain energy (brittle fracture) or as plastic tearing needing only marginal input of strain energy for the
crack to propagate. If bending stresses are dominating the stress picture in the shell, the crack will grow
predominantly in the longitudinal direction and less through the thickness.
8.2 Analysis procedure

The start of the analyses is from an initial semi-elliptical crack of length '2c' and depth 'a' that is the
maximum defect size that will not be discovered during production. The following analyses and initial cracks
sizes would normally be anticipated:
a) The estimated number of cycles/years before a leakage, i.e. the number of cycles to propagate through
the thickness or reach a critical size. Unless otherwise stated assume the initial crack is a surface
crack with length 25 mm and depth of 1 mm for the majority of the load cases. Where welds can be
considered as smoothly ground a reduced initial crack size of 25 mm length by 0.5 mm depth may be
adopted. The stress spectrum to be used for this case is illustrated in a normalized form in Figure 2.
b) When leak-before failure can be shown the critical length of through thickness defects should be
estimated. It is then possible to evaluate the leak-before-failure criterion as given in item c) below.
c) Calculate crack propagation of the through thickness defect during 15 days of storm condition, Figure 3.
It is then possible to evaluate the risk for unstable fractures during 15 days of storm.
d) If leak-before-failure cannot be shown the requirements in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.4 [4.3.3]8 and 9
applies depending on access for inspection and repair.
8.3 Analysis software

Both the crack propagation and the critical crack size calculations can be performed using the software
program CrackWise, see /9/. The critical flaw calculations can be carried out based on the level 2B calculation
defined in BS 7910, see /19/.
The crack growth may be calculated by stepwise integration of the Paris’ equation:
where:
= the crack growth per load cycle
m and C = the crack growth constants, determined from experiments

= the stress intensity factor range
2
= the stress range, in N/mm
Y = is a correction factor depending on geometry
a = the crack depth, in mm.
The additional bending stress from eccentricities can be calculated directly from the FE- analyses or
from suitable equations as given in DNV-CG-0129. If the welds are ground flush or almost flush the local
stress concentration factor at e.g. weld toes, Km, can be set equal to 1.0. If the shell welds as well as the
connection welds to the equator profile are not ground, the Km definition in the CrackWise program can be
applied.
8.4 Long term wave-induced stress range spectrum

For design against leakage the load spectrum is taken as the most probable largest load spectrum the ship
8
will experience during 10 wave encounters in the North Atlantic. The normalized stress range on probability

DNV AS
-8 8
level 10 is set equal to 1. The long term wave-induced stress range spectrum (10 cycles) is given in Figure
Section 8
2 is assuming a Weibull shape parameter of ξ =1.0. This is the normal assumption if no better estimate is
available.
In the direct analysis procedure which is required for independent tanks of type B the Weibull shape
parameter can in principle be determined. Hence, the shape of the stress distributions in Figure 2 and Figure
3 can be modified as follows:
where:
= reference stress value, in N/mm2, at the local detail exceeded once in n0 cycles (shown as
normalized to 1.0)
n0 = total number of cycles associated with the stress range level Δσ0, at probability level 10-8.
Figure 2 Long term wave-induced stress range spectrum
8.5 Stress range spectrum for 15 days of storm

Design against crack propagation for a through thickness defect at storm condition is taken as the stress
range spectrum representing the worst period of 15 days in the most probable largest stress range spectrum
8
the ship will experience during 10 wave encounters on the North Atlantic. The stress range spectrum at 15
5
days (2·10 cycles) of storm is shown in Figure 3.

DNV AS
Section 8
Figure 3 Short term (15 days of storm) wave-induced stress range spectrum
8.6 Driving stresses for crack propagation analysis of through thickness

cracks
The dynamic stress range is the driving force for the crack propagation through the thickness. Here the 25
year stress spectrum should be used, Figure 2. When a through thickness crack has developed, the 15 day
8
spectrum in the most severe storm, with the same extreme stress value as for the 10 spectrum, shall be
used and the crack length at day 15 determined. In addition the shape of the through thickness crack growth
curve beyond the calculated 15 day size shall be determined to see if there is an accelerated crack growth
indicating an imminent plate failure (rupture). The aluminium A5083-0 material has been shown to be very
ductile and no critical crack length can be precisely defined, see /14/. The value of the CTOD parameter can
therefore during the through thickness crack propagation phase be relaxed and set to a fairly large value,
e.g. =1000.
The driving stress range can based on the testing reported in /14/ be set to:
where:
2
= dynamic membrane stress range, in N/mm
2
= dynamic bending stress range, in N/mm
m = dynamic bending reduction factor.

DNV AS
The value of the dynamic bending factor 'm' can be taken as 3. The strain energy associated with the
Section 8
compressive side of the bending stress distribution will not contribute to open the crack, but the tension side
might. As a conservative measure 1/3 of the surface bending tension stress range has been included. This
corresponds to the centre of gravity of the triangular tension part of the bending stress distribution.
8.7 Material tensile properties

The material for all load cases are aluminium alloy A5083-0, see Sec.5 [5.3]. The generalized level 2 solution
described in /19/ is applied, i.e. the stress/strain curve is not known. However, the yield strength, the
ultimate tensile strength, the Young’s modulus and the Poisson’s ratio is required.
8.8 Material crack propagation properties

The following values for the crack propagation parameters can be used:
m = 3.66
-13
C = 1.923E
The mean plus two standard deviation data (μ + 2σ) above are given in /10/, and the fatigue crack growth
threshold can be calculated according to BS7910, see /19/, as follows:
Other parameters than above may be used if they are documented and accepted by the Society.
8.9 Welding residual stresses

In the critical flaw size calculations, the residual stress from welding is assumed equal to the yield strength.
9 Leakage calculation
9.1 Purpose of calculation

It is important to estimate the leakage rate through a crack of given size in order to establish whether the
concentration of leaked gas is sufficient to be detected before the crack becomes unstable.
In practice it shall be established that the crack between the time of detection and the end of the voyage
does not reach the critical crack length. For the possibility of detecting a leak the worst case would be one in
which the leakage is detected soon after the start of the voyage.
In this context a conservative leakage estimate is one that underestimates the leakage for a given crack size.
A calculation that overestimates the leakage will indicate that the leakage will be detected earlier than in
reality.
On the other hand, a larger LNG liquid leakage will be conservative for the dimensioning of the capacity of
the secondary drip tray, the small leak protection system.
9.2 Cases to consider

The leakage may be of vapour from the region above the liquid surface or of liquid from the lower region of
the tank. In practice it is considered sufficient to consider two cases:
a) A through-thickness penetrating crack at the equator profile, which may be above or below the liquid
surface. The state of stress induced in the tank shell at the critical location is a combination of tension

DNV AS
and bending. As a minimum the horizontal welds at the top and the bottom of the equator profile shall
Section 8
be examined together with the tank side of the equator groove.
b) Through-thickness penetrating cracks in the lower hemisphere, the tank bottom and the tower
foundation supports, which is assumed to be below the liquid surface
9.3 Form and dimensions of crack

The development of a fatigue crack in the tank shell may be considered to consist of three stages as shown in
Figure 2 and described below:
i) The crack starts to grow from a defect at one surface (the initiation side). It grows in both the in-plane
direction and the thickness direction until it reaches the opposite face of the shell (the penetration side).
ii) The length of the crack at the initiation side is given by the fracture mechanics analysis when the crack
has propagated through the thickness. The crack shape will be semi-elliptic with axes equal to the crack
length at the initiation side and the smaller half axis equal to the plate thickness.
iii) The crack will grow as a trough thickness crack. The length of the crack at the penetration side can
be calculated assuming the same elliptic shape (the same ratio between the half axes) as in stage II
throughout the through thickness crack growth. This approach gives similar crack shapes as those found
during the fracture and leakage testing reported in /14/, /15/ and /16/.
Figure 4 Three stages of crack growth
9.4 Crack length at the penetration side

The crack length can be calculated as follows:
1) Calculate the crack propagation through the plate thickness starting from the defects given in [8.2].a by
fracture mechanics crack propagation analysis (CrackWise). The crack length at the initiation side is then
obtained as the length when the crack penetrates the thickness.
2) Staring from the crack length on the initiation side carry out a crack growth calculation of the through-
thickness crack and determine the crack length on the initiation side after 15 days in the most severe
storm using a load spectrum as shown in Figure 3.

DNV AS
3) The corresponding crack length at the penetration side can then be estimated as:
Section 8
where:
ap = half crack length at penetrations side after 15 days storm, in mm

ai = half crack length at initiation side after 15 days storm, in mm
ai0 = half crack length at initiation side at penetration of the shell plate thickness, in mm
t = shell plate thickness in mm
t0 = depth of crack corresponding to ai0 as returned by CrackWise, in mm.
Due to the numerical solution procedure used in CrackWise t0 will normally be slightly less than t. It will,
however, be conservative to put t0 = t.
9.5 Effective crack opening stress

Compression will close the crack and no leakage will occur. The integrated mean tension stress over a
dynamic cycle will be the opening crack stress in terms of leakage. The effective crack opening stress can be
taken as:
For σsm > σdm:
(1)
For σsm ≤ σdm
(2)
where:
2
σsm = static membrane stress, in N/mm
2
σdm = dynamic membrane stress amplitude, in N/mm
2
σdb = dynamic bending stress, in N/mm
m = dynamic bending reduction factor.
For the sake of conservatism a (1/m) fraction of the dynamic bending stress has been included with a value
of 'm' equal to 3, see [8.6].
For the purpose of average crack opening for leakage calculations the average effective tension stress will
contribute to open the crack.
a) If the membrane tension stress is larger than the dynamic membrane stress amplitude the net effect of
the dynamic stress will be zero, eq. (1).
b) On the other hand, if the static membrane tension stress is less than the dynamic membrane stress
amplitude the average effect of the difference should be included, eq. (2).

DNV AS
Section 8
9.6 Effective crack opening area
For a case of a pure tension stress σ it may be assumed that the shape of the opening in stage III is an
ellipse whose major axis length is the crack length 2ap and whose minor axis length is equal to the maximum
crack opening displacement 2δ. The area of the opening is then given by
where:
Thus:
For cases with combined bending and tension, the crack opening and also the crack length will vary through
the thickness.
9.7 Leakage rate

The liquid flow, e.g. LNG or LPG, through a fatigue crack is assumed to be orifice flow. The leaked liquid
volume can be estimated by the following equation:
where:
Corifice = an orifice coefficient ( = 0.1)

h = the head of liquid inside the tank at the crack location
γ = the specific weight of the leaking fluid
P1 , P2 = the pressures inside and outside the tank, respectively.
Here A is the crack opening area on the penetration side as outlined in [9.6] above.
The orifice coefficient has been derived from the tests reported in /16/. A value of 0.1 has been found to give
a reasonable comparison with the test data.
9.8 The size of the Secondary Drip Tray

The secondary drip tray should be dimensioned with a reasonable margin to be able to contain the leakage at
day 15 in the worst expected storm.
If a small leak protection system (drip tray) is not feasible, the leaking areas should be designed to stricter
fatigue and crack propagation criteria, DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.4 [4.3.3] 8 and 9.
The total leakage over a given period of time is obtained by integrating the leakage rate with respect to time,
taking account of the crack growth. More details on the design of secondary barriers are given in DNV-RU-
SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.4 [2.4].

DNV AS
SECTION 9 FATIGUE ASSESSMENT OF THE HULL STRUCTURE
Section 9
1 General
The aim of fatigue strength assessment is to ensure that the structure has an adequate fatigue life. Results
from fatigue life analysis can also be used for setting up inspection programmes for the fabrication and
operation phases of the carrier.
2 Definitions
SCF = stress concentration factor
Kg = geometric stress concentration factor
Kt = stress concentration factor due to thickness effect
Mwv‐hog = wave induced vertical hogging moment (positive), in kNm
Mwv‐sag = wave induced vertical sagging moment (negative), in kNm
2
Δσ = stress range, in N/mm
ξ = weibull factor
fm = reduction factor for mean stress effect.
3 Fatigue analysis procedures

Fatigue analysis of the hull structure should be based on rule loads. If the voluntary CSA notation is specified
additional analyses will be carried out based on spectral (stochastic) analyses with direct hydrodynamic
analyses of the wave loads.
Fatigue analyses of the hull structure should be carried out as specified in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.9 and DNV-
CG-0129 applying the dynamic load cases and equivalent design waves (EDWs) defined in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3
Ch.4 Sec.2 [3].
4 Loading conditions
Loading conditions representative for the average trading pattern of the vessel should be selected from the
loading manual covering full load, ballast and part load conditions as relevant. See also DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5
Ch.7 Sec.21 [2.2.1] conditions a), b) and c), and Sec.2 Table 1 and Sec.8 Table 1.
5 Details to be checked for fatigue

A typical spherical LNG carrier has numerous knuckles, load intersections and other stress raisers as well as
a fully utilized strength deck. Structural elements in the cargo area that should be subject to fatigue analyses
are:
— deck openings, penetrations and attachments in upper deck/side and passage deck
— end connections of longitudinals
— the connections between the hold cover and the weather deck
— hopper knuckles
— bottom and side shell plating connections to longitudinals and web frames/transverse bulkheads.
In addition, the following areas/details should be considered:
a) web penetrations for longitudinals

DNV AS
b) the connections between:
Section 9
— the tank skirt and the foundation deck
— the foundation deck and the inner side
— the double bottom and the stool bulkhead
c) knuckles in the inner sides.
Some examples of fatigue sensitive areas are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Examples of fatigue sensitive areas
6 Minimum section modulus to gain satisfactory fatigue life of the

upper deck
6.1 General
The upper deck and the connection to the tank covers are fatigue sensitive areas due to high longitudinal
stress levels as:
— the deck area is very limited and hence fully utilised with respect to ultimate stress level. High strength
2
steel is typically used, e.g. ReH = 355 N/mm
— the ships are generally in hogging with respect to still water bending moment.

DNV AS
The deck may be penetrated by pipes and fitted with bollards, fairleads, platform decks, deck houses, guard
Section 9
rails, lamp posts etc. causing stress concentrations.
It is recommended that the upper deck main scantlings are adequately designed with respect to fatigue to
allow for a minimum stress concentration and thereby to gain confidence in the estimated fatigue capacity for
a selection of structural details. A suitable selection of details should be analysed so as to provide confidence
that most of the remaining local details meet the fatigue requirements.
The builder should address the fatigue life in the preliminary design phase and choose between:
1) Design the midship section according to normal rule strength requirements, i.e. local yield and buckling
criteria and hull girder capacity. This may imply extensive weld treatment to achieve acceptable fatigue
life for the deck attachments.
2) Design the midship section with increased scantlings, i.e. deck section modulus, to reduce the
stress level and hence improve fatigue life of the deck area to provide a reserve margin for stress
concentrations at deck attachments.
6.2 Thickness effect

In order to account for cases where the actual size of the considered welded structural component is
geometrically different from that on which the S-N data are based, the thickness exponent is usually included
in the design equation. For the typical spherical LNG carrier, it is highly relevant for the thicker plating in the
strength deck and the upper part of the inner and outer sides.
For thickness larger than 25 mm, the modified equation for the S-N curve reads:
where teff is an effective thickness defined in DNV-CG-0129, which in general is the thickness through which
the potential fatigue crack will grow, and tref is the reference thickness, which is 25 mm. Values for the
thickness exponent n are given in DNV-CG-0129.
The thickness effect can be included directly in the stress calculation as a stress correction factor according to
DNV-CG-0129 Sec.2 [5].
The thickness effect is only present when the governing principal stress range is within ±45º to the weld toe.
6.3 Stress distribution in weather deck

Longitudinal stresses from global bending moments tend to peak towards the deck opening and any weld
attachment close to the tank cover may have shorter fatigue life close to the cover than close to the ship side
in the mid of the hold. This stress picture is reversed in way of the cargo hold bulkhead where the shortest
fatigue lives may be found close to the ship side, Figure 2.

DNV AS
Section 9
Figure 2 High stress area in weather deck due to hull girder bending
6.4 Minimum section modulus in deck for fatigue capacity

In order to achieve a sound fatigue life for weld attachments to the upper deck, the minimum section
modulus should be decided such that weld preparation and fatigue design in general may be kept to a
minimum. Deck attachments close to the tank covers in the mid of the hold is especially important.
The below requirements are not mandatory but are recommended to be applied in the early design phase
in order to give an indication of the required hull girder section modulus for compliance with the mandatory
fatigue requirements specified in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.9 and DNV-CG-0129.
The minimum section modulus for the hull girder may as an initial estimate can be calculated as:
where:
The allowable fatigue stress range ∆σal can be taken as;
Mwv–hog = hogging vertical wave bending moment for fatigue, in kNm, as defined in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3
Ch.4 Sec.4 [3.1.1].
Mwv–sag = sagging vertical wave bending moment for fatigue, in kNm, as defined in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.4
Sec.4 [3.1.1].
L = ship rule length, in m.

DNV AS
fe = environmental stress range factor for reduction of north atlantic stress response range to actual
Section 9
trading area, i.e. fe = 1.0 for north atlantic wave environment. For world-wide environment the
factor may be taken as 0.8 as given in DNV-CG-0129.
Kg = geometric stress concentration factor in deck as given in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.9 and DNV-
CG-0129. The criterion is calibrated to a SCF = 1.6 in world-wide environment, fe = 0.8. This
corresponds to, fe =1.0, and SCF = 1.28 in north atlantic environment.
c = calibration factor for spherical LNG carriers ( = 0.9).
6.5 Analysis of deck attachments

For fatigue assessment of upper deck attachments, typical details are given in Table 1 below. Stress
concentration factors are listed in DNV-CG-0129.
Table 1 Examples of deck attachment details
Reference in DNV-
Connection type
CG-0129 App.A to SCFs
Doubling plate below

DNV-CG-0129 App.A Table 5
pillars or other stanchions.
Connection between web

DNV-CG-0129 App.A Table 5
plate and deck plate
Butt welds DNV-CG-0129 App.A Table 3

DNV AS
Reference in DNV-
Section 9
Connection type
CG-0129 App.A to SCFs
Doubling plates DNV-CG-0129 App.A Table 7
Pipe penetrations DNV-CG-0129 App.A Table 11
Larger structures on deck Actual stress concentration may be

such as deck houses established by fine mesh FE models
It is recommended that a screening analysis is carried out to map the critical stress concentrations. Given the
actual stress concentrations of the different connections, one may verify whether weld treatment or redesign
is necessary to satisfy the given fatigue life criteria.
7 Other areas to be checked for fatigue
7.1 General
The extent of fatigue analyses is given by the applicable (specified) class notations. However, in spherical
tank carriers the areas/details listed in the following should be considered for fatigue assessment of cargo
hold details. Other stress raisers may be present, and the application of additional fatigue calculations should
be considered case by case based on screening analysis and/or past experience with similar designs.
Screening analysis should, if carried out, be based on a complete ship coarse finite element model with cargo
hold mesh in the area subject to screening. Course fatigue life estimates can then be obtained based on
assumptions regarding
— scatter diagram
— SN-curve

DNV AS
— type of stress (membrane)
Section 9
— mean stress effect
— stress concentration factor (Kg, Kt).
A screening analysis cannot be applied to document fatigue life due to the coarseness of the FE model, but
will give indications on which areas should be subject to further fatigue analysis.
Fatigue analysis of the listed items should preferable be of the spectral (stochastic) type. Spectral analysis
includes the dynamic global axial force which may be important for some of the details listed below.
Simplified analysis should be based on the loads listed in the Table 2.
Table 2 Minimum of applicable loads for simplified fatigue analysis
Local dynamic loads Global dynamic loads
External Internal Horizontal Torsional

Vertical bending
pressure pressure bending moment
End connections of longitudinals X X X X (X)*
Web penetrations for

X X
longitudinals
Hopper knuckles X X (X)** (X)**
Attachments to upper deck &

X X X
sides, openings
Knuckles in inner sides X X X X
Tank skirt & found. deck X X X
Double btm & stool

X X X
Connections between:
bulkhead
Found. deck & inner side X X X
Cargo hold covers &

X X X
weather deck
Bottom and side shell

plating to longitudinals X X (X)***
and web frames
* Bilge area depending on torsional stiffness of tank covers.

** Applies for bent hopper knuckles only.
*** For connection to web frames.
7.2 End connections of longitudinals

The connections between longitudinals and the web frames/transverse bulkheads as well as web frame
penetrations are areas where fatigue checks may be necessary.
The (1) and (2) connections in Figure 3 (a) are covered by DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.9.

DNV AS
Section 9
Figure 3 Typical hotspots for a longitudinal web frame penetration
The fatigue life of the connections (b) and (c) in Figure 3 is included in the scope for the PLUS notation, DNV-
RU-SHIP Pt.6 Ch.1 Sec.6, and depends on the following factors:
a) The external dynamic pressure.
b) The internal dynamic pressure (of water ballast if any) i.e. the vertical, horizontal and longitudinal
acceleration level.
c) The static pressures.
d) The shear stress in the web frame (dependant on the above named factors).
e) The design of the detail, see Figure 3:
— lug type, e.g. open, semi closed or fully closed
— longitudinal geometry, span and spacing
— stiffener in top type and span.
f) Corrosiveness of environment.
The pressure loads in bullets a to c, varies along the length of the ship. For ships subject to extended class
notations (CSA, PLUS), the fatigue life should be documented at the following positions:
1) Parallel midship body.
2) Foremost cargo hold and the adjacent cargo hold.
3) Aft part of aftmost cargo hold.
DNV-CG-0129 gives guidance on fatigue evaluation of the subject connections.
7.3 Hopper knuckles

The mandatory class scope of work for tankers requires documentation of the fatigue life of the hopper
knuckles based on rule loads.
Two types of knuckles are typical, the bent knuckle and the straight knuckle, and the two types need
separate kind of attention with respect to fatigue assessment.

DNV AS
For both alternatives geometrical eccentricity in the knuckle should be avoided or kept to a minimum. The
Section 9
weld connection between the frame and the inner bottom/hopper plate should be of full penetration locally in
way of the knuckle.
Figure 4 The straight and the bent hopper knuckle
For the straight knuckle, the fatigue life is governed by transverse stresses. Thus, to have proper support of
the straight knuckle, brackets should be fitted in ballast tanks in line with the inner bottom. In addition, one
of the following structural solutions for knuckles with angles between inner bottom and hopper plate between
30° and 75°, should normally be adequate:
1) Bracket inside cargo hold. The bracket should extend approximately to the first longitudinals and the
bracket toe should have a soft nose design.
2) Insert plate of 2.0 times the thickness normally required. Insert plates should be provided in inner
bottom, hopper plate, and web frame. The insert plates should extend approximately 400 mm along
inner bottom and hopper plate, approximately 800 mm in longitudinal direction, and 400 mm in the
depth of the web.
The weld connection between the supporting brackets and the frame plating should be full penetration locally
in way of the knuckle adjacent to frames.
The bent knuckle is also subject to longitudinal bending and local support of the inner skin may be found
necessary. This may be provided by fitting of a longitudinal carvel along the knuckle. Transverse carvels close
to and on each side of the floor may be an alternative.
7.4 Connection between the inner bottom and the stool

It is generally recommended that the connection between the inner bottom longitudinal girders and the stool
bulkhead is fitted with soft brackets to prevent fatigue cracking in way of the knuckle. If brackets are fitted
as shown on Figure 5, no further fatigue evaluation of the connection should be necessary.

DNV AS
Section 9
Figure 5 Connection between the inner bottom and the transverse stool, strengthened with soft
toe brackets
7.5 Main deck connection of the cargo hold covers

The connection of the cargo hold covers is sensitive to fatigue.
— The geometry of the deck/hold openings cause a concentration of longitudinal stresses in way of the
outboard ends of the cover (where the remaining deck strip is at its minimum), see Figure 6.
— The covers are vertically stretched and compressed by the bending of the hull girder. As the ships sides
are more or less fixed, the deck connection to the covers will experience local bending as indicated in
Figure 6 below.
— The bending of the hull girder cause vertical forces onto the supporting brackets working as cantilevers
and giving transverse stresses in the deck.
— The CL position (0°) is also subject to the same stretching/compression effect from hull girder bending
and should also be examined.
— In addition the 45° position may be of interest when subjected to torsional hull girder loads.
The connections are subject to cyclic multidirectional stresses due to longitudinal hull girder bending and
torsion.
Figure 6 Local bending in way of cover connection due to global bending moment

DNV AS
Section 9
7.6 Connection of the tank skirt to the foundation deck
The connection transfers the entire load from the cargo tank to the ship structure. Typically, the skirt is
welded directly to the foundation deck with supporting brackets below deck in way of frames and stool
girders. This gives several stress concentration areas to be investigated, see Figure 7 and Figure 8.
Figure 7 Typical location where stress concentrations occur, to be investigated. The arrows show
directions for extrapolation of stresses at two separate locations
Typical fatigue strengthening of this connection may be soft brackets on each side of the skirt. Normally
only the connections at the four mid hold frames need strengthening and as this normally gives satisfactory
fatigue life, possible further documentation of the fatigue life of the detail is subject to special consideration
based on the applied strengthening.

DNV AS
Section 9
Figure 8 Typical fatigue strengthening of the skirt
7.7 Connection of longitudinal bulkheads to foundation deck

The connection between the inner side and the foundation deck may be subjected to fatigue by the bending
of the ship side. The geometry of the connection decides the stress concentration level of this area.
A typical design reinforcement is the fitting of small soft brackets to take away the stress concentration.
The brackets may be small to reduce the worst stress concentration but strength verification with respect
to ultimate stress level and buckling capacity may be required based on the geometry and scantlings of the
applied brackets.
A simplified analysis of the connection need not include global loads.
7.8 Knuckles in the longitudinal bulkheads in forward and aft cargo hold
area
Knuckles in the inner sides in the aft and forward parts of the cargo hold area should be checked for fatigue.
Special attention should be paid to knuckles in way of the passage deck where local strengthening may be
necessary.
7.9 Connection of stringer decks to transverse bulkhead

Stringer decks in way of the connection to the transverse bulkheads should be checked for fatigue. Typical
strengthening is fitting of soft brackets between the stringer deck and the transverse bulkhead. In most
cased soft-nose brackets should be fitted on both sides of the transverse bulkheads.

DNV AS
SECTION 10 VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Section 10
1 General
1.1 General
Potential damaging effect of vibration on the containment system shall be examined, according to DNV-RU-
SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Sec.4 [3.3.5].
1.2 Vibration of cargo containment system

Vibration levels on LNG ships will depend on the design of the vessel with regard to structure and excitation
sources. Thus it is difficult to establish general guidelines for this type of ship. The risk of unwanted vibration
levels in the cargo containment system has therefore to be investigated case by case either by experience
from similar vessels and/or vibration studies. Normally unwanted vibration levels of structure at some
distance from the excitation sources are associated with resonance of the structure. The vibration level of the
tower/sphere may be magnified due to natural frequency of the tower, the sphere and or coupled vibration
modes including both substructures. The risk for resonances is larger for a full or partially filled tank than for
an empty tank due to the lower natural frequencies caused by added mass of liquid.
1.3 Risk of vibrations

The risk of unwanted vibration levels will also depend on the type of excitation sources on the vessel. Turbine
driven ships and ships with diesel-electrical propulsion systems comprising medium speed resiliently mounted
diesel engines will have smaller risk of unwanted vibrations than ships propelled by large bore slow speed
engine(s). Similar ships with different excitation frequencies, e.g. number of propeller blades and/or number
of cylinders, may perform differently.
1.4 Risk mitigation

The aim is to avoid that natural frequencies of the tower/sphere coincide with the excitation frequencies
from relevant sources. The risk of unwanted vibration is in that case low. However, even at resonance the
vibration levels may be acceptable. A forced vibration analysis may prove whether acceptable vibration levels
are expected.
2 Analysis procedure
2.1 Excitation sources and frequencies

An LNG vessel may be equipped with different types of propulsion units giving rise to forces which may excite
vibration in tower and sphere. Table 1 lists excitation sources that should be considered for different types of
propulsion units.
Table 1 Excitation sources and frequencies
Excitation sources Frequencies
Turbine and reduction gear:
Diesel-electric propulsion with resiliently mounted diesel — Blade passing frequency from main propeller(s).
engines with speed above 500 RPM:

DNV AS
Excitation sources Frequencies
Section 10
Geared propulsion units with resiliently mounted diesel
engines with speed above 500 RPM:
— Blade passing frequency from main propeller(s).

Slow speed engines with speed below some 200 RPM: — Main excitation frequencies from the diesel engine(s), i.e.
free moments/guide force moments.
2.2 Natural frequency of tower/sphere

The natural frequency of the tower may be influenced by the stiffness/coupling of the shell of the sphere.
Therefore, in order to calculate the natural frequency of the tower it is required to apply a finite element
model of the tower and the sphere. The model should include a correct representation of the support of the
tower at the bottom of the tank with respect to relevant stiffness in all three directions. The model may be
fixed along the equator profile or at the bottom of the skirt if the skirt is included in the model.
The added mass of liquid shall be included in an appropriate way, e.g. by finite fluid elements or boundary
elements. The analyses shall be carried out with different fillings of the tank.
The natural frequencies of tower and/or shell of the sphere should not coincide with the excitation
frequencies from one of the above listed sources in the full speed range. In order to account for uncertainties
in the calculation method, the natural frequencies should be at least 15% above nominal excitation
frequencies at 100% MCR (maximum continuous rating) or 15% below nominal excitation frequencies at
90% MCR.
2.3 Forced response analyses

The safest way to achieve acceptable vibration levels of the tower/sphere is to keep the natural frequencies
away from the relevant excitation frequencies. However, the actual vibration levels of a structure will depend
on the transfer function from the sources to the structure. Thus it may be acceptable to allow for natural
frequencies in actual speed ranges of the vessel if it can be demonstrated that acceptable vibration levels are
achieved. This may be shown by means of a forced vibration analysis of the vessel. The vibration analysis
should be performed according to following guidelines:
1) The finite element model should comprise a full 3-dimensional model of the ship with cargo tanks and
cargo hold covers. In most cases a cargo hold model as shown in e.g. Sec.3 Figure 1 or Sec.5 Figure 2
should be applied.
2) Full load, ballast and possible part load condition should be analysed.
3) The supporting structure of the sphere should be modelled in such a detail that the dynamic behaviour is
represented.
4) The sphere and tower should be included. See [2.2] regarding modelling requirements.
5) The excitation forces from the propeller(s) should be applied as:
— pressure forces acting on the hull
— shaft forces acting in relevant bearings.
6) The excitation forces from slow speed main engine(s) should be applied to a rough model of the main
engine including its top staying.
7) The excitation forces should correspond to 100% MCR.
8) The frequency range to be applied for the relevant excitation forces should correspond to the excitation
frequency at 100% MCR +20% /- 30%.
9) The excitation forces shall be kept constant corresponding to 100% MCR for the above frequency range.

DNV AS
10) For twin screw vessels the forced response should be calculated for two excitation modes:
Section 10
— propellers/main engines acting in phase
— propellers/ main engines acting in opposite phase.
11) The highest response of the two excitation modesshould be considered.
12) The damping applied may be proportional to frequency, but not exceeding 2% of critical damping.
13) The maximum calculated vibration level in a frequency range corresponding to 100% MCR + 15% and
90% MCR – 15% should be considered to be excited at full speed.
14) The calculated vibration levels for each of the applied excitation sources may be evaluated separately.
2.4 Acceptance levels

Based on experience from full scale measurements a vibration level above 20 mm/s may result in risk of
fatigue cracks in aluminium structures. In order to account for uncertainties in the analyses and a safety
margin, it is considered that calculated vibrations below 10 mm/s are acceptable for the tower/sphere
structure. The calculated vibration level compared to acceptance limit may however be evaluated based on
the mode shape in question.

DNV AS
SECTION 11 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Section 11
1 Bibliography list
3
Hansen, R and Rimeid, B. E.: “Moss Rosenberg Verft A/S, 87.600 m LNG Carrier, prediction of loads
/1/ due to sloshing in tanks. For Moss Rosenberg Verft A/S.”, Det Norske Veritas, Report no. 72-45-C,
May 1972.
Olsen, H. A. and Hysing, T.: “A Study of Dynamic Loads Caused by Liquid Sloshing in LNG Tanks”,
/2/ Det Norske Veritas, Report no. 74-276-C, December 1974 (Also as US Maritime Administration
Report no. MA-RD-920-75040)
Hansen, R. E.: “Moss-Rosenberg LNG-carrier. Buckling analysis of partly filled spherical tank.”, Det
/3/
Norske Veritas, Report no. 73-99-C, July 1973.
Valsgård, S.: “User’s Manual – NVSPHERE, Design program for spherical gas tanks of Moss design”,
/4/
Det Norske Veritas, Report no. 2003-0514, April 2003.
Det Norske Veritas: “Buckling strength of shells”, Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C202, October
/5/
2002.
/6/ IIW Fatigue Recommendations XIII-2151-07/XV-1254-07, May 2007
Valsgård, S.: “Computational methods for analysis of ship hulls”. Paper Series No. 2000-P007
/7/
(2000).
Det Norske Veritas: “Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads”, Recommended practice,
/8/
DNV-RP-C205, April 2007.
/9/ “Crackwise 4”, The Welding Institute, Cambridge, UK
Fredheim, S.: “9% Ni-steel and aluminium alloys AA5086 used in LNG tanks in ships. A probability
/10/
of failure analysis.”, DNV Technical Report 33-0041 (1983)
Odland, J.: “Theoretical and Experimental Buckling Loads of Imperfect Spherical Shells”, Journal of
/11/
Ship Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, September 1981, pp. 201-216
Kamsvåg, F., Steen, E. and Valsgård, S.: ”A Computational Method for Analysis of LNG Vessels with
Spherical Tanks”, The Seventh International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Mobile
/12/
offshore Units (PRADS’98), The Hague, The Netherlands, September 1998 (DNV Paper Series no.
99-P002)
Lindemark, T., Kamsvåg, F. and Valsgård, S.: ”Fatigue Analysis of Gas Carriers”, Design and
/13/
Operation of Gas Carriers, RINA, London, September 2004
Tenge, P. and Sollie, O “ Fracture mechanics in the design of large spherical tanks for ship transport
/14/
of LNG”, Norwegian Maritime Research, Vol.1, no. 2, pp.1-18, (1973)
3
Sollie, O. and Tenge, P.: “Aluminium Alloy 5083 for use in 125 000 m LNG Carrier of the Moss
/15/ Rosenberg Design, Part 1: Fracture toughness, geometry and propagation rate of fatigue cracks
initiated from surface defects, Det Norske Veritas Report no. 845031/1”, 21 July 1973
3
Sollie, O. and Tenge, P.: “Aluminium Alloy 5083 for use in 125 000 m LNG Carrier of the Moss
/16/ Rosenberg Design, Part2: Determination of gas leak rates through penetrating cracks”, Det Norske
Veritas Report no. 845031/2”, 21 July 1973.
Hysing, T., Ruth, E. and Zang, Y.: “Experimental Study of Sloshing Loads in Spherical LNG Tanks”,
/17/
DNV Report 2009-2034, rev.02 2010
Nyseth, H. and Renaud, F.: “Prediction of Sloshing Loads in Spherical LNG Tanks”, DNV Report no.
/18/
2015-0107
/19/ BS 7910: “Guide on the Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures”

DNV AS
APPENDIX A FORCES IN SPHERICAL TANKS
Appendix A
1 Force calculation
Figure 1 Forces in spherical tanks
Note:
φ is the angle determining the force calculation point.
α is the angle determining the liquid level.
FR is the filling ratio given by:
where β is the skew(roll) angle of the sphere, see App.B.

---e-n-d---o-f---n-o-t-e---

DNV AS
Table 1 Shell forces in general may be found in see /23/
Class guideline — DNV-CG-0134. Edition October 2021
Nφ Nθ Nφθ
Weight of shell
insulation
LOWER HEMISPHERE
Weight of tower ‐Nφ
φ > α: Above liquid level:

Weight of cargo for -Nφ
partial fillings 0 –
100 %
φ < α: Below liquid level:
Uniform pressure
Horizontal
SPHERE
DNV AS
acceleration*
Weight of shell
insulation
UPPER HEMISPHERE
Weight of dome ‐Nφ
φ < π – α: Above liquid level:

Weight of cargo for 0
0
partial fillings 0 –
100 %
φ > π – α: Below liquid level:
Page 126
Appendix A
APPENDIX B DERIVATION OF THE SKEW-SYMMETRIC EQUATION
Appendix B
1 Skew-symmetric ULS loads
The following derives equations for application of the skew-symmetric ULS loads (allowable stress and
buckling) in the cargo tank finite element model in an upright coordinate system.
Alternatively, if the FE software allows for it and a half (180°) or a full (360°) circumference model of the
tank is made, the same pressure load distribution can be obtained by applying the loads directly in the
direction of the skewed acceleration vector aR, see Figure 1.
Figure 1 Spherical tank pressure distribution – definition of meridional positions and acceleration
vectors

DNV AS
Appendix B
Definitions:
θ = circumferential pressure point position

relative to forward CL
θ0 = circumferential direction of the acting
horizontal acceleration aH relative to the
forward CL position of the tank.
X = longitudinal ship direction
Y = transverse ship direction.
Figure 2 Definition of circumferential positions
The resulting pressure head along the θ0 median, as shown in Figure 2, is given by:
If PR < 0 then PR = 0
Otherwise the pressure PR is given by the expressions below:
The circumferential distribution of the horizontal component is set equal to:
The latter expression can be divided into three separate parts:

PR = P1 + P2 + P3
where:
: uniform internal pressure.
: quasi-static pressure.
: skew symmetric dynamic pressure.
Square root sum of squares (SRSS) summation according to the rules for assessment of allowable stress of
the tank system and buckling strength of the skirt, requires that the static and dynamic parts of the loads are
separated. This can be done as follows:
The static pressure is found by setting aH = aV = 0:

DNV AS
Appendix B
The dynamic pressure is found as aH ≠ 0 and av ≠ 0

DNV AS
APPENDIX C SLOSHING DESIGN OF SPHERICAL LNG TANKS
Appendix C
1 General
The acceptable sloshing design approaches listed below are applicable to LNG ships intended to operate in
part load conditions.
2 Acceptable sloshing design approaches

The design load procedures for part filling operations given below can be accepted by the Society. The
design options are listed in the order of reduced uncertainties. This means that design load factors, i.e. load
uncertainty factors, in the design procedure can be reduced from option 1 to 2 and from option 2 to 3.
1) Use of existing 1 degree of freedom (d.o.f.) tests reported in /1/ and /2/ for estimation of the design
sloshing forces on the tank shell and the tower supports resp.
2) Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analyses of the tank and tower design sloshing forces after being
calibrated against harmonic model test results, e.g. sloshing loads with harmonic constant amplitude
motions may be used for the calibration, see /2/.
3) CFD sloshing loads calibrated against 6 d.o.f. irregular motion model tests.
CFD codes should be verified against tests agreed with the Society for the particular application.
3 Background
3.1 Trading carriers

The general design basis has been the following:
8
1) The environmental design basis for ultimate strength (ULS) has been the worst load situation during 10
wave encounters in the North Atlantic according to DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7.
2) Design for allowable ULS stresses has been based on the full tank situation with the most severe loading
condition defined in the loading manual.
3) In addition the tank system has been designed for buckling strength of the tank shell for any filling level,
see /1/, /4/, /11/ and App.D.
4) For fatigue and leak-before-failure fracture mechanics analysis the full tank load situations has been the
main contributor.
5) Since the late 1990’s the Society has also used the 1 d.o.f. tests, see /2/ for estimating tank and tower
sloshing loads for assessing the additional fatigue damage contribution to the tank and the tower
structure from part filling operations.
3.2 Offshore terminals

Receiving terminals, re-gas vessels and production units need to be able to operate with part tank fillings for
up to 100% of their lifetime. This new mode of operation will in principle call for an improved assessment
procedure based on 6 d.o.f. irregular tank motions, but the 1 d.o.f. tests in see /2/ may still be used.
3.3 New tank sizes and shapes

The trend towards increased ship sizes means larger diameter LNG tanks for both trading carriers and
offshore units. Also designs with other tank shapes like stretched tanks and combinations of hemispherical,
cylindrical and torospherical shapes have emerged. This pushes the technology beyond the present
experience base and hence calls for the best possible test data to meet these challenges.

DNV AS
Appendix C
4 Sloshing assessment procedures
The simplified approach above using the 1 d.o.f. tests considers only the main dominating sloshing excitation
in the horizontal plane. Influences of other motion components like roll and vertical motions as well as
excitations with periods outside the sloshing resonance range are disregarded.
The approach is as follows:
a) Calculation of resonant sloshing excitation (max amplitude) of spherical tank in the horizontal plane
(sway, surge) based on irregular ship motions (filtering of ship motions at sloshing resonance periods).
b) Use of regular motion model test results for horizontal tank excitations to predict the maximum sloshing
loads in irregular seas.
c) Calculation of horizontal tank loads and loads on tank tower and establish simplified long term
distributions.
If the model tests are supplemented with CFD calculations this will enable calculation of liquid motions and
loads in the tanks due to irregular ship motions in 6 d.o.f. The approach entails the following steps:
a) Correlation/scaling against regular motion model test results, see /10/, i.e. variation of filling height and
excitation amplitude, for verification of the CFD approach.
b) The correlation will cover both liquid velocities in the tank, total forces on the tank and forces (drag
coefficients) for the tank tower.
c) Calculation of liquid motions, tank forces and tower forces for a selected number of critical sea states
(e.g. 12 – 16 sea states) to establish the long term distribution of the sloshing forces for the various
filling levels.
The CFD calculations accounts for all the motion components and all the excitation periods in a realistic
manner. However, comparisons carried out indicate that CFD calculated liquid velocities shall be compared
to those of regular model tests. In addition, drag coefficients for estimation of the tower sloshing forces also
shall be assessed.

DNV AS
APPENDIX D BUCKLING CRITERIA OF LNG SPHERICAL CARGO TANK
Appendix D
CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS – SKIRT AND SPHERE
1 General
This appendix contains acceptable buckling design criteria for the skirt and sphere for LNG spherical cargo
tank containment systems. The criteria are relevant for independent type B spherical tanks.
2 Design principles
The design stresses should be based on direct calculations normally using general purpose linear FEM
program systems or equivalent software. The FEM models may include the complete ship or parts of the ship
only.
The most critical design stress combination (σ10, σ20, τ0) with respect to buckling and its location in the
structure should be identified.
The buckling criteria are written as limit state functions consistent with the format used in modern reliability
analysis. Due to the serious consequences of failure the acceptance level of the limit states corresponds to a
higher safety level than is normally implemented in conventional ship rules.
The dynamic part of the design stresses to be used in the limit state functions should be based on a 25 years
return period under North-Atlantic environmental conditions.
The buckling criteria should be compatible with the maximum tolerance level with respect to deviations from
perfect form due to fabrication. However, the criteria herein are of a form that allows the strength to be
assessed also for exceedance of the tolerance limits. In such cases the Society will consider the relevant
imperfection amplitudes to be used in the design procedure.
The present methods may be substituted by more refined methods using direct calculations. Particularly
non-linear FEM programs may be used for assessing buckling strength with due considerations of effects
from non-linear material behaviour, realistic boundary conditions etc. Special emphasis should be put on
geometrical imperfections and how these are implemented in the computer model. The Society will consider
such analyses and their relevance on a case-to-case basis.
3 Skirt buckling
3.1 General
This Appendix gives acceptable methods for calculation of the buckling strength of the skirt supporting the
spherical LNG tank, see Figure 1. The skirt may be stiffened by rings or vertical stiffeners and they may be
arranged on the inside or outside of the shell, see Figure 2.
The skirt shall be checked against several possible types of buckling modes, see Table 1:
a) Shell buckling: buckling of shell between rings/stiffeners. a1) Shell buckling between rings- unstiffened
cylinders between rings, a2) Shell buckling between rings/vertical stiffener- cylindrical panel (NVSKIRT
notation; A1, A2).
b) Panel stiffener buckling: overall buckling of vertical stiffeners including shell. Rings frames are nodal
lines. Coupled to torsional buckling of vertical stiffeners (NVSKIRT notation; A3).
c) Panel ring buckling: overall buckling of rings including shell. Vertical stiffeners (if any) are nodal lines
(NVSKIRT notation; A4).
d) General buckling: overall buckling of rings and vertical stiffeners including shell (NVSKIRT notation; A5).
e) Local buckling of vertical stiffeners/rings. Explicit requirements for excluding these local failure modes
are given.
The buckling criteria given herein require a minimisation procedure with respect to the number of waves
in axial and circumferential direction. This procedure is a simplified eigenvalue analysis accounting for

DNV AS
non-linear pre-buckling effects and the elastic knock-down factor due to deviations from perfect forms
Appendix D
are accounted for. The present criteria are best suited for programming on a PC-computer or equivalent
hardware.
The buckling criteria herein may also be used when the tolerance limits in [3.5]are exceeded. This needs
special considerations from the Society.
The methods and procedures given here may be substituted by more refined analyses using direct
calculations. General purpose non-linear FEM programs or more specialised programs such as BOSOR4,
BOSOR5 for rotationally symmetric shells are relevant analysis tools.
The design criteria are written in a limit state (partial safety) format and are suited for reliability calculations.
3.2 Limit states – design criteria

3.2.1 General
For each type of buckling mode two limit states in a partial safety format shall be checked:
i) Elastic buckling:
a cylindrical shell may collapse before the yield stress have been reached in any part of the shell.
ii) Elasto-plastic buckling:
a cylindrical shell segment may collapse due to the initiation of material yielding in the most severely
loaded part of the shell.
For each type of buckling mode (mode a), b), c) or d)), criteria i) and ii) are combined into a single design
criterion as given in [3.2.2].
3.2.2 Buckling criterion

The combined elastic and elasto-plastic buckling strength criterion to be satisfied is:
(1)
where:
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
σx0 , σθ0 ,τ0 are the design stresses including load factors as given in [3.3].
The partial safety factorsκ and γm are given in [3.4].
ΛCR is related to the critical buckling stresses as given in [9].
FE may be taken as:

DNV AS
Appendix D
(7)
Values for ΛE are given under [3.2.3]and will depend on the buckling mode considered.
3.2.3 Elastic buckling stresses, eigenvalue calculations
The elastic buckling parameter ΛE for a cylindrical shell under combined axial compression, shear stress and
circumferential compression will vary depending on the buckling mode considered. The general expression for
ΛE valid for modes a), b), c) and d) defined in [3.1] is
(8)
For mode a1), b), c) and d) the parameters are defined as (for mode a2, see below)
(9)
(10)
(11)
Ω is a load parameter defined as:
(12)
F0 is a non-dimensional load parameter defined as:
(13)
F0 in the form given in eq.(13) is valid for typical LNG skirt designs, see eq.(19) to (23) for unstiffened parts
of the skirt.
C is a buckling coefficient defined as:
(14)
The parameters m and are unspecified parameters i.e. the ΛE shall be minimised with respect to m (m =
1,2,...) and n (n = 0,1,2,...) for each type of buckling mode. m, n and are buckling wave parameters (see
notation list in [3.1]).
For mode a2) (local shell buckling between vertical stiffeners), the parameters take the following values:
(15)
(16)
(17)

DNV AS
Ω is a load parameter defined as:
Appendix D
(18)
F0 is a non-dimensional load parameter defined as:
(19)
Cc is a buckling coefficient defined as:
(20)
C0 is defined as:
(21)
Minimum C0 is found with respect to m; m = 1,2,…. C0 have a separate minimisation from ΛE
(22)
ΛE is minimised with respect to m and α. m is the number of half-waves in the vertical direction and it takes
discrete values m =1,2,3,..,20. α is a continuous parameter describing the inclination angle in radians of the
buckling pattern relative to the horizontal plane. α will take values in the interval 0.0 – 1.0, depending on
the ratio between the acting biaxial/shear loads. In a minimisation procedure an increment in α of 0.02 ( ~ 1
deg) will give sufficiently accurate results.
The minimum positive value for ΛE shall be found. This means that the buckling condition to be found is in
the same load quadrant as the corresponding design load point. The axial stress σx0 is always positive (i.e.
compressive), τ0 is always positive (shear stress independent of direction) while σθ0 may be both positive or
negative. If b > 0, the negative root sign in eq.(8) applies while if b < 0, the positive root sign applies.
The parameters Z, K, aR, γR, as, γs and δ will depend on the type of buckling mode considered and are given
under [3.2.4] to [3.2.8] respectively.
3.2.4 Shell buckling between rings, unstiffened cylinders between rings (a1)
The elastic buckling parameter ΛE is calculated from [3.2.3] with the following parameters substituted:
(23)
(24)
(25)

DNV AS
Appendix D
(26)
Alternatively C0 from eq. (21) minimized w.r.t. m.

ℓ is the length between rings. For the upper skirt part, ℓ is the distance between the equator profile and
upper ring. R is the shell radius, t is the shell thickness.
γs = as = γR = aR = 0
δ is the production tolerance limit given in [3.5.2], i.e.
(27)
ΛE is minimised with respect to m = 1,2,... and n = 0,1,2,...,50;

For short cylindrical shells ΛE is minimum for m = 1.
3.2.5 Shell buckling between rings/vertical stiffeners, cylindrical panel (a2)
The elastic buckling parameter ΛE is calculated from eq. (8), eqs.(15-22) with the following parameter
substituted:
(28)
ℓ is the length between rings. For the upper part, ℓ is the distance between equator profile and upper ring.
γs = as = γR = aR = 0
(29)
ΛE is minimised with respect to m = 1,2,...,5 and α = 0.02, 0.04,...,1.0.

3.2.6 Panel stiffener buckling (b)
The elastic buckling parameter ΛE is calculated from eq. (8) with the following parameters substituted:
(30)
(31)
ℓ is the length between stiff radial supports. For the upper skirt part ℓ is the distance between the equator
profile and upper ring. R is the shell radius, t is the shell thickness.
γs , as as defined in notation list. γR=aR = 0
(32)

DNV AS
ΛE is minimised with respect to m = 1 and n = 0,1,2,...,50;
Appendix D
3.2.7 Panel ring buckling (c)
(33)
(34)
L is the length between stiff radial supports.

γR , aR as defined in notation list. γs =as = 0
(35)
ΛE is minimised with respect to m = 1,2,...,5 and n = 0,1,2,...,5;
3.2.8 General buckling (d)

(36)
(37)
L is the length between stiff radial supports.

γs, as, γR, aR as defined in notation list.
(38)
ΛE is minimised with respect to m = 1,2,...,5 and n = 0,1,2,...,50;
3.3 Design stresses

The design stresses are combinations of static and dynamic stresses from the single load cases:
— LC1: static weights of cargo, tank and equipment weights. Insulation weights are small and may be
neglected.
— LC2: stresses from temperature differences. Temperature differences give hoop compressive stresses in
limited parts of the skirt that may influence the buckling strength. The hoop stresses should be averaged
over the regions where they act. Axial bending stresses due to temperature differences may be neglected.
— LC3: stresses from deflection of foundation deck, static. Only stresses due to deflection of foundation
deck, i.e. they should be separated from stresses due to static weights.
— LC4: stresses due to accelerations of masses, cargo and equipment. Vertical + transverse direction.
— LC5: stresses from deflection of foundation deck, dynamic.

DNV AS
The combined design stresses are
Appendix D
(39)
(40)
(41)
In practise the problem will be to identify the load combinations that are most severe for the skirt with
respect to buckling, i.e. to identify the design stresses σx0 , σθ0 , τ0 and their positions that produce the
most critical buckling condition. All combinations of (σx0 , σθ0 , τ0) should be checked to identify the most
severe situation with respect to the buckling criterion as given in [3.2.2]. It is sufficient to calculate the
stresses along the meridians 0° and 90° measured from the centre line (θ = 90° is normally most critical).
The load factors γfi are given in [3.4].
3.4 Partial safety factors/load factors

3.4.1 Load factors; γfi
The load factors γfishould be taken as:
γf1= 1.1 for forces caused by static weights
γf2= 1.2 for forces caused by temperature differences
γf3= 1.4 for forces caused by deflection of the foundation deck, static
γf4= 1.3 for forces caused by accelerations
γf5= 1.4 for forces caused by deflection of the foundation deck, dynamic.
3.4.2 Partial safety factors; κ, γm

The material factor γm is taken as:
(42)
Slenderness factor κ:
(43)
(44)
(45)
where λE is mode dependent as:
(46)

DNV AS
Appendix D
3.5 Tolerances
3.5.1 General
The deviations from nominal perfect shape of shell, axial stiffeners and rings should normally not exceed the
tolerance limits given herein.
Under special circumstances the Society could accept tolerance exceedance, and the strength parameters
calculated under [3.2] should then be modified to account for the measured imperfections.
3.5.2 Local shell imperfections

Local out-of roundness and local out-of-straightness of the shell should be measured from a circular template
or a straight rod held anywhere on the shell. Equivalent methods of measurements may also be accepted.
The local shell imperfection should not exceed the value
(47)
g = g1 or g2; length of template or rod defined as

: axial template length
: circular template length.
3.5.3 Out-of-straightness of axial stiffeners

The out-of-straightness of axial stiffeners should normally not exceed the value of
(48)
where ℓ is the unsupported length of the vertical stiffener/ring spacing. The out-of-straightness should be
measured along the stiffener/shell intersection line and also sideways at the free end of the stiffener.
3.5.4 Out-of-roundness of rings

The out-of-roundness of rings should normally not exceed the value of
(49)
where:
Ra = measured distance from cylinder axis to shell wall (= Da/2)

R = nominal shell radius.
3.5.5 Cruciform joints

The misalignment of cruciform joints should not exceed, see Figure 3:
(50)
3.5.6 Butt joints

The misalignment of butt joints in mm should not exceed, see Figure 4:
(51)

DNV AS
Appendix D
3.6 Local requirements for vertical stiffeners and rings
3.6.1 General
In order to prevent torsional buckling of stiffeners and rings which is not prevented by intermediate brackets,
the following requirements for stiffener properties shall be satisfied.
3.6.2 Vertical stiffeners

Stiffener web slenderness:
Stiffeners with flange:
(52)
Flat-bar stiffeners:
(53)
(if not satisfied, see [3.6.4])

For torsional buckling strength of flanged or flat bar profiles, see [3.6.4].
Stiffener flange slenderness:
ff is the free flange outstand:
(54)
3.6.3 Rings
Stiffener web slenderness:
Rings with flange:
(55)
Flat-bar rings:
(56)
Ring flange slenderness:
ff is the free flange outstand:
(57)
3.6.4 Torsional buckling of vertical stiffeners

In order to avoid torsional buckling of vertical stiffeners the following criterion apply
(58)

DNV AS
where:
Appendix D
(59)
(60)
and
(61)
(62)
(63)
If eq. (58) is not satisfied the torsional buckling strength can be assessed using more advanced methods,
and the characteristic torsional buckling strength can be used as reduced yield stress in the stiffener and
ring buckling assessments in [3.2.6] and [3.2.8]. An accepted method is to calculate the torsional buckling
strength of vertical stiffeners as
(64)
where:
(65)
σT is substituted for ReH in eq.(2) and (3). If this procedure gives strength within required limits, eq.(58)
need not to be satisfied.
3.7 Direct calculations

3.7.1 Non-linear calculations
Generally the buckling strength of the skirt may be assessed using recognised non-linear FEM programs or
equivalent. Modelling of the complete sphere, equator profile and supporting skirt gives the most realistic
boundary conditions for the upper unstiffened part of the skirt, which is the region likely to buckle first. The
cargo tank mass can be scaled until collapse is identified. Geometrical and material non-linearity shall be
included together with realistic levels of geometrical imperfections/out-of-roundness from production, see
[3.5].

DNV AS
3.7.2 Semi-direct method
Appendix D
In the present context semi-empirical methods mean to assess the buckling stresses under the assumption
of linear elastic material behaviour, i.e. to assess the parameter ΛE which enters the design procedure under
[3.2]. It is necessary to include realistic levels of geometrical imperfections as given under [3.5] and to
identify the lowest buckling strength and associated mode.
The elastic buckling parameter ΛE is defined as follows:
(66)
(67)
(68)
i.e. it is the value of the proportional loading factor Λ that corresponds to elastic buckling of the cylinder
under the action of generally axial stress σx, hoop stress σθ and shear stress τ.
The value found forΛE is substituted into the procedure in [3.2]which includes the effect from material
yielding and appropriate safety factors. From eq.(66-68) ΛE is found as:
(69)
For one single load component only, the buckling capacity is not dependent on the value of ΛE as long as the
related value for the design stress σi0 is calculated from the definition:
(70)
i =x, or θ, or xθ (xθ ; shear, τ)

For simplicity ΛE =1 may be used; .
3.7.3 Direct elasto-plastic analysis

From nonlinear analysis coping with nonlinear elastic and plastic behaviour (BOSOR5 or equivalent software)
the limit state criterion for multiple acting loads is:
(71)
where:
(72)
and
(73)
σxCR, σθCR, τCR are the values of the scaled nominal stress components at the point of ultimate buckling
capacity, i.e. they represent the ultimate stress capacity for combined loading. L0 is the radius vector of the
design stresses defined as:

DNV AS
(74)
Appendix D
For a single acting stress component (e.g.: pure axial compression), the limit state is simplified to:
(75)
Safety factors:
(76)
γm = 1.15 and κ from eq.(43-45). Definition of κ also necessitates an assessment of the elastic buckling
capacity including the knock-down effect from geometrical imperfections in order to calculate the slenderness
parameter λE defined in eq.(3). ΛE is defined in eq.(69).
When using direct analysis tools the safety factors shall be discussed with the Society on a case by case basis
and deviations from eq.(72) may be considered.
3.8 Limit states – reliability calculations

The limit states under [3.2] may be used for reliability calculations. Then all the partial safety and load
factors (γ) are given the value 1 and probability distributions for the involved load and strength parameters
shall be specified. These distributions will be subjected to the approval of the Society in each case.
4 Sphere buckling
4.1 General
The buckling strength of thin spherical shells is known to be extremely imperfection sensitive, and classical
linear buckling analysis is not sufficient for determination of the buckling strength. The level of imperfection
sensitivity depends on the type of loading with uniform external pressure as the most severe. This note gives
acceptable buckling criteria based on Koiter’s post buckling theory.
The criteria are developed for use in the design of spherical LNG tanks.
The buckling calculation should be carried out for the separate zones with constant thickness, and within
each zone the most severe combination of loads with respect to buckling should be identified.
Direct buckling strength calculations using recognised software may be accepted by the Society, see [4.7].
The design criteria are written in a partial safety format and are suited for reliability calculations.
4.2 Limit states – design criteria

Two limit states in a partial safety format shall be checked:
a) Elastic buckling:
a spherical shell segment may collapse before the yield stress have been reached in any part of the shell.
b) Elasto-plastic buckling:
a spherical shell segment may collapse due to the initiation of material yielding in the most severely
loaded part of the shell.
Criteria a) and b) are combined into a single design criterion as given in [4.2.1].
4.2.1 Buckling criterion

The combined elastic and elasto-plastic buckling strength criterion to be satisfied is

DNV AS
(77)
Appendix D
where:
(78)
The parameters involved are defined as follows:
(79)
(80)
(81)
(82)
σ10 and σ20 are the design stresses including load factors as given in [4.3].
The partial safety factors κ and γm are given in [4.4].
FE should be taken as:
(83)
ρ is found from:
(84)
solved explicitly in ρ by iterations where h is defined as:
(85)
Parameters b and δ are explicit and defined as:
(86)
(87)
δ1 and δ2 are given under tolerances in [4.5]. γP is defined in [4.4.2].

ΛCL is taken as:
(88)

DNV AS
Appendix D
(89)
The classical buckling strength parameter ΛCL can alternatively be assessed using direct methods as
indicated in [4.7].
4.3 Design stresses

The design stresses are calculated as
(90)
(91)
In practise the problem will be to identify the load combinations that is most severe for the sphere with
respect to buckling, i.e. to identify the design stresses σ10 and σ20 and their positions that produce the most
critical buckling condition. All four combinations of σ10 andσ20 should be checked to identify the most severe
situation with respect to the buckling criterion in [4.2.1].
The load factors γfi are given in [4.4].
Normally it is sufficient to calculate the stresses along the meridian 90° off the centre line.
4.4 Partial safety factors/load factors

4.4.1 Load factors; γfi
The load factors γfi should be taken as:
γf1 = 1.2 for forces caused by static weights and inertia forces
γf2 = 1.4 for forces caused by deflection of the foundation deck
γf3 = 1.5 for forces caused by external overpressure.
4.4.2 Partial safety factors;γP, κ, γm

The postbuckling dependent γP should be taken as:
(92)
(93)
where:
(94)
α is a prebuckling parameter. α = 1 is always allowable for LNG tanks.

The material factor γm is taken as:
(95)

DNV AS
Slenderness factor κ:
Appendix D
(96)
(97)
(98)
(99)
(100)
4.5 Tolerances
The imperfection amplitude or deviation δi is the light opening between the spherical shell and a segmental
template with the nominal radius of the shell. Two different imperfection amplitudes are defined:
δ1 is measured by means of a template of length
The value of δ1 to be used in the calculations will be decided by the Society taking into consideration the
manufacturers experience from previous production, shell thickness and type of material. An acceptable
value for δ1 is:
(101)
where:
(102)
or
(103)
δ2 is measured by means of a template of length
For LNG tanks δ2 can be obtained from

- steel tanks:
(104)

DNV AS
- aluminium tanks:
Appendix D
(105)
4.6 Minimum thickness

The minimum thickness is to ensure the shell sufficient strength against a net external overpressure of 0.2
bar. The minimum thickness is
- steel tank:
(106)
- aluminium:
(107)
4.7 Direct calculations

4.7.1 Non-linear calculations
Generally the buckling strength of the sphere may be assessed using recognised non-linear FEM programs
or equivalent. Modelling of the complete sphere and supporting skirt is required. All relevant load conditions
should be considered. Partially loaded tanks should include rolling and sloshing effects. Geometrical and
material non-linearity to be included together with realistic levels of geometrical imperfections/out-of-
roundness from production, see [4.5].
4.7.2 Semi-direct calculations

Non-linear FEM calculations for analysing the buckling strength of the sphere are normally not feasible for
LNG tanks. Alternatively it may be within reach to carry out a linear eigenvalue calculation using linear FEM
programs. This means obtaining ΛCL which is an important parameter in the present design procedure.
In practise the problem will be to identify the load set that is most severe for the sphere with respect to
buckling, i.e. to identify the design stresses σ10 and σ20 and their positions in the shell that produce the
most critical buckling condition. Having defined these stresses, the classical elastic buckling condition can
be calculated based on direct methods. The principal stresses are assumed to be increasing in the same
proportion as the design stresses (proportional loading) and the load parameter Λ at the point of classical
buckling ΛCL is found as
(108)
σ1,CL and σ2,CL are the principal stresses at elastic buckling found from a linear eigenvalue calculation using a
recognised FEM program package or equivalent. The load parameter ΛCL calculated by this procedure is then
used next in the definition of FE in eq.(83), and the design procedure in [4.2.1] is otherwise unchanged.
4.8 Limit states – reliability calculations

The limit states under [4.2] may be used for reliability calculations. In such case all the partial safety
and load factors (γ) are given the value 1, and probability distributions for the involved load and strength
parameters shall be specified. These distributions will be subject to approval by the Society in each case.

DNV AS
Appendix D
5 Definitions – skirt
σx = axial stress, vertical direction in skirt
σθ = hoop stress, circumferential direction
τ = shear stress
σx0 = design stress in vertical direction including load factors,
σθ0 = design stress in circumferential direction including load factors
τ0 = design shear stress
σe0 = equivalent design stress including load factors
Note:
Sign convention: Positive stresses in compression
---e-n-d---o-f---n-o-t-e---
af =
as =
aR =
γs =
γR =
δ = geometrical imperfection amplitude

R, r = radius in sphere
t = shell thickness
tw = thickness of stiffener web
h = stiffener web height
bf = total width of stiffener flange
ff = free flange outstand
tf = thickness of stiffener flange
s = stiffener spacing, spacing between vertical stiffeners
m = number of buckling half waves in meridional direction
n = number of buckling full waves in circumferential direction
=
depending on cylinder geometry and buckling mode

k = number of buckling half waves in circumferential direction between vertical stiffeners
Aw = cross-sectional area of stiffener web
Af = cross-sectional area of stiffener flange

DNV AS
As = cross-sectional area of vertical stiffener excluding shell flange
Appendix D
AR = cross-sectional area of ring excluding shell flange
Is = moment of inertia of vertical stiffener including full stiffeners
IR = moment of inertia of ring including full ring spacing ℓ
E = Young’s modulus
ν = Poisson’s ratio
L = total cylinder length between stiff radial supports
ℓ = length between rings, length between stiff radial supports
ΛE = elastic buckling parameter including knock down effect from geometrical imperfections
λE = slenderness parameter.
Subscripts:
CL = classical elastic buckling, perfect geometry

E = elastic buckling, elastic knock down due to geometrical imperfections included
CR = critical buckling condition including effects from geometrical imperfections and material plasticity.
6 Definitions – sphere
σ1 = largest principal stress (always the largest compressive stress, normally in the circumferential
direction for LNG tanks) > 0 always due to present sign convention
σ2 = minimum principal stress (compression or tension, normally meridional direction)
σ10 = design stress in circumferential direction including load factors
σ10 > 0 always; i.e. compressive
σ20 = design stress in meridional direction including load factors
σe0 = equivalent design stress including load factors
σ1sm = static circumferential stress due to weight of LNG/tank material/equipments

σ1sf = static circumferential stress due to deflection of foundation deck
σ1sp = static circumferential stress due to external/internal overpressure
σ1da = dynamic circumferential stress due to acceleration of LNG
σ1df = dynamic circumferential stress due to deflection of foundation deck from waves
σ2sm = static meridional stress due to weight of LNG/tank material/equipments
σ2sf = static meridional stress due to deflection of foundation deck
σ2sp = static meridional stress due to external/internal overpressure
σ2da = dynamic stress due to acceleration of LNG
σ2df = dynamic meridional stress due to deflection of foundation deck from waves
R eH = minimum specified yield stress (always positive)
R, r = radius in sphere
t = shell thickness.

DNV AS
Note:
Appendix D
Sign convention: Positive stresses in compression
If both principal stresses are in tension the present buckling criteria are not relevant.
---e-n-d---o-f---n-o-t-e---
7 Tables
Table 1 Relevant buckling modes to be checked for LNG skirts
Buckling Ring stiffened

Vertically stiffened Orthogonally stiffened
mode type (Unstiff. between rings)
shell
buckling γs = γR = as = aR = 0
cylinder length =ℓ
γs = γR = as = aR = 0 γs = γR = as = aR = 0
cylinder length =ℓ cylinder length =ℓ
ΛE minimised with
m = 1,2..; ΛE minimised with ΛE minimised with
n = 0,1,2…; m = 1,2..; m = 1,2..;
α = 0.0,..,1.0 α = 0.0,..,1.0
panel
stiffener Not relevant γR = aR = 0 γR = aR = 0
buckling cylinder length =ℓ cylinder length =ℓ
ΛE minimised with ΛE minimised with

m = 1,2..; m = 1,2..;
n = 0,1,2…; n = 0,1,2…;

DNV AS
Appendix D
Buckling Ring stiffened
Vertically stiffened Orthogonally stiffened
mode type (Unstiff. between rings)
panel
γs = as = 0
ring
cylinder length =L cylinder length =L
buckling
ΛE minimised with ΛE minimised with
m = 1,2..; m = 1,2..;
n = 0,1,2…; n = 0,1,2…;

DNV AS
Appendix D
8 Figures
SPHERICAL CARGO TANK
UPP. DK.
TK. CR. PIPE TOWER & DOME
TANK SKIRT
Figure 1 Spherical LNG tank and skirt

DNV AS
Appendix D
Figure 2 Geometry definitions

DNV AS
Appendix D
Figure 3 Cruciform joints
Figure 4 Butt joints
9 Skirt buckling – explicit buckling strength and allowable stresses
9.1 Elasto-plastic buckling strength

The principal membrane stresses at the point of elasto-plastic buckling are calculated as:
where ΛCR is given in [3.2.2], eq.(2).

DNV AS
Appendix D
9.2 Elastic buckling strength
The principal membrane stresses at the point of elastic buckling is calculated as:
ΛE for each buckling mode is given in [3.2.3].
9.3 Required strength

The allowable principal stress combination is calculated as:
Where:
Λreq = γsum
γsum = κγm , κ and γm are given in [3.4].
The buckling design criterion in [3.2.2] (g > 0) is rewritten as:
ΛCR ≥ Λreq = γsum
10 Sphere buckling – explicit buckling strength and allowable

stresses
10.1 Elasto-plastic buckling strength

The principal membrane stresses at the point of elasto-plastic buckling is calculated as:
where ΛCR is given in [4.2.1], eq.(79).
10.2 Elastic buckling strength

The principal membrane stresses at the point of elastic buckling is calculated as:
ρ is found from [4.2.1] eqs.(84) and (85) and ΛCL from [4.2.1] eq.(88).
ρ = 1 corresponds to ideal elastic buckling (classical) condition.
10.3 Required strength

The allowable principal stress combination is calculated as:

DNV AS
Appendix D
Where:
Λreq = γsum
γsum is given in [4.2.1], eq.(82).
The buckling design criterion in [4.2.1] (g > 0) is rewritten as:
ΛCR ≥ Λreq = γsum

DNV AS
CHANGES – HISTORIC
Changes – historic
October 2018 edition
This is a new document.

DNV AS
About DNV
DNV is the independent expert in risk management and assurance, operating in more than 100
countries. Through its broad experience and deep expertise DNV advances safety and sustainable
performance, sets industry benchmarks, and inspires and invents solutions.
Whether assessing a new ship design, optimizing the performance of a wind farm, analyzing sensor
data from a gas pipeline or certifying a food company’s supply chain, DNV enables its customers and
their stakeholders to make critical decisions with confidence.
Driven by its purpose, to safeguard life, property, and the environment, DNV helps tackle the
challenges and global transformations facing its customers and the world today and is a trusted
voice for many of the world’s most successful and forward-thinking companies.
WHEN TRUST MATTERS

DNV CG 0134

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DNV CG 0134

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLASS GUIDELINE

DNV-CG-0134 Edition October 2021

Liquefied gas carriers with spherical tanks

© DNV AS October 2021

Any comments may be sent by e-mail to rules@dnv.com

Changes October 2021

Topic Reference Description

Class guideline — DNV-CG-0134. Edition October 2021 Page 3

Section 2 Hull structural analysis......................................................................... 17

Section 3 Global analysis...................................................................................... 28

Section 4 Strength analysis of cargo hold covers and supporting structure.......... 30

Section 5 Strength analysis of the spherical cargo tank....................................... 37

Section 6 Loads and strength of the pump tower................................................. 71

Class guideline — DNV-CG-0134. Edition October 2021 Page 4

Section 7 Strength analysis of the skirt................................................................ 87

Section 8 Fatigue and crack propagation analysis of cargo tanks......................... 97

Section 9 Fatigue assessment of the hull structure............................................ 109

Section 10 Vibration analysis.............................................................................. 121

Class guideline — DNV-CG-0134. Edition October 2021 Page 5

Appendix A Forces in spherical tanks................................................................. 125

Appendix B Derivation of the skew-symmetric equation..................................... 127

Appendix C Sloshing design of spherical LNG tanks............................................130

Appendix D Buckling criteria of LNG spherical cargo tank containment systems

Changes – historic.............................................................................................. 157

Class guideline — DNV-CG-0134. Edition October 2021 Page 6

1.4 Recognised analysis tools

1.5 Sloshing loads

Class guideline — DNV-CG-0134. Edition October 2021 Page 7

2.1 Safety philosophy

2.2 Local bending stresses

Table 1 DNV references

Document code Title

DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.2 Ch.2 Metallic materials

DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.1 General principles

DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.4 Loads

DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.7 Finite element analysis

DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.8 Buckling

DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.9 Fatigue

DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.10 Special requirements

DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.5 Ch.7 Liquefied gas tankers

DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.6 Ch.1 Structural strength and integrity

DNV-CG-0127 Finite element analysis

DNV-CG-0129 Fatigue assessment of ship structures

DNV-CG-0130 Wave loads

Class guideline — DNV-CG-0134. Edition October 2021 Page 8

TA = actual draught in m for considered loading condition from loading manual

ULS ultimate limit state

FLS fatigue limit state

ALS accidental limit state

BSP as defined in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.4 Sec.2 [1.1]

BSR as defined in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.4 Sec.2 [1.1]

CDF computational fluid dynamics

CTOD crack tip opening displacement

d.o.f. degrees of freedom

EDW equivalent design wave

FSRU floating storage and regas unit

GRP glass reinforced plastic

LNG liquefied natural gas

LPG liquefied petroleum gas

MCR maximum continuous rating

Class guideline — DNV-CG-0134. Edition October 2021 Page 9

OST as defined in DNV-RU-SHIP Pt.3 Ch.4 Sec.2 [1.1]

PIV particle image velocimetry