ABS American Bureau of Shipping Profile

ourM I S S I O N
The mission of the American Bureau of

Shipping is to serve the public interest
as well as the needs of our clients by
promoting the security of life, property
and the natural environment primarily
through the development and verification
of standards for the design, construction
and operational maintenance of marine-
related facilities.
quality & environmental

P O L I C Y
It is the policy of the American Bureau
of Shipping to be responsive to the indi-
vidual and collective needs of our clients
as well as those of the public at large,
to provide quality services in support of
our mission, and to provide our services
consistent with international standards
developed to avoid, reduce or control
pollution to the environment.
All of our client commitments,

supporting actions, and services delivered
must be recognized as expressions of
Quality. We pledge to monitor our
performance as an on-going activity and
to strive for continuous improvement.
We commit to operate consistent with

applicable environmental legislation and
regulations and to provide a framework
for establishing and reviewing environ-
mental objectives and targets.
Executive Summary
ABS has worked with the container transportation market since its inception and has a history
that is closely linked to the innovations of the industry. ABS remains a market leader and
currently maintains class on the largest percentage of post-Panamax vessels. Recent
newbuilding activity includes the classing of the largest vessels in service and of new
construction of 7,000 teu and above.
In the development of Ultra Large Containerships (ULCS), several economic and operational
considerations must be addressed to obtain a working design. The service speed, size and
speed of container cranes, port draft restrictions and container stack height limitations influence
the dimensions and design. Additional consideration must be paid to container configurations.
ABS SafeHull is the starting point for an ABS approved design. Application of the principles
found in ABS SafeHull provide the keystone to a structurally sound vessel. Employing the
dynamic loading approach (DLA) program of SH-DLA provides a more complete analysis
of the vessel. For further design verification, several analytical tools exist to address unique
considerations for the ULCS. By simulating actual loads, analysis programs at ABS for dynamic
stress, nonlinear factors, propeller cavitation, and wave impact, among others, give a better
understanding of how the next-generation of ULCS will perform once in service.
In the design of the ULCS, extra consideration should be given to deck structure, hatch corners,
the location of the deckhouse and engine room, the bow and stern regions and to transverse
strength. These critical areas are all addressed through programs offered by ABS.
Operators must also address several issues affecting the vessel during service. The operational
issues of ballast water, green water, lashing arrangements, parametric roll, location of bunker
tanks, voltage systems, and vibration are of particular importance.
The ABS SafeShip program follows a vessel from inception through its life service. This
information management system allows owners the best method for maintaining their vessels.
ABS is the classification society of choice for large containerships. With practical experiences
and unmatched technical capability, ABS offers shipowners and shipbuilders of these vessels
absolutely the most comprehensive classification services available.
Executive Summary i
Giants in the Container Industry
Introduction................................................................................................................................................v
ABS’ Current Position ...............................................................................................................................1
Market Share ........................................................................................................................................1

Recent Activity ......................................................................................................................................1
History of ABS’ Role .................................................................................................................................3
Economic and Operational Considerations............................................................................................5
Design Considerations ..........................................................................................................................5

Service speed ....................................................................................................................................5
Container cranes ...............................................................................................................................5
Port draft restrictions..........................................................................................................................6
Container stack height limitations ......................................................................................................6
Container Configurations ......................................................................................................................6
ABS SafeHull..............................................................................................................................................7
Technology for ULCS ............................................................................................................................8

Load defines strength ........................................................................................................................8
Loading cases ....................................................................................................................................8
Structure modeling.............................................................................................................................9
Strength assessment .........................................................................................................................9
SH-DLA (Dynamic Loading Approach)..................................................................................................11
Analytical Tools........................................................................................................................................13
DYSOS (Dynamic Stress Analysis of Open Ships) ............................................................................13

Nonlinear Analysis by LAMP-NASTRAN System...............................................................................13
Propeller Analysis ...............................................................................................................................15
Effective wake calculations ..............................................................................................................15
Propeller cavitation analysis ............................................................................................................15
Propeller induced hull pressure .......................................................................................................16
Wave Impact Analysis (Slamming) .....................................................................................................16
Structural Considerations ......................................................................................................................17
Deck Structure ....................................................................................................................................17

Hatch Corners.....................................................................................................................................17
Location of Deckhouse and Engine Room.........................................................................................18
Bow Region.........................................................................................................................................18
Transverse Strength ............................................................................................................................18
Table of Contents iii

Operational Issues ..................................................................................................................................19
Ballast Water .......................................................................................................................................19

Green Water........................................................................................................................................19
Lashing Arrangement ..........................................................................................................................19
Vessel Motions (Parametric Roll)........................................................................................................20
Location of Bunker Tanks ....................................................................................................................21
Voltage Systems .................................................................................................................................21
Vibration ..............................................................................................................................................22
ABS SafeShip...........................................................................................................................................23
Case Study ...............................................................................................................................................25
SHI Develops 9,000 TEU Container Vessel ........................................................................................25

Services Provided by ABS to Samsung .............................................................................................25
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................27
Appendix 1 ...............................................................................................................................................29
Fleet Information and Market Share ...................................................................................................29
Appendix 2 ...............................................................................................................................................30
Sampling of ABS-Classed Post-Panamax Vessels .............................................................................30
Appendix 3 ...............................................................................................................................................33
Listing of ABS-Classed Container Vessels .........................................................................................33
Appendix 4 ...............................................................................................................................................35
Shipyards with ABS-Approved Designs ..............................................................................................35
iv Giants in the Container Industry

Introduction
In selecting the most appropriate classification society for a new construction project, ABS
requests that the client consider the following:
ABS’ current position as the leader in post-Panamax classification comes from years of
experience with containerships, backed by advanced technical programs that address the
needs of both shipowners and shipbuilders. ABS has been classifying container vessels since
their inception and remains at the forefront of the technology necessitated by the design
considerations of the Ultra Large Containership (ULCS). ABS is also a leader in research
and development of appropriate Rules and Regulations governing the design parameters and
vessel life.
ABS surveyors’ experience is enhanced by a commitment to technology and the analytical

programs offered by the engineering department. By responding to clients’ needs through a
worldwide network of offices, clients receive the necessary attention to ensure project success.
ABS has programs already in place, and personnel with the needed experience, to aid in the
design and construction of the next generation of ULCS. ABS currently has projects that are in
the 7,000 teu to 9,000 teu (twenty foot equivalent units) range, and as the mega-containerships
are being built, ABS has developed the technology and can demonstrate the practical
experience necessary to meet the design challenges posed by these vessels.
Classification with ABS includes:

• The most authoritative and appropriate Rules for the classification of containerships.
• Design review to verify the design complies with the ABS Rule requirements.
• Surveys during construction to assure compliance with classification requirements, as given
in the Rules and on the ABS approved plans, and attendance on board during official sea
trials.
• Governmental authorizations to issue certificates and/or conduct surveys pertaining to the
Load Line, MARPOL, SOLAS, tonnage conventions, and ISM Code.
• Acceptance by the ABS Classification Committee and award of the appropriate notation.
• Performance of periodic surveys to assure that the vessel is maintained to Class standards.
The benefits of classing with ABS include:

• Knowledge that the vessel is appropriate for the intended service.
• Backing of years of relevant knowledge and experience.
• Single source for all technical needs.
• Compliance with governmental requirements.
• Indication of due diligence of owner/operator.
• Maintenance of schedules during design/construction.
• Indication of performance of proper maintenance.
• Assurance of protection of capital investment.
Based on a long and varied experience, ABS provides comprehensive, efficient practical
classification services fulfilling client needs for any ULCS project.
Introduction v
ABS’ Current Position
Market Share
At the end of 2000, ABS was the leading
classification society within the post-Panamax
sector with a 35 percent market share.1 A B S
already has the experience and technical tools
necessary to meet today’s market demand and
provide for future project success.
ABS’ existing fleet contains 387 containerships, Post-Panamax Existing Vessels
aggregating more than 11m gt and representing

a 20 percent share of the market. With 90 post-
Panamax vessels in class, ABS is the classification society of choice for owners of the largest
container vessels, as demonstrated by the chart.2 Recent contracts include the construction of
two new ultra-large vessels, designed to carry 7,400 teu. Additionally, ABS has 32 post-Panamax
vessels on its orderbook. Of these, seven will have a capacity of 6,600 to over 7,000 teu.
By year-end 2000, ABS had a total of 75 containerships on its orderbook, ranging in size from
4,300 gt to 92,000 gt from owners worldwide. Experienced operators recognize ABS’ technical
excellence and choose us for their classification needs.
Recent Activity
In the two years prior to 2001, ABS demonstrated its market dominance for the classification
of post-Panamax vessels. During this time period, ABS set the pace for the largest vessels
yet to be constructed. 1999 confirmed ABS’ position as the preferred society for the largest
containerships. Five vessels, each of 92,000 gt, were delivered into ABS class during the year.
Another five vessels, each of 69,000 gt were classed in 1999. In total during the year, ABS
classed 24 containerships of 1.0m gross tons.
Also in 1999, ABS received contracts to class 21 new containerships of 1.07m gross tons —
including four vessels of 92,000 gt, and eight others of more than 60,000 gt. At the end of 2000,
a total of 54 containerships, aggregating 2.18m gt, were contracted to be built or building to ABS
class.
Three of the four 92,000 gt vessels, each with a 6,600 teu capacity, were delivered in 2000. In
total, 14 post-Panamax containerships were delivered in 2000. During the year, ABS also paired
with Samsung Heavy Industries to review their plans for a 9,100 teu vessel.
______________________
1
Source: Seaway, December 2000. Refer to Appendix One for market comparisons
2
Source: Seaway, December 2000.
ABS’ Current Position 1

This chart shows a flat
ordering trend for smaller
container vessels over the
period relative to the total
fleet, while orders for the
larger size vessels continues
to grow.
The percentages represent

the past year’s (monthly)
ordering of containerships in
the two categories, relative
to its fleet size. For example, Source: Clarkson’s Container Intelligence Monthly, Oct. 2000
in October 2000, ordering
for the smaller carriers represents 20 percent of the total <3,000 teu fleet, while ordering for
larger carriers represents 54 percent of the total >3,000 teu fleet. The total ordering as of
October 2000 represents 31 percent of the total fleet (by teu).
This information on the containership orderbook demonstrates that over a one-year time period,
there is increasing momentum for ordering larger vessels, while the total orders for smaller
vessels remains constant.
ABS anticipates that the scrapping of older vessels, which affects the smaller ship sizes, and
the increased demand for container transportation will drive the demand for new containership
orders in the short to medium term. Operators will accelerate the process of upsizing as they
combine replacement and additional requirements for capacity.
2 Giants in the Container Industry

History of ABS’ Role
The ABS history with the container market is filled with many firsts. The maritime industry
is constantly pushing the boundaries with innovative, larger, safer, more efficient, and
more technically sophisticated vessels. The increase in containership size mirrors earlier
advancements, in that technological developments can help shipowners gain operational
and cost advantages.
The concept of carrying cargo in containers was developed in the United States in the mid-
1950s to reduce ship time at dockside, cut the cost of cargo handling and prevent petty pilferage.
ABS classed the first vessel to carry containers, the IDEAL X, and the first full containership
with the conversion of the C2 vessel GATEWAY CITY for Sea-Land Service. In 1966 the first
transatlantic crossing of a containership signaled the transportation industry’s acceptance of
containerization.
During the 1960s, owners turned to purpose designed and built ships culminating in a unique
series of eight containerships, capable of carrying 1,900 teu, built to ABS classification for
Sea-Land Service, Inc. in 1969. The vessels, traveling at up to 33 knots, remain the fastest
containerships ever built.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the demand for the new, more efficient, specialized
containerships became increasingly international. ABS was at the forefront of this innovative
method of handling a wide range of commodities. Programs developed by the ABS Research
and Development department examined ship structural behavior and were used to analyze the
design of the world’s then 12 largest containerships. The American New York and 11 sisterships,
built by Daewoo in South Korea to ABS class for U.S. Lines in 1984, were 58,000 dwt ships,
each with a capacity of 4,238 twenty-foot-equivalent-units.
ABS was the first to class post-Panamax vessels in 1988.

Two German shipyards, HDW and Bremer Vulkan delivered
five new American President Lines (APL) C-10 container-
ships all under ABS class. Their 39.4-meter beam made
them too large to transit the Panama Canal, and provided a
radical breakthrough in containership operation that began to
redefine containership routes.
When shipyards subsequently lengthened the structure of these 4,340 TEU vessels, they relied
on the finite element (FEM) analyses performed by ABS as an aid to design and ensure ship
stability.
These types of analyses are included as part of the

ABS SafeHull-Dynamic Loading Approach (SH-DLA)
— a “design-by-analysis” procedure for more
accurate modeling of expected shiploads and
dynamic stresses than with traditional methods. SH-
DLA allows a more rational distribution of material in
the hull structure and results in conservatively biased
scantlings. The detailed analysis performed by SH-
DLA was streamlined and tailored for specific ship
types modified to be more designer-focused and
released as ABS SafeHull in 1993.
History of ABS’ Role 3

In 1996, SafeHull was expanded to the containership structures. In applying SafeHull, the loads
and stresses imposed on a hull structure, for the first time, could be quantified in an integrated
and realistic manner early in the design stages. ABS SafeHull is an integral part of the ABS
SafeShip program — an integrated through life-management program.
ABS’ success in the structural evaluation of containerships of the post-Panamax segment can
be largely attributed to the success of these two programs: SH-DLA and ABS SafeHull. This
advanced technology has guided designers as they seek to minimize potential structural risks.
As owners order even larger container vessels, ongoing research at ABS has addressed all
technical issues that a 10,000 teu, or larger, vessel may pose.

Economic and Operational Considerations
The size range for the largest containerships is expected to increase significantly in the near
future, as economies of scale remain the dominant operational factor driving efficient transport.
Numerous, commercial studies have underscored the significant reductions in slot costs offered
by the largest vessels on the world’s principal trading routes.
The largest containerships currently in service are in the 6,000 teu range. Many leading
shipyards, however, have developed designs for vessels with additional container rows, tiers and
holds that increase the main dimensions of the vessels and increase the capacity to as much as
10,000 teu. In the future, the carrying capacity of containerships is expected to increase to
12,000 teu and above.
The trend towards increased size of containerships

presents unique challenges for the structural
designer and operational managers. At ABS, rational
structural criteria analysis is applied to large
containership designs through its dynamic-based
ABS SafeHull system and SH-DLA analysis. These
evaluate a vessel’s strength and identify the most
critical structural elements within a design.
Design Considerations
There are several significant issues that must be addressed by designers as they develop the
next generation of ULCS. Reaching beyond purely technical considerations associated with the
vessel’s construction, these challenges extend into machinery limitations, port capabilities, on-
land transportation infrastructure, and hub/spoke operation. The most significant issues to be
addressed are:
Service speed
To maximize the return on investment in the new ULCS, operators are demanding higher service
speeds to increase vessel utilization and improve service to their clients. Service speeds in
excess of 25 knots are now commonplace. Engine manufacturers and propeller designers are
rapidly developing new concepts that will obviate the need for dual plant, twin screw
configurations by offering 14-cylinder and larger engines.
Container cranes
Port container cranes are constantly being
enlarged to overcome limitations of speed,
height and reach that restrict the handling
of containers stowed across the vessel.
Economic and Operational Considerations 5

Port draft restrictions
Draft limitations at many ports, such as on the US East Coast, place particular emphasis on
limiting design draft on ULCS.
Similarly, as vessel size increases further, draft limitations in the Strait of Malacca will shape
vessel dimensions once ULCS break the 15,000 teu barrier.
Container stack height limitations

A typical ISO rated container is capable of handling eight fully loaded containers on top of it,
giving a fully loaded container stack a limit of nine tiers. If the strength of typical container corner
posts is increased, more tiers of fully loaded containers can be stacked in the holds of container
vessels (vessel depth).
Additionally, designers’ efforts to minimize a vessel’s registered gross tonnage to limit port and
other operational charges, have posed new challenges regarding stack heights, bridge visibility
and cargo protection.
Each of these issues influences the main characteristics of vessels being placed into service
today. Some of these issues are not related to vessel design and are already being addressed
by the more sophisticated ports as they increase the size of their cranes and ease draft
restrictions.
Container Configurations
Even before some of the infrastructure issues were addressed, designers studied container
storage configurations to increase vessel carrying capacity. This represents a balancing act
between form and function. Designers seek to maximize the open spaces available for
loading/unloading the box cargo within the confines of the vessel’s form and structural
configurations.
18 x 15
13 x 13 17 x 14
As the carrying capacity of
containerships increase,
the task requires a sure
knowledge of how to best
achieve vessel stability.
Panamax 4000 teu Post Panamax 7000 teu Post Panamax 9000 teu
The cost associated with
lost cargo or downtime for 24 x 16
24 x 18
repair is too great to
ignore, emphasizing the
challenges that the ULCS
present.
Ultra 13000 teu Ultra 18000 teu
Container Stack Arrangement

ABS SafeHull
A ULCS designed and built to ABS class will meet the Rule requirements contained within ABS
SafeHull. SafeHull provides a dynamic load based approach that considers corrosion as well
as the dominant failure modes — yielding, buckling and fatigue. Shipowners recognize that
ships designed to meet SafeHull criteria are demonstrably stronger and therefore safer, more
durable ships and that these vessels are less susceptible to in-service structural failure and
require fewer repairs.
The ABS SafeHull System was conceived as a complete

technical resource comprising two criteria — the Guide
for Dynamic-Based Design and Structural Evaluation and
Guide for Fatigue Assessment, as well as a comprehen-
sive suite of software applications programs, technical
support services, and related technical documentation
and guidance.
ABS and SafeHull have achieved significant market

share, with particular successes in the tanker and very
large containership markets. Containership owners have
recognized the importance of a rational approach to
design and the strength criteria outlined by ABS
SafeHull.
Large containership structural performance has, in general, been very positive. However, the
trends of ever increasing size, capacity, speed and innovative design require detailed design
criteria that are not available using traditional rules.
SafeHull Design Cycle
ABS SafeHull 7
Technology for ULCS
ABS SafeHull for containerships incorporates a number of elements for design and evaluation by
analysis.
This system is divided into two parts. During the design process, or Phase A, the general
arrangement passes through a refining process beginning with an automated generation of the
Hull Configuration. Next, calculations determining the dynamic loads assess the reaction of the
designed vessel against specific criteria. This is followed by a determination of the structural
components, compliance with strength criteria and fatigue assessment.
Evaluation of the design is the next step in

the process. Commonly referred to as
Phase B, this stage generates a Finite
Element Model (FEM) that again runs
through a calculation of dynamic loads.
Following 3-D global Finite Element
Analysis, the design runs through an
assessment of Failure Modes. Such an
evaluation of the design confirms its
structural integrity. This process verifies a
design with a lifetime performance able to
withstand all relevant failure modes.
SafeHull criteria provide guidelines for specific structural considerations that must be addressed
as containerships become larger. For example, since a containership hold structure is designed
to carry loads at specific points, whereas other areas may carry little or no direct load, design
considerations require direct calculations.
Load defines strength

A knowledge of all the loads acting on a ship is fundamental to achieving safety, where safety is
defined as having an excess of capability (strength) compared with the demand (loads). The
loads that a ship experiences are dependent on the environmental conditions and are mainly
dynamic in nature. It is essential that relevant global and local loads are considered in an explicit
manner, and that their combination and phasing be representative of their time-dependent
nature.
For ULCS, the torsional strength of the hull and high stress concentrations at the hatch corners
are of paramount concern. Four oblique sea conditions are applied to impose maximum torsional
loads at the forward and aft ends of the mid-ship cargo hold and to check the fatigue strength of
the structures immediately forward of the engine room where there is an abrupt change in
torsional rigidity.
Loads are calculated to determine the proper scantlings in a rational manner for the forebody.

Loading cases
The magnitude of each of the previously discussed load components is defined as the “nominal
design load.” To obtain the combined load effects, a comprehensive set of design load cases has
been developed to ensure that the maximum response has been considered by analyzing the
Hydrodynamic Loads, Impact Loads, Ballast Loads, Container Loads, and Operational Loads.
Loading cases are used to determine the effect of green water on deck and on hatch covers.
This is especially relevant for containers as they produce static and dynamic concentrated loads
rather than the distributed loads associated with liquid and bulk cargo.
Structure modeling
ABS SafeHull places an emphasis on both hull girder strength and local strength established in
conjunction with specified load and failure criteria to address the use of higher tensile steels
commonly found in current designs. Because of this, the failure modes of buckling and fatigue
receive appropriate close attention, and in some cases they are the governing failure modes that
determine the design. This distinction is a valuable feature of the SafeHull approach.
ABS SafeHull embodies the “net ship” concept

by taking into account, at the design stage, the
future effects of deterioration. SafeHull vessels
are designed to meet requirements after 20
years of assumed wastage. During Structure
Modeling, SafeHull uses a partial FEM to
determine structure interaction and whether the
area is a high or low stress area. This is needed
for determining plate thickness, stiffeners and
3D FEM Partial Length Model
the local structure.
Although the SafeHull strength criteria primarily address global and local strength, the overall
safety of the hull girder is also considered. In this connection, SafeHull implicitly addresses the
elasto-plastic behavior, reserve strength, and residual strength, among other factors that are
influential in decision making regarding the material redistribution.
Initial scantling requirements have been developed for plating, longitudinals and other stiffeners,
and the main supporting members. Extensive parametric studies and examination of survey
records, together with other research findings, form the basis for calibration of the relevant
parameters employed in the strength formulations.
Strength assessment
ABS SafeHull encompasses a strength assessment to verify the suitability of the initial design
against the specified failure criteria. A series of tests are used to determine yielding strength,
buckling and ultimate strength, fatigue strength, strength deck, hatch openings, and fatigue.
Of particular importance to containerships is the design of hatch openings concerning

associated loads, stresses and distortions. The large deck openings, the strong warping restraint
of the engine room, and the non-prismatic hull structure of containerships cause significant
torsion-induced longitudinal warping stresses along the strength deck.
ABS SafeHull 9
Certain structural details have been identified as particularly vulnerable to fatigue. Special
attention in the development of the SafeHull criteria has been given to the following fatigue
sensitive areas:
• Hatch corners on the main and second decks, and top of continuous hatchside coamings
• Connections of longitudinal deck girders to the transverse bulkheads
• End connections for the hatch side coaming, including coaming stays and hatch end
coamings
• Cutouts in the longitudinal bulkheads, longitudinal deck girders, hatch end coamings and
cross deck beams
Transverse structures,
hatch openings and hatch
corners must be
considered together as
any distortion and stress
to one point influences the
entire structure. As the
size of containerships
continue to increase, the
transverse structures
become more critical with
increasing ship breadth or
decreasing width of the
double side structures.
Hatch Corner Fatigue Assessment
The result of these analyses is a vessel that meets load requirements, while avoiding sometimes
overly conservative safety factors. SafeHull provides the exact knowledge of what areas need
more or less consideration and answers the question of where reinforcement with filler plates
best strengthens the structure and prevents cracking.

SH-DLA (Dynamic Loading Approach)
The ABS SafeHull program relies on the engineering principles established in the SH-DLA
program. SH-DLA was first introduced in 1991 as an engineering approach to determine the
expected dynamic loads and permissible stresses acting on a vessel in a seaway, replacing the
traditional semi-empirical approach. While SafeHull looks at a portion of the vessel and then
makes a global comparison, SH-DLA enhances the analysis provided by SafeHull by examining
the entire ship’s surface in a variety of loading cases to determine where any additional
reinforcements or scantlings are needed.
For containerships, SH-DLA is not a

requirement for class; however, many
existing ABS-classed post-Panamax vessels
use both SafeHull and SH-DLA to identify
critical areas. SafeHull for containerships is
a comprehensive approach to design
verification, but as ABS’ clients order larger
vessels, they increasingly turn to SH-DLA to
focus on all areas of critical importance,
such as torsional strength analysis, to Dynamic Load in Waves
ensure vessel structural strength.
As the loads acting on a vessel come from a variety of sources, both internal and external, the
motions experienced by the vessel at sea are simulated by SH-DLA to determine bending
moments, sheer forces and external wave pressure acting on the hull.
The SH-DLA procedure investigates a vessel’s movements through a series of dynamic

evaluations. SH-DLA considers the structure of the vessel and its intended environment to
consider the appropriate wave environment and the dynamic response of the vessel. Taking
these two things into account, SH-DLA then applies the combined dynamic and static loads in
the structural analysis, along with the distribution of the external hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
pressures over the hull.
Structural response of the vessel is

examined through a FEM. The
results of the 3D FEM analysis
generate the hull girder’s overall
response and are used as input for
the subsequent fine mesh FEM
analysis (zooming analysis). The
fine mesh FEM analysis is then
used to determine the more
detailed local stresses, including
transverse web frames, longitudinal
girders, and all horizontal stringers.
These FEM results are then used

to examine the stresses and
deflections in the structure to
Analysis Procedure ensure they fall within the
SH-DLA (Dynamic Loading Approach) 11

prescribed limits of the failure modes of yield and buckling, as specified in the SH-DLA
Guidance. The greater detail of SH-DLA provides further assurance to a robust design with a
long service life.
SH-DLA represents a consistent and rational approach that employs a direct linear analysis of
the containership. This reduces the “modeling uncertainties” that may be introduced when using
rule scantling equations. Rule equations have necessarily relied on simplifications to account for
the applied loads, structural response and strength. The comprehensive SH-DLA analysis does
not rely on these modeling simplifications and produces more reliable answers for structural
components.
Just as SH-DLA can be used to further verify specific load cases, ABS employs a variety of
other analyses to refine designs against known influences.

Analytical Tools
As containerships increase in size, designers must find a balance between function and design.
Owners need a vessel that has a large capacity and the ability to move at a rapid speed. These
two considerations create complex design considerations and require enhanced technical
evaluations to verify structural integrity. In addition to ABS SafeHull and SH-DLA, ABS offers
several analyses to guide the structural design.
DYSOS (Dynamic Stress Analysis of Open Ships)

As an early design stage screening tool for evaluating many different designs and identifying
critical cases for detailed FEM analysis, DYSOS (Dynamic Stress Analysis of Open Ships) uses
a simplified non-prismatic beam model to obtain a full length torsional analysis. This system
relies on the ABS/SHIPMOTION program and structural beam theory to provide an assessment
of the torsional responses of the containership and the impact of some design alterations. These
assessments are then used as guidance for the shipyard’s structural design.
As the width of hatch openings increase with the ULCS, undesirable stresses (at the transition
from the torsionally weak open sections to the relatively stiff closed sections) due to twist and
warping occur and become one of the major design concerns. Calculations are performed to
screen proposed designs for deck stress and hatch opening distortion caused by global load of
vertical, horizontal and torsional moments.
SHIPMOTION is used to calculate the vertical bending moment, horizontal bending moment,
vertical shear force and horizontal shear force,
which are due to the wave pressure, vessel’s
motions and the inertial loads for a range of
wave headings and periods. These loads are
applied to the containership using beam theory.
By using a non-prismatic beam model for a
containership, this analysis is more efficient
requiring limited modeling time but provides Beam Model for DYSOS Analysis
abundance of information of structural
response. Critical wave conditions for FEM analysis can be more accurately determined based
on the structural response rather than a traditional load based approach.
DYSOS can easily consider over 20 to 30 design variations in determining the global effects of
torsion in a short time period. The simplified but very efficient modeling makes it well suited to
perform comparative studies — resulting in an ideal preliminary design tool.
Nonlinear Analysis by LAMP-NASTRAN System

Compared to traditional linear theory, the nonlinear theory is needed to accurately calculate the
dynamic loads for modern, ultra-large containerships. The nonlinear analysis consists of two
main parts: nonlinear motion and loads by LAMP (Large Amplitude Motion Program) and
structure analysis by NASTRAN for the critical load cases determined from the linear
seakeeping analysis or DYSOS analysis.
LAMP incorporates nonlinear motion and load theories to calculate the pressure distribution over
the instantaneous actual wetted surface of the vessel in waves. The nonlinear load structural
FEM analysis is performed using NASTRAN. This advanced direct calculation approach provides
more realistic load and structural responses than traditional linear SH-DLA in that it accounts for
Analytical Tools 13
nonlinear motion and loads. Nonlinear analysis results in improved design and optimized
scantling for extreme sea conditions that govern the design.
Where higher uncertainties exist in the

dynamic loads, such as relative bow motion,
hull girder loads of bending moments, and
torsional moments, hydrodynamic pressure,
and green water on deck, a consistent
analysis of nonlinear motion, loads, and
hydrodynamic pressure is needed. The
dynamic loads such as bending moment and
wave pressure are, in general, more
nonlinear than the ship motion responses.
For example, hogging and sagging bending
moment amidships are not equal in Sagging Condition
magnitude and are not linearly proportional
to the wave height. Realistic behavior of the pressure time history is important for accurately
predicting the fatigue life of the side longitudinal stiffeners located near the waterline.
Conventional linear theory does not

accurately predict relative motion and velocity
that are the bases for calculating bow flare
impact, bottom slamming pressure and the
corresponding whipping responses. Other
areas of concern for containerships include
the prediction of green water on deck and
ingress water into open hatches or open-top
Vertical bending moment-time history ships.
To achieve a full nonlinear analysis, LAMP

has been developed to be a complete
analysis system starting from model
generation, motions, and impact and
structural loads for FEM analysis. Realistic
random wave environment or a specific
nonlinear wave can be modeled.
An integral part of the nonlinear analysis

system is the mapping of hull pressure to
the structural finite element NASTRAN
model for structural analysis. A 3D FEM
global model representing the hull girder
structure and finer mesh models for local
structures are used to examine the
adequacy of the hull structure. Pressure distribution in hogging wave condtion

The nonlinear analysis by LAMP-NASTRAN
considers failure modes of yielding, and buckling.
The evaluation for yielding and buckling of the
primary supporting structure of the vessel is based
on the results of the fine mesh models where more
accurate determination of local stresses is made.
Full Ship LAMP-NASTRAN Analysis
Propeller Analysis
Available engines are capable of propelling 8,000 - 10,000 teu containership at the required
speed with larger 14-cylinder engines providing the necessary horsepower. As containerships
continue to grow in size, comparable developments in engine design will be required.
Designers may opt for a twin screw design to meet propulsion and speed requirements. With the
addition of a larger engine and the possibility of twin screw design, propeller analysis should be
performed to address cavitation and hull pressure. ABS has computer programs available to
predict the performance of propellers. These programs are capable of predicting hydrodynamic
pressures on the propeller blades, including cavitation, as well as hydrodynamic pressures on
the vessel’s structure.
Effective wake calculations

Effective wake is the interaction between nominal wake
and the propeller and is one of the most important
issues that affect the accuracy of the prediction of
propeller cavitation and propeller blade hydrodynamic
pressure. Programs are used for calculating the effective
wake. Three programs are available to calculate simple
axisymmetric flow, steady non-uniform 3-dimensional
flow, and unsteady non-uniform 3-dimensional flow.
Calculated effective wake
Propeller cavitation analysis

An all-purpose propeller analysis program predicts the
performance of a propeller, including its cavitation. The program
is capable of mapping hydrodynamic pressure distributions and
cavitation patterns, where they occur, on the propeller blades.
The pressure distribution can be interfaced with a finite element
program for propeller blade stress analyses. A subroutine is also
available for integrating the pressure distributions to obtain
steady and unsteady forces and moments acting on the shafting
system.
Propeller cavitation pattern
Analytical Tools 15
Propeller induced hull pressure
Cavitation is the main source of fluctuation pressures acting
on a ship’s hull, which in turn causes propeller-induced hull
vibrations. Based on propeller cavitation predictions, the
diffraction fluctuation pressures on the ship’s hull can be
calculated.
The MPUF3A series of programs is used in the propeller

analyses described above.
Propeller induced hull pressure
Wave Impact Analysis (Slamming)

Historically, bottom slamming has not
been a major concern with
containerships. However, speed
requirements, hull form and increased
vessel size are all factors that make
large containerships susceptible to
bow and stern slamming impact.
Wave impact typically occurs in the

bow portion of the ship, at flat-bottom
sections, and at the upper bow flare.
However, for modern containerships,
slamming may also occur at the stern
sections of the ship, which may have
a very flat bottom. The impact loads
are highly concentrated in a very short Stern slamming pressure
time duration.
The impact forces may result in damage of local structure, and accentuate structural vibration
throughout the hull, often referred to as whipping. Complete analysis of the hull girder requires
predictions of combined wave and whipping response. At any cross section of the vessel, the
whipping induced bending moment should be combined with low frequency wave induced loads
with the proper phase relations to produce the total hull girder loads.
At ABS, the LAMP system

is effectively applied to
predict the slamming
pressures on the flat stern
of containerships to carry
out impact load analyses.
Boundary element methods
or the analytic axymtotic
approach can be applied.
Impact forces due to slamming
Using the calculated
slamming pressures local
structures can be analyzed. Furthermore, a full ship vibration analysis can be performed. More
detailed vibration analysis using these impact forces is further described under the section for
vibration.

Structural Considerations
The increase in container vessel size presents

structural challenges for designers. Operational
demands are pushing the designs into areas where
there is little direct service experience. This means that
a scientific approach, based on general hydrodynamics
and engineering first principles, pioneered by ABS
through innovative programs like ABS SafeHull, is
required to develop the vessel strength parameters if
the risk of structural failure is to be minimized.
Fortunately, as described in the previous sections,

advances in load determination and structural
evaluation techniques available to designers and
builders have opened the door to almost unlimited
increases in the size of the next generation of these
vessels. For large high-speed containerships, the load
prediction is especially important.
Rational criteria as applied through the dynamic-based ABS SafeHull system, or as assessed
through the more comprehensive SH-DLA, and risk-based analysis will become essential tools in
shaping future safety parameters. For ULCS, the most significant structural design aspects to be
addressed are:
Deck Structure
Large hatches in the deck and large open areas of the holds leave very little deck area to
accommodate the main hull girder strength of the vessel. In the latest ultra large containership
designs this feature is particularly pronounced.
The combination of vertical and horizontal hull girder bending, and the torsional twisting of the
hull, are critical issues to be addressed during the structural development of a successful design.
The large containership designs incorporate a combination of structural arrangements such as
hull thickness, continuous hatch coamings, inboard
longitudinal girders and high strength steel material
in order to resist these loads.
Hatch Corners
To accommodate stowage of the containers, large
hatch openings are provided with the smallest corner
radius as possible. However, it is at these corners,
where the longitudinal and transverse structure
meet, that the combination of the bending and
torsionally induced longitudinal warping stresses is
critical. Adding to the issue is the distortion of hatch
openings, which also influences the stress
distribution within this critical location.
The distortion of hatch openings at the hatch

coaming top is also critical to the design of the hatch
Hatch Corner FEM Stress Plot
Structural Considerations 17
covers upon which the above deck containers will be loaded. Since the majority of hatch corner
stresses are wave-induced and dynamic in nature, they will fluctuate and the corresponding
fatigue strength of the hatch corners is a prime design consideration.
Many aspects of the design, such as: the relative strength of the transverse box beam structure
at the top of transverse bulkheads, whether inboard longitudinal girders are provided, whether
thick insert plates in the deck are fitted, etc., can be used to control the stresses in this area.
ABS programs analyze the vessel’s structure to identify where design features can be modified
to increase its strength.
Location of Deckhouse and Engine Room

As containerships become larger and the
open area of the deck is expanded, the
Panamax 4000 teu deckhouse can be relocated to a position on
the ship that can help control the hatch
Post Panamax 7000 teu
opening distortions and stresses. This is
done by separating the deckhouse and
Post Panamax 9000 teu
engine rooms that are typically co-located in
most recent containership designs. An
added benefit of separating these two
Ultra 18000 teu spaces is that the Navigation Bridge can be
brought forward to improve visibility.
Ultra 18000 teu
Container and Deckhouse Arrangement
Bow Region
Dynamic loads resulting from bow flare impact, bottom
slamming and green water loads on the fore end of a
containership can be substantial. These impact loads will
be more pronounced for large containerships and need to
be considered in the design of the local bow structure,
including the breakwater protecting the forward rows of
deck containers.
ABS studies on bow flare impact loads also show that, for
the full load condition, increases in dynamic bending
moment can be as much as 25 percent for ships with Bow Region FEM Plot
large bow flare.
Transverse Strength
The vessel beam of ULCS will increase; however, the hold lengths have remained constant since
hold length is governed by the standard length of cargo containers. As a result, the aspect ratio
of the cargo hold double bottom is becoming skewed toward a wide section with few floors and
many longitudinal girders that intersect the vertical girders of the transverse bulkheads.
Designers must ensure that the end connections and interactions of these major structural
members are properly accounted for and that all relevant failure modes such as material
yielding, buckling and fatigue are assessed.

Operational Issues
Ballast Water
ABS released the Advisory Notes on Ballast Water Exchange Procedures in October 1999. The
study investigated Ballast Water Management for three different sizes of container vessels,
feeder, panamax and post-Panamax, taking into account the strength and stability limitations of
the vessels.
Of the three vessels studied, it was noted that the post-Panamax vessels have ample excess
ballast, deadweight capacity, and stability margin to bring additional ballast onboard before
initiating the exchange process. The ultra-large containership’s ballast water management would
most likely mirror the post-Panamax vessel ballast characteristics.
Ballast water management is a prerequisite for the ES (Environmental Safety) notation offered by
ABS. The requirement for ES notation is that every vessel able to carry ballast water is to have a
ballast water management plan. This plan provides guidance to the operators for the proper
handling and treatment of ballast water and sediment to minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic
organisms and pathogens in the ballast water and sediment.
Green Water
Special design consideration must be paid to reduce the amount of green water taken on board
by a containership. Green water on deck is considered in the design of the freeboard height,
forecastle deck, and local bow structure, including the breakwater.
ABS studies the green water on deck to determine its effect on the structural integrity of the deck
and bow structures. Green water on deck is also important for ship owners/ operators from
safety and operational viewpoints to protect the crew, cargo and equipment on deck during
heavy weather.
For the hatch-coverless containership, the amount of ingress water into cargo holds is analyzed.
Often model tests are conducted or motion simulation is also used for ingress analysis once it is
carefully correlated with the experimental data. The effect of green water on deck and ingress
water for an open top containership can be mitigated through prudent design.
Lashing Arrangement
As container vessel size increases, an operational concern affecting the overall structure of the
vessel deals with the lashing arrangement. This is due to the increased structural deformations
due to vessel reaction to the wave environment on a larger vessel.
To offset the deformation, the hatch covers are designed to slide. Also, the container stacks
themselves have a certain amount of slack in them due to necessary corner fitting/twist lock
tolerances for operation. Based on the vessel motions, accelerations and structural response, the
displacements of these two systems could very well be at odds with each other. Therefore, when
the lashings are secured at one end to the vessel structure (or lashing bridges) and at the other
end to the container stack, the lashings become the interface for these two systems. One way of
addressing this is to have the containers lashed to the hatches, but then the hatch cover
securing becomes the interface.
It should also be noted that the open truss arrangements of the lashing bridges are also flexible.
Therefore, while the base of the lashing bridges will displace with the vessel structure,
Operational Issues 19
depending on the flexibility of the lashing bridge and the reaction of the adjacent longitudinal
container stack, the upper portions of the lashing bridge will displace due to the reactions of the
lashing forces from the container stack.
ABS certifies the initial installation of container securing systems aboard vessels. The CSC
(Container Securing Certificate) notation is issued to vessels that meet with ABS’ requirements,
as stated in the ABS Guide for Certification of Container Securing Systems. A vessel’s container
securing system must pass a satisfactory completion of plan review, testing of the securing
devices, approval of the Container Securing Manual and installation of the fixed securing
devices.
Vessel Motions (Parametric Roll)

Operators of modern containerships are aware of the costly damages incurred by lost
containers. This was recently demonstrated when a vessel lost many deck containers in
November 1999 while in the North Pacific. A $50 million (USD) cargo damage suit was
subsequently filed. In light of this situation, many owners are concerned about parametric roll.
Parametric roll is an unusually large non-linear roll in excess of 30 to 40 degrees resulting from
the wave interaction with large overhanging vessel shape of the bow flare and/or stern flare
areas. The nonlinear phenomenon of parametric roll uniquely affects the modern containership
with its sleek design below the waterline.
The modern containerships, with hulls designed for higher speed, more cargo capacity, larger
bow flares, and Gondola stern are uniquely susceptible to the problems associated with
parametric roll. When a large containership is in seas with a wave height of 7 to 8 meters and a
specific wave frequency band, it may experience roll motion of 30 to 40 degrees. When the
vessel rolls over 40 degrees, transverse diagonal lashings will loosen or fail and consequently
containers will be lost, no matter how much pretension is given.
Even in high, head or following seas, the excessive heave and pitch motions associated with
large bow flare and flat stern can trigger the strong nonlinear coupling with the roll motion,
eventually causing large parametric rolling. This is an instability phenomenon and it can be
dangerous. It can occur at the wave encounter period approximately equal to half of the roll
natural period. For instance, even a containership with a 20-second roll natural period can
experience parametric roll at certain head seas.
Owners are now considering many ways to prevent or mitigate this unstable roll. One solution to
avoid or reduce the parametric roll, often used by naval ships and offshore supply vessels, is to
fit the vessel with anti-roll tanks. Other options also exist to minimize the effects of parametric
roll. Some owners elect to install active fin stabilizers, similar to those installed on naval ships
and cruise ships.
Anti-roll tank images courtesey of: http://www.intering.com

Location of Bunker Tanks
Recent events involving environmental damage as a result of oil spills and leaks have raised the
question of fuel oil tank location on large vessels. Although there are, as yet, no formal
requirements on the carriage of fuel oil in protected bunker tanks, there are new designs with
protectively located fuel oil tanks.
Owners wishing to guarantee the long-term operation of their vessels recognize the value of their
inclusion. A reasonable segregation distance for fuel oil tanks could be that of the requirements
of MARPOL.
Voltage Systems
As containership capacity increases, so will the capacity for reefer containers. Conventional low
voltage (LV) systems are no longer technically optimal in handling large electrical loads
demanded by ULCS. High voltage (HV) power systems provide the needed solution.
Typically, LV generators and motors are limited in size to about 2,500kW to 4,000kW. This does
not mean that more generators could simply be installed to satisfy the electrical load demand.
Economy of space utilization and maintenance and operating costs would tend to discourage
this. More importantly, there are engineering limitations to the total capacity of a LV system.
For example, the larger the installed capacity the higher the short circuit current, and in this
respect, available LV switchgears are only capable of withstanding short circuit currents up to
about 150 kA, thus limiting installed capacity. Moreover the cost and size of these generators
and switchgears, and cables tend to increase disproportionately as they get larger; this makes
the HV equipment attractive.
While HV systems present other problems: e.g. heightened electrical hazards, retraining of crew,
etc., experience has shown that these have been overcome without great difficulties. Not to
forget, however, is the intrinsic flexibility of HV systems to system designers, chief among which
is the choice of system earthing. By choosing either not to earth the system or to earth the
system directly or through impedance, the system designers have an array of choices for system
performance and equipment costs, which can be optimized to suit the needs of the operation.
Computer tools are commonly available to conduct simulation studies.
Classification rules for HV systems have been in place for many years. They provide for the
many safety features needed of HV systems. They include requirements such as specific
location for HV switchgears, detection of internal short circuit fault detection for generators,
segregation of LV and HV cable routing, etc.
While these rules are applicable to HV

systems in general, in addition to class rules, it
is necessary for system designers to consider
specific application of HV system to container-
ship operations. For example, it is highly
recommended that system designers choose
to have dedicated step-down transformers for
supplying power to reefer containers as shown
in the accompanying illustration. The use of
shipboard LV distribution system, including
ship services other than reefer containers,
should be avoided.
Operational Issues 21
The important consideration here is earth fault. Where segregated from the main power system
by transformers, earth fault in the reefer power system can be detected with ease without
interfering with the main power system. Such an arrangement would also provide system
designers with options for transformer earthing design to optimize power supply continuity to the
reefer containers in case of an earth fault.
Vibration
Vibration in the structure of large vessels, such as the ULCS, can arise from several sources.
Wave action, particularly slamming, can result in high vibratory response. Propeller induced
pressure fluctuations on the hull and the propulsion system can also be responsible for
significant dynamic response.
Larger ship structures tend to be more flexible than smaller ones. This flexibility translates into
lower hull girder natural frequencies and, depending on the nature of dynamic loading, large
vessels, such as ultra-large containerships, may be more responsive and exhibit high vibratory
levels in service. Substructures, such as the deckhouse, and local structure such as decks and
bulkheads can also exhibit high response levels. The degree of responsiveness depends on,
among other things, how close the natural frequencies of the ship structure match those of the
dynamic loading. Vibration characteristics of a vessel should be examined early in the design, as
modifications to the structure after the vessel has been constructed can be very costly.
In certain circumstances, regular wave loading may result in a steady state response known as
“springing”; long flexible ships are the most vulnerable. Slamming, both at the bow and at the
stern, can induce uncomfortable response levels. At a more local level it is prudent to investigate
vibration response induced by propellers and machinery. In more extreme cases the energy from
these sources can induce fatigue failures in local structure.
Modern analytical tools are able to model the dynamic forces and the response such that any
deficiencies can be addressed early in the design cycle. Wave loading, whether steady state or
transient phenomena such as slamming, can be simulated using advanced tools at the disposal
of ABS. While model tests are one source of information on pressure fluctuations caused by
propellers, ABS has up-to-date software tools for predicting such forces. The response of ship
structures to these forces is estimated using, after suitable modification, the finite element
models described earlier.
ABS has been performing vibration analyses of commercial vessels since the early 1970s and
has amassed considerable experience in analyzing the vibratory response of a wide range of
vessel types. The latter include tankers, passenger vessels, roro vessels, as well as container-
ships. In these tasks experienced ABS engineers and analysts apply modern software tools to
model vibration-causing forces and to predict vibration response. The vibration levels are then
compared with criteria contained in standards, or the customer’s specification. The primary
objectives are to avoid vibration levels that interfere with crew operations and comfort, and to
ensure structural integrity is not compromised. Where high levels of vibration are predicted ABS
engineers and analysts can work with those responsible for the design in seeking solutions.

ABS SafeShip
ABS SafeShip integrates existing programs to provide a complete life cycle management
program to follow the life cycle of a SafeHull ship from design and construction to service and
surveys. This program provides owners with the highest level of information available for
operational efficiency and ship safety.
All large containerships built to ABS class meet the initial requirement of a SafeHull designed
vessel, as the ABS Rules dictate that all containerships over 130 meters in length are to be built
to SafeHull specifications. This is the qualifying feature for enrollment in the ABS SafeShip
program. Once enrolled in the program, owners are empowered to better manage the entire life
cycle of their vessels.
Combining the expertise of ABS SafeHull, ABS SafeNet

and ABS SafeHull Construction Monitoring, ABS
SafeShip provides:
• SafeHull engineering analysis techniques
• Construction monitoring
• Hull Maintenance
• Survey Status
• Maintenance & Repair
• Marine Information
• Vessel Drawing Storage
ABS provides the SafeShip program to clients to limit

risk through comprehensive life cycle care. This is
accomplished through the application of advanced
technology to reduce risk in the design, construction
and maintenance. Successful management of this
information is the key through all stages of a vessel’s
performance. The importance of information technology
will continue to increase in the role of successful ship
operations and maintenance.
ABS SafeShip 23
Case Study
Samsung Heavy Industries: 9,000 teu
ABS is proud to have contributed technically to Samsung Heavy Industry’s (SHI) development of
a 9,000 teu container vessel design. Following are excerpts from the Samsung press release of
31 October 2000 detailing the project.
SHI Develops 9,000 TEU Container Vessel

“Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) (President Hai-Kyoo Lee) has started its efforts for the sales
[sic] of the 9,000 teu-class jumbo container vessels, completing development of a new vessel
prototype recently.
“The Company has endeavored to develop an optimum vessel prototype in consideration of the
present status of the facilities and cargo-handling equipment at major ports of the world and their
plans for expansion of the facilities. It also revealed that the new vessels have been designed in
such a way as will make the speed as high as 26 knots, equipping the most powerful existing
engine for a vessel with the maximum capacity of 93,000 hp. The new prototype can be loaded
with 9,000 containers in its 10 cargo sections, being sized 330m (L) x 45.6m (W) x 14.5m
(Draft), whose total weight comes to close to 0.15 million ton when loaded with cargo. It is also
featured with the environment-friendly consideration given with the double-hull of the oil tank
which is located at the bottom to prevent a chance of oil spill at the time of entry to a port or an
accident.
“SHI has been conducting the performance evaluation, such as analysis of resistance associated
with fluid mechanics and vessel prototype interpretation etc. of the new jumbo vessel in the
shipbuilder’s towing tank, which is one of the largest of its kind in the world (400m x 14m x 7m-
sized) in the Research InstituteDaeduk and the vessel successfully underwent the inspection on
vessel structure interpretation and safety at ABS (American Bureau of Shipping).”
Case Study 25
Services provided by ABS to Samsung
ABS teamed with Samsung to review the concept designs for a new large post-Panamax vessel.
Using the initial scantling criteria (Phase A) and the FEM total strength assessment (Phase B) of
the Rules specifications from SafeHull, the initial design was developed. Torsional analysis of 22
design variations using DYSOS was then performed to determine the effects of hull design
parameters such as wing tank breadth, ship depth, double bottom height, scantling of coaming
top flange on torsional response of the proposed structural designs.
Based on the structural responses on deck stress and distorsion of hatch openings calculated by
DYSOS, Samsung refined the structure design. SHI and ABS verified the final hull design with
the nonlinear hydrodynamic load using LAMP and full length FEM analysis, using NASTRAN, to
further refine the detailed design.
Technical review and analysis of the proposed vessel design has been achieved through one of
the most advanced computer simulation tools that account for dynamic load distribution and
structural response. This analysis is invaluable to the shipyard as they proceed with the final
designs of the 9,000 teu containership.

Conclusions
ABS continues to provide the tools necessary to develop new generation ULCS, just as it did or
the first containership almost 50 years ago. Building on its history of firsts, ABS remains an
industry leader. ABS’ current market share demonstrates market dominance in the post-
Panamax size and positions ABS to continue its leadership as market factors make the
expansion of containership size more profitable.
Extending beyond ABS SafeHull and SH-DLA, services offered by ABS provide the technical
expertise necessary to differentiate your vessel. ABS’ programs are technically rational and
scientific. These programs combine to provide the most comprehensive review. From MPUF3A
propeller analysis to the nonlinear LAMP-NASTRAN analysis, ABS’ experience extends beyond
basic structural considerations and is available as a reference for every feature of a vessel.
ABS’ experience extends to include operational considerations, from effective ballast water
management to lashing arrangements and strives to provide up-to-date information for the
modern container operators.
ABS-classed ULCS vessels are also eligible for enrollment in the ABS SafeShip program.
Information from this program provides a tool for the total life cycle management of the ship.
Using ABS as your classification society for the next generation of ULCS brings a rational,
scientific approach backed by decades of containership classification.
Conclusions 27
Appendix 1
Fleet Information and Market Share
Class Society Market Comparison

Post-Panamax Market Share
Source: Seaway, December 2000
ABS the classification society of choice for post-Panamax
vessels with a 35% market share. It also has significant
shares of the Panamax, medium and feeder sectors.
Existing Post-Panamax Containerships
For Vessels >4000 teu
Countries of Build ABS BV GL KR LR NK Total

DEU (Germany) 8 0 1 0 9 0 18
DNK (Denmark) 11 0 0 0 0 0 11
JPN (Japan) 35 0 0 0 25 27 87
KOR (Korea) 23 2 51 32 10 2 120
TWN (Taiwan) 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Total 79 2 52 32 44 29
ABS containership classification activity is divided between all countries with newbuilding activity.
These numbers represent that ABS’ experience is recognized in prominent countries of
containership building. This diversity of experience is unparalleled (Seaway, November 2000).
Appendix 1 29
Appendix 2
Sampling of ABS-classed Post-Panamax Vessels
APL Agate, APL Cyprine, APL Pearl

Neptune Shipmanagement Services
5,000 teu
Builder: Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
1997 - 1998
APL Agate
APL Korea, APL Philippines, APL Singapore

American Ship Management LLC
4,800 teu
Builder: Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering
1995 - 1996
DLA
APL Phillipines
APL China, APL Japan, APL Thailand

4,800 teu
Builder: Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG
1995
DLA
APL Thailand
A. P. Moller, Caroline Maersk, Carsten Maersk,

Clifford Maersk, Cornelius Maersk, Sine Maersk,
Skagen Maersk, Sofie Maersk, Soro Maersk,
Svend Maersk, Svendborg Maersk
Rederiet A. P. Moeller
6,600 teu
Builder: Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd.
S Class Maersk 1998 - 2000
DLA and SafeHull

Ever Ultra, Ever Union, Ever Unique, Ever Unison,
LT United
Evergreen International Corp.
5,300 teu
Builder: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
1996 - 1997
U Type Vessel
Ever Uberty, Ever Unific, Ever Uranus, Ever Useful,

LT Unicorn, LT Unity, LT Urban, LT Ursula, LT Usodimare,
LT Utile, LT Ulysses
Evergreen International Corp.
5,600 teu
Builder: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
1999 - 2000
SafeHull
U Type Vessel
Ming Plum
YangMing Marine Transport Corp.
5,500 teu
Builder: Hyundai Heavy Ind. Co., Ltd.
September 2000
SafeHull
Ming Plum
OOCL America, OOCL Britain, OOCL California,

OOCL Japan
Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
4,900 teu
Builder: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
1995 - 1996
OOCL Japan
Appendix 2 31
OOCL China, OOCL Hong Kong
Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
4,900 teu
Builder: Samsung Heavy Industries
1995 - 1996
OOCL China
President Adams, President Polk

4,300 teu
Builder: Bremer Vulkan A.G.
July 1988
President Polk
President Jackson, President Kennedy, President Truman

4,300 teu
Builder: Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG
1988
President Truman

Appendix 3
Listing of ABS-classed container vessels

>4000 teu
Vessel Name Owner Name TEU Builder Name Build Date

A. P. Moller*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 08-Jun-00
APL Agate Neptune Shipmanagement Services 5020 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 08-Sep-97
APL China** Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4832 Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag 19-May-95
APL Cyprine Neptune Shipmanagement Services 5020 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 01-Dec-97
APL France P & O Nedlloyd B.V. 4158 Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin 01-Mar-96
APL Garnet** Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4391 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 12-Aug-95
APL Germany P & O Nedlloyd B.V. 4158 Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin 01-Mar-96
APL Indonesia P & O Nedlloyd B.V. 4158 Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin 21-Jun-96
APL Ivory Zodiac Maritime Agencies 4100 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 01-Jul-80
APL Jade Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4391 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 21-Oct-95
APL Japan** Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4832 Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag 01-Sep-95
APL Korea** American Ship Management LLC 4826 Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin 27-Sep-95
APL Pearl Neptune Shipmanagement Services 5020 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 27-Feb-98
APL Philippines** American Ship Management LLC 4826 Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin 04-Jan-96
APL Sardonyx** Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4391 Samsung Heavy Industries Co.Ltd. 08-Jun-95
APL Singapore** American Ship Management LLC 4826 Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engin 10-Nov-95
APL Spinel** Neptune Orient Lines Ltd. 4391 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 22-Jan-96
APL Thailand** American Ship Management LLC 4832 Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag 29-Nov-95
APL Tourmaline** Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4434 Koyo Dockyard Co., Ltd. 02-Jan-96
APL Turquoise** Neptune Shipmanagement Services 4434 Koyo Dockyard Co., Ltd. 26-Mar-96
Caroline Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 04-Sep-00
Carsten Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 17-Nov-00
Clifford Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 19-Nov-99
Cornelius Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 19-Mar-00
CSCL Shanghai* Costamare Shipping Co., SA 5551 Hyundai Heavy Ind. Co., Ltd. 30-Nov-00
Ever Dainty*** Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 25-Jul-97
Ever Decent*** Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 06-Nov-97
Ever Deluxe*** Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 20-Jan-98
Ever Devote*** Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 14-May-98
Ever Diadem*** Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 03-Jul-98
Ever Divine*** Evergreen International Corp. 4211 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 04-Sep-98
Ever Uberty* Evergreen International Corp. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 26-Jan-99
Ever Ultra Greencompass Marine S.A. 5364 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 31-May-96
Ever Unific* Evergreen International Corp. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 18-Mar-99
Ever Union Greencompass Marine S.A. 5364 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 07-May-97
Ever Unique Evergreen International Corp. 5364 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 31-Jan-97
Ever Unison Evergreen International Corp. 5364 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 29-Nov-96
Ever Uranus* Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 10-Jun-99
Ever Useful* Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 15-Dec-99
LT Unicorn* Evergreen International Corp. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 13-Sep-00
LT United Evergreen International Corp. 5364 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 30-Aug-96
LT Unity* Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 05-Aug-99
LT Urban* Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 13-Jan-00
LT Ursula* Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 07-Oct-99
LT Usodimare* Lloyd Triestino Di Navigazione S. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 29-Nov-00
LT Utile* Greencompass Marine S.A. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 30-Mar-00
*ABS SafeHull Vessel

**ABS SH-DLA Vessel
***ABS SH-DLA and SafeHull Vessel
Post-Panamax Vessel
Source: ABS Record, December 2000
Appendix 3 33
LT Ulysses* Evergreen International Corp. 5652 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 21-Jun-00
Ming Plum* Yangming Marine Transport Corp. 5551 Hyundai Heavy Ind. Co., Ltd. 08-Sep-00
Ming Orchid* Yangming Marine Transport Corp. 5551 Hyundai Heavy Ind. Co., Ltd. 29-Dec-00
NOL Coral Neptune Shipmanagement Services 5020 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 08-May-98
OOCL America Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 4960 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 28-Nov-95
OOCL Britain Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 4960 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 15-Mar-96
OOCL California Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 4960 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 29-Aug-95
OOCL Chicago*** Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 5714 China Shipbuilding Corp. 21-Dec-00
OOCL China Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 4960 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 19-Mar-96
OOCL Hong Kong Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 4960 Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 08-Dec-95
OOCL Japan Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 4960 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 23-Feb-96
OOCL Netherlands Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 5006 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 05-Dec-97
OOCL San Francisco*** Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 5714 China Shipbuilding Corp. 15-Sep-00
OOCL Singapore Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. 5006 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. 28-Aug-97
President Adams American Ship Management LLC 4340 Bremer Vulkan A.G. 01-Sep-88
President Jackson American Ship Management LLC 4332 Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag 01-Sep-88
President Kennedy American Ship Management LLC 4332 Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag 01-Jul-88
President Polk American Ship Management LLC 4340 Bremer Vulkan A.G. 01-Jul-88
President Truman American Ship Management LLC 4332 Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft Ag 01-Apr-88
Sea-Land Achiever U.S. Ship Management, Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machine Co. 01-Oct-84
Sea-Land Atlantic U.S. Ship Management, Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machinery Ltd. 01-May-85
Sea-Land Champion Chesham Containerships Ltd. 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 23-Jun-95
Sea-Land Charger Chesham Containerships Ltd. 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 31-Mar-97
Sea-Land Comet Chesham Containerships Ltd. 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 30-Oct-95
Sea-Land Commitment U.S. Ship Management, Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machinery Ltd. 01-Jul-85
Sea-Land Eagle Chesham Containerships Ltd. 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 27-Jun-97
Sea-Land Florida U.S. Ship Management, Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machine Co. 01-Jun-84
Sea-Land Integrity U.S. Ship Management, Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machine Co. 01-Dec-84
Sea-Land Intrepid Rederiet A. P. Moller 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 29-Aug-97
Sea-Land Lightning Rederiet A. P. Moller 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 25-Sep-97
Sea-Land Mercury Chesham Containerships Ltd. 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 30-Nov-95
Sea-Land Meteor Chesham Containerships Ltd. 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 30-Jan-96
Sea-Land Oregon U.S. Ship Management,Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machine Co. 01-Apr-85
Sea-Land Performance U.S. Ship Management, Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machinery Ltd. 01-Sep-85
Sea-Land Quality U.S. Ship Management, Inc. 4238 Daewoo S.B. & Heavy Machinery Ltd. 01-Jun-85
Sea-Land Racer Chesham Containerships Ltd. 4062 Ishikawajima-Harima Hvy. Ind. Co. 28-Feb-96
Sine Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 29-Jun-98
Skagen Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 10-Sep-99
Sofie Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 15-Dec-98
Soro Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 04-Jun-99
Svend Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 15-Mar-99
Svendborg Maersk*** Rederiet A. P. Moller 6600 Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. 25-Sep-98
*ABS SafeHull Vessel

**ABS SH-DLA Vessel
***ABS SH-DLA and SafeHull Vessel
Post Panamax Vessel
Source: ABS Record, December 2000

Appendix 4
Shipyards with ABS approved designs

(To either SH or SH-DLA criteria)
over 4000 teu
China Shipbuilding Corporation

Taiwan
Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd.

Korea
Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG
Germany
Hyundai Heavy Industries

Korea
Kawasaki Heavy Industries

Japan
Koyo Dockyard
Japan
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

Japan
Nantong Ocean Engineering

China
Odense Steel Shipyard

Denmark
Samsung Heavy Industries

Korea
Appendix 4 35
Produced by
ABS Marketing Development & Corporate Communications
16855 Northchase Drive
Houston, TX 77060-6008 USA

ABS American Bureau of Shipping Profile

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ABS American Bureau of Shipping Profile

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ourM I S S I O N

The mission of the American Bureau of

quality & environmental

All of our client commitments,

We commit to operate consistent with

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

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

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

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

Design Considerations ..........................................................................................................................5

Technology for ULCS ............................................................................................................................8

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents iii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iv Giants in the Container Industry

ABS surveyors’ experience is enhanced by a commitment to technology and the analytical

Classification with ABS includes:

The benefits of classing with ABS include:

ABS’ existing fleet contains 387 containerships, Post-Panamax Existing Vessels

aggregating more than 11m gt and representing

ABS’ Current Position 1

The percentages represent

2 Giants in the Container Industry

ABS was the first to class post-Panamax vessels in 1988.

These types of analyses are included as part of the

History of ABS’ Role 3

4 Giants in the Container Industry

The trend towards increased size of containerships

Economic and Operational Considerations 5

Container stack height limitations

Ultra 13000 teu Ultra 18000 teu

Container Stack Arrangement

6 Giants in the Container Industry

The ABS SafeHull System was conceived as a complete

ABS and SafeHull have achieved significant market

SafeHull Design Cycle

Evaluation of the design is the next step in

Load defines strength

8 Giants in the Container Industry

ABS SafeHull embodies the “net ship” concept

Of particular importance to containerships is the design of hatch openings concerning

10 Giants in the Container Industry

For containerships, SH-DLA is not a

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

Structural response of the vessel is

These FEM results are then used

SH-DLA (Dynamic Loading Approach) 11

12 Giants in the Container Industry

DYSOS (Dynamic Stress Analysis of Open Ships)

Nonlinear Analysis by LAMP-NASTRAN System

Where higher uncertainties exist in the

Conventional linear theory does not

To achieve a full nonlinear analysis, LAMP

An integral part of the nonlinear analysis