STRUCTURE DESIGN OF CARGO TANKS IN LIQUEFIED GAS CARRIERS

Ivo Senjanović, Vedran Slapničar, Zoran Mravak, Smiljko Rudan & Ana Maria Ljuština,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Croatia

SUMMARY
Different types of cargo tanks for gas sea-transport by Liquefied Gas Carriers are described. Design of bilobe tanks,
as a complex task, according to the Classification Rules and the USCG Requirements is analysed. This includes selection
of special material for high pressure and low temperature, determination of internal pressure consisting of design vapour
pressure and liquid pressure that depends on ship motion in rough sea. Furthermore, it includes calculation of tank scant-
lings, i.e. shell thickness, and design of longitudinal bulkhead, swash bulkhead, vacuum rings and stiffening rings. Stabil-
ity of cylindrical shells and torispherical dished ends is considered. Special attention is paid to the FEM analysis of the
stiffening rings. The design procedure is illustrated in case of an LPG Carrier with one ordinary cylindrical tank and huge
bilobe tank. Some comments are given how to improve tank design for production.

hull scantlings are increased accordingly the pressure

may be increased up to 0.7 bar.
1. INTRODUCTION The independent cargo tanks are self-supported struc-
tures and do not participate in the ship’s strength. They
Gas is transported by sea in liquefied state in order to are further subdivided into A, B and C type. The first two
reduce its volume and thus make the transportation eco- tank categories are usually constructed of plane surfaces
nomical. Due to specific cargo properties special ships (gravity tanks) and the design vapour pressure is to be
called Liquefied Gas Tankers are used which have less than 0.7 bar. Type C independent tanks are shell
unique construction features and differ considerably from structures (also referred to as pressure vessels) meeting
other classes of ships. Depending on the cargo type, two vessel criteria. They operate up to the design vapour
categories of ships are distinguished, i.e. Liquefied Natu- pressure of 20 bar.
ral Gas (LNG) and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Car- LNG cargo tanks are usually free standing spherical
riers, [1, 2]. shell structure, or alternatively may be prismatic of either
The liquid natural gas is insulated at cryogenic tem- the free standing, self-supporting type or as a membrane
perature and slightly pressurised above atmospheric pres- structure. LNG are very large ships with cargo capacity
sure. The boil-off gas is used as fuel in the ship boilers. range from 25000 m3 to 145000 m3.
The liquid petroleum gases are transported in one of Concerning LPG, fully refrigerated cargo tanks are
the following conditions: free standing prismatic type operating at temperatures
• fully refrigerated at slightly above atmospheric down to -50°C and limited pressure of 0.7 bar. These
pressure, ships have cargo capacity from 5000 m3 to 100000 m3.
Refrigerated semi-pressurised tanks are usually of
• refrigerated, semi-pressurised below ambient
bilobe type. Their operation is limited by pressure of 7
temperature and over atmospheric pressure,
bar and associated boil temperature depending on kind of
• fully pressurised at ambient temperature. cargo. The cargo capacity of these ships is up to 15000 m3.
Full-pressurised tanks are spherical, cylindrical or
In all cases the cargo liquid state is near the boiling lobed supported by saddles. Maximum value of working
temperature at the given pressure. The boil-off petroleum pressure is 20 bar. The ships tend to be small with capac-
gases are reliquefied and returned to the cargo tank. ity up to 4000 m3.
Since the transportation of gas is hazardous due to Pressurised cargo tanks are shell structures and their
many reasons of potential danger, it is regulated by the manufacturing is rather complex due to the curved sur-
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) within IGC face and relatively thick walls. Therefore, they are made
Code [3]. Some notes on the practical application of this of high tensile steel and welded segments with different
code are presented in [4]. This document is accepted by success of geometrical perfection. Beside the residual
the International Association of Classification Societies stress due to welding, misalignment also causes stress
(IACS) and included in the Classification Rules, for in- concentration and it must be controlled. An especially
stance [5]. difficult problem occurs in the case of misalignment in
In general, for liquefied gas transportation different Y-joint of shells and longitudinal bulkhead of bilobe
cargo tanks are used: integral tanks, membrane tanks, cargo tanks, [6].
semi-membrane tanks and independent tanks. In the This paper deals with the structure design of the type
Classification Rules the design features, i.e. tank shape C independent cargo tanks, also referred to as pressure
and type of design analysis, and design pressure are used vessels, as the most interesting task. The tank structure
as criteria for tank definition, whereas the grade of re- design requires realisation of the following items, [7]:
frigerating is of secondary significance. The design va- 1. Determination of tank shape and clearances.
pour pressure for the integral, membrane and semi- 2. Selection of higher tensile steel and strength criteria,
membrane tanks is limited at 0.25 bar. However, if the according to the list of cargos that will be carried.
 Figure 1. LPG Carrier

3. Determination of internal pressure that consists of

given design vapour pressure and liquid pressure. The
latter is a result of combined gravity and acceleration 2. SHIP AND TANKS PARTICULARS
effects due to ship motion in waves.
4. Calculation of acceleration components by means of The general arrangement of the considered LPG Car-
guidance formulae based on ship particulars. Con- rier with one cylindrical and one bilobe tank of the total
struction of acceleration ellipses in the ship transverse capacity of 6500 m3, is shown in Figures 1 and 2. The
and longitudinal planes. ship is designed in accordance with the Rules of Ger-
5. Calculation of shell thickness using the rather simple manischer Lloyd (GL) [5] and built in Severnav Ship-
formulae for pressure vessels. yard, Turnu-Severin, Romania, for the ship owner Hart-
6. Strength analysis of stiffening rings which transmit mann Reederei, Leer, Germany. The ship main
tank load (static + dynamic) to the tank support. The particulars are the following:
rings are loaded by circumferential forces due to the length over all Loa = 114.89 m
shear stress determined by the bi-dimensional shear length between perpendiculars Lpp = 109.211 m
flow theory based on the tank shear forces. breadth, moulded B = 16.80 m
7. Buckling analysis of the tank shell and vacuum rings depth to main deck, moulded H = 11.825 m
due to external pressure, i.e. difference between the V.C.M. draught Td = 7.60 m
maximum external pressure and the minimum inter- ethylene draught Te = 6.64 m
nal pressure (maximum vacuum). block coefficient CB = 0.709
8. Strength analysis of swash bulkheads due to sloshing V.C.M. displacement D = 10176 t
pressure. main engine output (MCR) P ∼ 4400 kW
9. Drawings of tank structure with welding details. speed at ethylene draught v ∼ 16 kn
10. List of material and nesting plans.
The ship is assigned to transport a list of products
The design procedure is illustrated for the case of the from ethylene to vinyl chloride monomer for which the
cylindrical and bilobe cargo tanks of a 6500 m3 LPG Car- mass density is 0.56 and 0.97 t/m3 respectively. Some
rier as follows. ship characteristics for the basic loading conditions are
listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Ship characteristics

Loading condition Draught, m Displacement, t
Ballast departure 4.71 5756
Ethylene cargo 6.64 8653
Vinyl chloride monomer 7.60 10176

Tank No. 1 is cylindrical and Tank No. 2 is bilobe

type of capacity 1960 m3 and 4485 m3 respectively.
Each tank is placed on two saddle supports covered
by wood. One support is fixed while the other one is free
in the axial direction, Figures 3 and 4. Cylindrical tank is
also secured against rotation, Figure 5. In addition, at the
upper part of the stiffening rings antifloating preventions
Figure 2. LPG Carrier, cross-sections are constructed with a clearance for wood layer, Figure 6.
 Figure 3. Cross-section of fixed saddle support Figure 4. Cross-section of sliding saddle support

Figure 5. Antirotating prevention Figure 6. Antifloating prevention

Thermal insulation is placed on the outer shell side 3. TANKS MATERIAL AND STRENGTH
with a thickness of 230 mm. Minimum required values of CRITERIA
the clearances between the ship structure (plating and
stiffeners) and the insulation are achieved. The GL Rules are followed for the selection of the
Working conditions for the tanks operation are re- tanks material based on the design pressure and tempera-
lated to the pressure and temperature: ture, and the list of transported products [5]. That is high
tensile steel 12Ni19 containing not more than 5% nickel.
design vapour pressure, IMO 4.5 bar The material known by the commercial name FAFER
design vapour pressure, USCG 3.2 bar 5Ni, produced in accordance with the standard EN
external pressure 0.3 bar 10028-4, is accepted for the tanks structure.
test pressure 6.75 bar The material mechanical properties are the following:
working temperature -104°C +45°C yield stress, Re = 390 N/mm2,
tensile strength, Rm = 540 N/mm2.
Since the ship is designated to travel also through the The modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio read
U.S.A. territorial waters, the tanks structure has to met E = 2.06·108 kN/m2 and ν = 0.3 respectively.
the requirements of the United States Coast Guard The allowable membrane stress σam is the smaller one
(USCG) [8]. The first issues of the IMCO Code and of the following two values:
USCG Code are analysed and discussed in [4]. Rm / A and Re / B
where for nickel steels and carbon manganese steels A=3 ay and az depend on the ship particulars and coordinates
and B=2. Thus, one finds out of a chosen point [5]. They are considered as acting sepa-
R m / A = 180 N/mm 2 and Re / B = 195 N/mm 2 and rately for calculation purpose. Accelerations ax and ay in-
clude the components due to the static weight in the lon-
finally σ am = 180 N/mm 2 . gitudinal and transverse directions as a result of pitching
The allowable total stress σat (membrane + bending) and rolling respectively, while az does not include such a
shall not exceed one of the following two values static component.
0.57 Rm = 308 N/mm 2 , 0.85 Re = 331.5 N/mm 2 . The determination of liquid height zβ is illustrated in
Figure 8 for the three typical pressure points in the tank
This leads to σat = 308 N/mm2.
cross-section and the longitudinal section.
If membrane stress exists, then for bending stress re-
In general, it is sufficient to determine liquid pressure
mains
Pgd according to (2) for the planes y-z and x-z and use the
σ ab = 308 − 180 = 128 N/mm 2 . maximum value thus obtained. Thus, the internal pres-
This is valid for the circumferential direction. How- sure for the determination of the tank scantlings yields
ever, in the axial direction the membrane stress is σam / 2, ( )
Pi = P0 + Pgd max [bar ] (3)
and the bending stress may take a higher value, i.e.
*
σ ab = 308 − 90 = 218 N/mm 2

4. INTERNAL PRESSURE

4.1. DESIGN VAPOUR PRESSURE

According to the GL Rules, design vapour pressure is
determined by the formula [5]
P0 = 2 + A ⋅ C ⋅ ρ 1r .5 [bar ] (1)
where A depends on the tank material, C is a characteris-
tic of the tank dimensions, and ρr is the relative density
of the cargo comparing to the fresh water density, at the
design temperature.
In the considered case the vapour pressure yields 4.5
bar and 5.5 bar for Tank No. 1 and 2 respectively. The
former value is equal to the design vapour pressure and
the latter is higher. These values are relevant for the fur-
ther calculations.
Figure 7. Acceleration ellipses in transverse plane, resulting
acceleration αβ in arbitrary direction β
4.2. LIQUID PRESSURE
Liquid pressure is a result of combined effects of
gravity and acceleration, excluding sloshing due to fully
filled tank. It is calculated by the formula
aβ ⋅ z β ⋅ ρ
Pgd = [bar ] (2)
1.02 ⋅ 10 4
where
αβ - relative acceleration due to gravity, resulting from
gravitational and dynamical loads, in an arbitrary di-
rection β,
zβ - largest liquid height [m] above the point where the
pressure is to be determined, measured from the tank
shell in the β direction.
To determine αβ it is necessary to calculate and draw
acceleration ellipses for ship's cross-sections and ship's
longitudinal sections based on the ship acceleration com-
ponents ax, ay and az, as shown in Figure 7 in the former
case. In order to avoid ship motion analysis in rough sea,
the guidance formulae for acceleration components are
given in the Rules, which correspond to the probability Figure 8. Determination of liquid height zβ in transverse and
of exceedance of 10-8 in the North Atlantic. Values of ax, longitudinal plane
 In the considered case the obtained values of the di- 5. SHELL THICKNESS
mensionless acceleration components, i.e. relative accel-
eration with respect to the gravity constant, for the centre Structure of the cargo tanks (cylindrical and bilobe)
of gravity of each tank are listed in Table 2. consists of cylindrical shells and spherical dished ends
with a torispherical connection for the reduction of stress
Table 2 Dimensionless acceleration components concentration, or hemispherical shell. Special attention is
paid to detail of the shell connection in accordance with the
Tank No. 1 Tank No. 2
requirement of AD Merkblatt [9]. In the similar way, the
ax 0.22968 0.22968 tank domes and sumps are constructed, Figures 9 and 10.
ay 0.74295 0.70067
az 0.88936 0.58043

The values of αβ are determined according Figure 7.

For this purpose, the intersection of the acceleration el-
lipse and a straight line of the liquid level need to be de-
fined. Choosing the origin of the coordinate system Y0Z
in the middle of the ellipse, Figure 7, one finds out
[(
a β = 1 + a βz )2 + a β2y ]1 / 2 (4)
where
a βz = k a βy − 1 , k = tg(π - β) (5)
2

a βy =
[ ( )(
ka y 2 ± k 2 a y 4 − a y 2 a z 2 + k 2 a y 2 1 − a z 2 )] 1/ 2

(6) Figure 10. Thickness of forward dished end of Tank No. 2

az 2 + k 2ay 2
The thickness of the constitutive shell types is deter-
In a similar way the solution for x-z plane may be ob-
mined by using the GL Rules formulae for pressure ves-
tained.
sel and steam boilers, which are based on the membrane
The values of zβ are determined according to Figure
theory and allowable stresses, as given below [5].
8, i.e. by the formula that gives the distance of the con-
sidered point P(x, z) at the tank shell and a straight line
Cylindrical shell
tangential to the tank top in the longitudinal section
Da ⋅ pc
z β = x cosα + z sin α − p ( 7) t= ( 8)
20σ am ⋅ υ + pc
where α = π / 2 – β and p is the distance of the straight
Spherical shell
line from the origin. The solution in the transverse plane
Da ⋅ pc
is obtained in a similar way. t= ( 9)
40σ am ⋅ υ + pc

Figure 9. Shell thickness of Tank No. 2

 Torispherical shell than the axial ones, Na, the former are relevant for the
D ⋅ p ⋅β dimensioning of the bulkhead plating.
t= a c (10) In that way the membrane force in the bulkhead reads
40σ am ⋅ υ
N z = 2 N c cos α , cos α = e / R (11)
where
where R is radius of cylinder and e distance of cylinders
t - wall thickness, mm
centres. Membrane stress σam in the longitudinal bulk-
Da - outside diameter, mm
head should not be larger than that in the tank shell. Tak-
pc - design pressure, bar
β - design coefficient for dished ends ing Nz = σam tb and Nc = σam tc one obtains a guiding
υ - weakening factor formula for bulkhead thickness tb depending on cylinder
thickness tc.
σam - allowable membrane stress.
2t e
tb = c (12)
In the considered case the design pressure, pc, is the R
internal pressure, Pi. Besides the membrane forces, the longitudinal bulkhead
The shell thickness is calculated in the above way us- has to withstand the difference of liquid pressure in two
ing the GL and USCG design load and strength criteria, lobe containments. Filling only one of the containment is
where the latter is elaborated in Section 11. The maxi- unallowable. The tolerable difference between the free
mum values of the shell thickness are accepted as the fi- surfaces in the two containments is 2 m. However, there
nal ones of the two requirements and are shown in Fig- are a few worse possible situations:
ures 9 and 10 for Tank No. 2. Since the shell thickness 1. Dynamic pressure in the case of a full tank at the top
depends on the liquid height, different thickness values edge of the longitudinal bulkhead.
may be noticed for the upper and lower parts of the cy- 2. Difference in the static pressure caused by the ship
lindrical shell. The size of the cylindrical shells is limited inclination in the case of equal partial cargo filling in
by the plate production standard dimensions, while the both containments, and dynamic pressure.
size of the spherical segments is a result of fabrication 3. Single side hydrostatic pressure of the full contain-
conditions for the production of double curved elements. ment in the case of a malfunction of one cargo pump.
The thickness of the dome and sump is determined in
a similar way according to the GL Rules and AD Merk- In the considered case the maximum pressure is ob-
blatt [9]. Weakening effect in the tank shell due to the tained from the third situation, and its value at the half
dome and sump existence is calculated by taking into ac- tank height yields p = 46 kPa.
count compensation for the open areas. The longitudinal bulkhead is reinforced by two sup-
porting rings and vertical girders at the position of the
vacuum rings and by longitudinal stiffeners as well, Fig-
6. LONGITUDINAL BULKHEAD ure 11. In order to avoid additional stress in the bulkhead
plating due to bending, the girders are double sided.
The longitudinal bulkhead of the bilobe tanks is wa-
tertight for the damage stability reason and is mainly a The stiffeners span b is limited by the allowable ben-
tension loaded structural element. It compensates the ding stress σab of the bulkhead plating. For a vertical
membrane forces induced by the tank shells. Since the strip clamped at the stiffeners maximum bending mo-
circumferential membrane forces, Nc, are double higher ment and the section modulus yield

Figure 11. Longitudinal bulkhead

 ⎧ 3 ⎫
pb 2 t2 ⎪ t−c ⎛t − c⎞
⎪
M= ,W= (13) Et ⎪
⎜
⎜ D ⎟ ⎡
⎟
⎤
2n − 1 − ν ⎥ ⎪
2 (18)
12 6 (1 − ν 2 ) pc = 20
Da
+ ⎝
a ⎠ ⎢ 2
n − 1 +
[ ]
⎨ ⎬
S k ⎪ (n 2 − 1) 1 + ( n ) 2 2
3(1 − ν 2 ) ⎢ 1 + (n ) 2 ⎥⎪
z ⎣ z ⎦
Thus, the stress condition ⎪ ⎪
⎩ ⎭
M
σ= ≤ σ ab (14) where
W
π Da 0.002
leads to the following formula for the permissible stiffen- z= , Sk = 3 + , R = Da / 2 (19)
2l t −c
ers span
R
2σ ab
b=t = 78.2 t (15) and further
(1 − ν 2 ) p
pc - critical pressure, bar
The stiffener cross-section is determined in a simple t - shell thickness, mm
way by considering a part of the stiffener within one span Da - outside diameter, mm
between the vacuum rings as a clamped girder. l - length of shell, mm
To determine the scantlings of the vertical girders a c - allowance for corrosion and wear, mm
FEM strength analysis of the complete vacuum ring is Et - modulus of elasticity at design temperature, N/mm2
performed. ν - Poisson's ratio
Sk - safety factor against elastic buckling
n - number of buckled folds occurring round the pe-
7. VACUUM RINGS riphery in the event of failure, which
gives minimum pc value.
The vacuum rings are used to ensure the stability of
the tank shell in the event that the internal pressure is re- pc (bar)
duced below the atmospheric value. The design pressure 2.20
Tank No. 1
difference, called external pressure, is pe = 0.3 bar. 2.00 Tank No. 2
The cross-section of the vacuum ring (Tank No. 1 1.80
230 × 25 mm, Tank No. 2 200 × 25 mm) together with 1.60
the effective breadth of the cylindrical shell
1.40
bm = 1.56 R t (16) 1.20

forms a T-profile with appropriate moment of inertia of 1.00

total cross-section, I. 0.80

The span between the vacuum rings (l = 4 m for 0.60
Tank No. 1, and l = 3.157 m for Tank No. 2), is deter- 0.40
mined by the buckling analysis of the cylindrical shell.
0.20
The vacuum rings in Tank No. 2 represents an arch of
the central angle 2α, where α=124°. The ring ends at the 0.00
6 8 10 12 14 n 16 18 20 22 24
longitudinal bulkhead are assumed to be clamped and the
Figure 12. Buckling pressure
critical pressure according to [10] reads
EI
(
pcr = 3 k 2 − 1
R l
) (17) Curves of critical pressure as function of number of
buckled folds for Tanks No. 1 and 2 are shown in Figure
For the given α, coefficient k = 2.324 and the critical 12. Minimum value of those curves is real buckling pres-
pressure takes the value 138 kPa. The safety factor is sure, Table 3.
S = pcr / pe = 4.59.
Vacuum rings in Tank No. 1 are closed and k = 2 in Table 3 Buckling pressure of cylindrical shells
formula (17). Critical pressure is 103 kPa and the safety Tank l [mm] t [mm] Sk n pc [bar]
factor S = 3.44.
No. 1 4005 16.0 3.59 12 0.442
No. 2 4270 18.0 3.53 11 0.568
8. SHELL BUCKLING ANALYSIS

8.1. CYLINDRICAL SHELL 8.2. SPHERICAL SHELL

In the case of a large external pressure a segment of The tank dished ends are designed as segments of the
the cylindrical tank shell between the two vacuum rings spherical shell. Their stability may be checked by deter-
may lose stability. According to the GL Rules the critical mining the buckling pressure of the complete sphere. Ac-
pressure for elastic buckling of a cylindrical shell is de- cording to the GL Rules, buckling pressure is given by
termined by the following formula [5] the formula [5]
 2
Et ⎛ t − c ⎞
pc = 3.66 ⎜ ⎟ (20)
Sk ⎝ R ⎠

8.3. LONGITUDINAL BULKHEAD

The stability of the plates of the longitudinal bulk-
head between the vacuum rings and the longitudinals is
checked following the procedure given in [11] for com-
bined axial and transverse compression.

9. STIFFENING RINGS Figure 13. Shear load due to unit vertical shear force

9.1. SUPPORT REACTIONS

The stiffening rings are structural elements that trans-
fer the tank static and dynamic load to the ship structure
by saddle supports. Dimensioning of the rings is a rather
complex task since it requires performance of a FEM
analysis.
The support reaction consists of a part of the tank and
cargo weight, and dynamic load that depends on accel-
eration. It may be written in the form
F = C aβ W (21)
where C is reaction coefficient as a percentage of weight
transferred to the support, αβ is dimensionless accelera-
tion including gravity, and W is total tank weight. The
support acceleration αβ is determined for the ship in up-
right position and the biased ship as explained in Section
5. The calculated reactions for all four supports are listed Figure 14. Shear load due to unit horizontal shear force
in Table 4.

Table 4 Reactions of tank supports

Tank No. 2 1
Volume, V [m3] 4485 1960
Cargo weight, Wc [kN] 42678 18651
Steel weight, Ws [kN] 4268 1865
Total weight, W [kN] 46946 20516
Frame No. 51 85 111 136
Reaction coefficient, C 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Acceleration, αβ, β = 0° 1.6776 1.5807 1.7581 2.0361
Acceleration, αβ, β = 30° 1.3697 1.3443 1.3921 1.4787
Reaction, F [kN], β = 0° 39378 37104 18035 20886
Reaction, F [kN], β = 30° 32151 31555 14280 15168
Figure 15. Sign convention of positive shear load for biased tank

9.2. RING LOAD Shear load for the bilobe tank is determined for both
vertical and horizontal tank shear force of the unit value.
The stiffening ring is exposed to the action of circum-
The calculation is performed by the program STIFF [12],
ferential shear load due to tank bending between two
based on the theory of the thin-walled girders [13], and
supports. According to the GL Rules the ring strength
the results are shown in Figures 13 and 14 respectively.
has to be considered for the ship in the upright and biased
The resulting shear load for the quarters of the biased
positions. For circular stiffening rings of Tank No. 1 the
tank is obtained as follows, Figure 15:
problem may be solved analytically in a rather simple
way. However, for bilobe Tank No. 2 numerical proce- quarters 1 and 3: q = qv cos β + qh sin β
dure has to be applied. quarters 2 and 4: q = qv cos β − qh sin β (22)
where β is the inclination angle. The direction of the
positive shear load is indicated in Figure 15.

9.3. RING FORCES

The ring sectional forces due to the relative circum-
ferential shear load are determined by the finite element
method, using the program SESAM [14]. The model
cross-section includes the assumed T-profile of the ring
and the effective breadth of the tank shell. The sectional
properties are the following:
• cross-section area, A = 0.057 m2,
• shear area, As = 0.025 m2, Figure 17. Deformation of stiffening ring, biased ship, β = 30°
• moment of inertia, I = 0.0098 m4
The same properties are assumed for the double side
girder of the longitudinal bulkhead of the bilobe tank in
the first step of the analysis.

The FEM model consists of a number of beam ele-

ments and it is placed on elastic springs that simulate be-
haviour of the wood layer on the tank saddle support. The
procedure is illustrated for the case of bilobe ring, Figure
16. The springs are distributed on each tank side within
the central angle -25° to 75° of the saddle foundation,
and they are directed radially. The spring stiffness yields
ab
k=E (23)
h
where Figure 18. Normal force of stiffening ring, biased ship, β = 30°
E - Young's modulus of wood
a - arc distance between springs
b - wood breadth
h - wood thickness
In the considered case, a = 0.829 m, b = 0.4 m,
h = 0.2 m, and for the wood material known by the com-
mercial name Lignostone H II/2/30-E5, Rochling Plastics
USA, E = 1.655·107 kPa.
The calculation is performed for the tank in the up-
right and biased positions. In the former case all springs
are pressed and active, while in the latter case some pe-
ripheral springs cause tensile force and are therefore ex-
cluded from the analysis.
Figure 19. Shear force of stiffening ring, biased ship, β = 30°

Figure 16. FEM model of bilobe stiffening ring Figure 20. Bending moment of stiffening ring, biased ship, β = 30°
 Figure 21. Stiffening rings of Tank No. 2 at Frs. 51 and 85

The obtained results, i.e. the ring deformation, the support is increased due to high values of the sectional
normal force, the shear force and the bending moment for forces in the case of the tank biased for 30°, Figure 21.
the biased tank as a worse case are shown in Figs. 17, 18, In a similar way scantlings of Tank No. 1 are deter-
19 and 20. The ring is mainly deformed out off the sad- mined. Tangential load q at the angle φ of the circular
dle. The normal force is high at the bottom. The shear stiffening ring of radius r, due to shear force Q, is pre-
force is a stepwise function due to the discretised elastic sented in the form
foundation. Thus, an average approximation function is Q
relevant with the maximum value at the ends of the sad- q= sin(ϕ + β ) (25)
rπ
dle. The bending moment takes the maximum value at
the end of the saddle in the lower lobe of the biased tank. where β is bias angle.
The actual sectional forces for each stiffening ring are
obtained by multiplying their relative values calculated Scantlings of the circular ring are shown in Figure 22.
for the unit tank shear force with the corresponding value Distribution of the equivalent von Mises stress at five
of the support reaction, Table 4. points of the ring cross section at Fr. 136 in case of bi-
The stresses caused by the actual sectional forces are ased ship for 30°, is presented in Figure 23. Clockwise
calculated at five positions of the ring cross-section in numbering of the arch finite elements starts from the tank
two Gaussian points of each beam element of the ring top. It is evident that maximum stress value is within the
FEM model. The stress positions are chosen in the sym- allowable value of 308 N/mm2.
metry line of the cross-section, at the level of neutral
axis, at the ends of the web and at the outer side of the
flange and tank shell. Furthermore, the equivalent
stresses at the same positions and points are determined
using the von Mises formula
σ e = σ x 2 + σ y 2 − σ xσ y + 3τ xy 2
σ x = σn +σb (24)
where σx and σy are normal stresses in the x and y direc-
tion respectively, τxy is shear stress in the xy plane, σn
and σb are normal stresses due to the axial force and the
bending moment respectively.

The final dimensions of the stiffening rings at different

cross sections are determined by varying the initial scant-
lings until meeting the stress criteria. Based on the differ-
ence between equivalent and allowable stresses, the flange
and web thickness and the web height are changed. The
web height of each stiffening ring at the end of the saddle Figure 22. Stiffening rings of Tank No. 1 at Frs. 111 and 136
 Figure 23. Von Mises stress in stiffening ring of Tank No. 1 at Fr. 136, biased ship, β = 30°

The scantlings of the bulkhead girders are determined

in an ordinary way assuming that they are simply sup-
10. SWASH BULKHEADS ported at the ends.
The strength of the elastic springs is checked consid-
The swash bulkhead is designed as a perforated plate ering one half of the spring as a cantilever clamped at the
with grillage stiffening, Figure 24. The bulkhead is at- vacuum ring. This assumption is realistic due to the exis-
tached to the vacuum ring and the vertical girder of the tence of the inflexion point of spring deflection, Figure 25.
longitudinal bulkhead by elastic springs, Figure 25.
The swash bulkhead has to withstand sloshing pres-
sure, which according to the GL recommendation is
given by the simple formula
p = (4 − L / 150 ) l ρ (26)
where L is ship length, l is length of liquid free surface,
and ρ is cargo density. Taking into account l = 12.628 m,
yields p = 0.4015 bar.

Figure 24. Swash bulkhead Figure 25. Elastic spring

11. USCG REQUIREMENTS purpose nesting of structural elements on standard plates
has to be done carefully with the required minimum dis-
If a Liquefied Gas Tanker intends to enter into the tances since high tensile steel is much more expensive
U.S. territorial waters, the ship owner has to apply for a than ordinary steel for ship structures.
"letter of compliance". In that case the relevant classifi-
cation society has to certify the compliance with some
"special design standards" of the U.S. Coast Guard,
which are somewhat stronger than the Classification REFERENCES
Rules based on the IMO requirements. When the C type
cargo tanks are in question, the most important special [1] ...: 'Ship Design and Construction', Editor T. Lamb,
design standard is a lower allowable membrane stress for SNAME, Jersey City, 2004.
the tank shell. For nickel and carbon-manganese steels [2] ...: 'Safe Havens for Disabled Gas Carriers', Society
factor A is 4 instead of 3, while factor B is the same, i.e. of International Gas Tanker & Terminal Operators
equals 2. In the considered case Ltd, Third Edition, February, 2003.
Rm R [3] ...: 'Resolution MSC.5(48) International Code for the
= 135 N/mm 2 and e = 195 N/mm 2 Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liq-
A B
uefied Gases in Bulk', IMO, Edition 1993.
i.e. σam= 135 N/mm2.
[4] BÖCKENHAUER, M., 'Some notes on the practical
Since the USCG use the same formula for the design application of the IMCO Gas Carrier Code to pres-
vapour pressure P0, which depends on the allowable sure vessel type cargo tanks', Proceedings of Confer-
membrane stress σam, as a result the value of the USCG ence with Exhibition, GASTECH, 1981.
vapour pressure is lower than that of the IMO Code. [5] ...: 'Rules for Classification and Construction, I Ship
However, the influence of these differences on the tank Technology, 1 Seagoing Ships, 6 Liquefied Gas
shell thickness is not linear, and therefore the thickness Tankers', Germanischer Lloyd, 2000.
has to be determined by repeating the classification de- [6] SENJANOVIĆ, I., RUDAN, S., LJUŠTINA, A.M.,
termination procedure with the new vapour pressure 'Remedy for misalignment of bilobe cargo tanks in
value and the allowable membrane stress. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Carriers', Journal of Ship
For the considered tanks, the value of 3.2 bar is found Production, Vol. 20, No.3, August 2004.
as the USCG design vapour pressure, P0. The liquid pres- [7] SENJANOVIĆ, I., MRAVAK, Z., SLAPNIČAR,
sures Pgd, which depend on ship acceleration, are the V., GOSPIĆ, I., 'Structure design of bilobe cargo
same as determined in Section 4. Shell thickness is calcu- tanks in Liquefied Gas Carriers', Brodogradnja
lated by the same formulae given in Section 5, utilising 50(2002)3, 323-334.
the USCG value for the allowable membrane stress [8] ...: 'Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 46 -
σam = 135 N/mm2. Shipping, Chapter I – Coast Guard, Department of
As a result of the repeated calculation, the shell thic- Transportation, Part 154 – Safety standards for self-
kness is somewhere increased up to 1 mm. propelled vessels carrying bulk liquefied gases',
1999.
[9] …: 'AD Merkblatt B3', Edition 10.90, 1990.
[10] ...: 'Handbook of Structural Stability', Edited by Col-
12. CONCLUSION umn Research Committee of Japan, Corona Publish-
ing Company, Ltd. Tokyo, 1971.
Liquefied Gas Carriers are special and sophisticated [11] HUGHES, O.F., 'Ship Structural Design, A Ration-
ships. Due to high pressure and low temperature, the de- ally-Based, Computer-Aided Optimization Ap-
sign of their cargo tanks requires special attention. There- proach', SNAME, 1988.
fore, the Classification Rules are implementation of the [12] FAN, Y., SENJANOVIĆ, I., 'STIFF User's manual',
IMO Code requirements. Also, for ships entering the US Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Ar-
territorial waters, the US Coast Guard requirements have chitecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, 1990.
to be met. [13] SENJANOVIĆ, I., FAN, Y., 'A higher-order theory
This paper deals with the design of the cylindrical of thin-walled girders with application to ship struc-
and bilobe C type cargo tanks where the latter is the most tures', Computers and Structures, Vol.43, No.1,
interesting problem. This complex task is analysed in de- p.31-52, 1992.
tails. Determination of scantlings for each structural ele- [14] ...: 'SESAM User's manual', Det norske Veritas,
ment is illustrated for the case of an actual LPG Carrier. Høvik, 1999.
Thus, the presented procedure may be used as a design
standard and applied in similar cases.
Small details as welding joints are not presented. Note: International Maritime Organization (IMO),
Specification of the material also requires special atten- formerly known as the Inter-Governmental Maritime
tion. The size of the tank shell segments depends on stan- Consultative Organization (IMCO), was established in
dard plate dimensions and possible fabrication in the 1958 through the United Nations to coordinate inter-
shipyard, i.e. automatic cutting and bending. For these national maritime safety and related practices.