See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277404678

A new block assembly method for shipbuilding at sea

Article  in  Structural Engineering & Mechanics · June 2015

DOI: 10.12989/sem.2015.54.5.999

CITATION READS

1 5,633

3 authors:

Bilin Zhang Seung-Hwan Boo

Hyundai Heavy Industries Korea Maritime and Ocean University
1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION    23 PUBLICATIONS   214 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jin-Gyun Kim
Kyung Hee University
101 PUBLICATIONS   847 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

[Applied Sciences] Special Issue: Computational Modeling and Simulation of Solids and Structures: Recent Advances and Practical Applications View project

Data-driven MBD View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jin-Gyun Kim on 07 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 54, No. 5 (2015) 999-1016
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/sem.2015.54.5.999 999

A new block assembly method for shipbuilding at sea

Bilin Zhang1a, Seung-Hwan Boo2b and Jin-Gyun Kim3
1
Hyundai Heavy Industries (Shanghai) R & D Co., Ltd, 498 Guoshoujing Road, Shanghai 201-203,
Republic of China
2
Division of Ocean Systems Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology,
291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu 305-701, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
3
Department of System Reliability, Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials,
156, Gajeongbuk-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-343, Republic of Korea

(Received March 10, 2015, Revised April 20, 2015, Accepted April 27, 2015)

Abstract. In this paper, we introduce a new method for assembly of shipbuilding blocks at sea and
present its feasibility focusing on structural safety. The core concept of this method is to assemble ship
building blocks by use of bolting, gluing and welding techniques at sea without dock facilities. Due to its
independence of dock facilities, shipyard construction capability could be increased considerably by the
proposed method. To show the structural safety of this method, a bulk carrier and an oil tanker were
employed, and we investigated the structural behavior of those ships to which the new block assembly
method was applied. The ship hull models attached with connective parts are analyzed in detail through
finite element analyses, and the cargo capacity of the bulk carrier is briefly discussed as well. The results of
these studies show the potential for applying this new block assembly method to practical shipbuilding.
Keywords: ship blocks assembly method; shipbuilding, structural design; stress assessment; finite element
method

1. Introduction

Conventionally, large ships are constructed by assembling small blocks of the final structure
(Eyres 2007). Since the assembly process is generally performed in a dry dock by welding, the
construction capability is largely dependent on the dock facility. Because there is a continuing
trend toward ships of greater size, many shipbuilding companies are faced with tremendous costs
to expand their dock facility.
To alleviate this limitation and increase construction capability, a variety of methods have been
proposed to advance the shipbuilding process. For example, by applying underwater welding
method, large ship blocks could be assembled at sea (Eyres 2007). STX Offshore & Shipbuilding
connects large ship blocks in a floating dock (http://www.stx.co.kr/), Samsung Heavy Industry has

Corresponding author, Senior Researcher, E-mail: [email protected]

a
Researcher, E-mail: [email protected]
b
Ph.D. Student, E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2015 Techno-Press, Ltd.

http://www.techno-press.org/?journal=sem&subpage=8 ISSN: 1225-4568 (Print), 1598-6217 (Online)
1000 Bilin Zhang, Seung-Hwan Boo and Jin-Gyun Kim

Fig. 1 Step 1 of the new block assembly method

also operated floating docks for the shipbuilding process. Hanjin Heavy Industries developed a
working module to create dry space in which laborers could weld ship sections in the water (Lee et
al. 2003). To increase shipyard construction ability, Hyundai Heavy Industries assembled ship
blocks totally on land without using dry dock (http://hhi.co.kr/). Recently, the simulation based
methods and optimization techniques have been also employed shipbuilding planning (Inozu et al.
2006, Kim et al. 2005). However, such methods require advanced operation techniques and
addition of shipbuilding facilities.
In contrast to the methods used to assemble block of steel structures, bolting and gluing
techniques have been widely used to construct concrete floating structures at sea. This is possible
because of the large cross-sections of connective parts, and due to the material properties of
concrete. An excellent example of this application is the SR520 Bridge over Lake Washington,
USA (WSDT 2013), which is a 2.4 km long assemblage of concrete pontoons (25~50 m). Since
each concrete pontoon is waterproofed, assembly procedures, including bolting and gluing, could
be easily performed on the water. Our idea presented in this study is motivated by the fact that
these techniques are also possible for steel ships, if a proper steel-concrete composite structure is
adopted for the parts connecting the ship blocks.
Similar techniques were used in recent proposal we made for assembling ship blocks at sea
without dock facility (Lee et al. 2011). This is a method that, after fabricating waterproofed ship
blocks in the dry dock, assembly procedures using mainly bolting and gluing methods are
performed on the sea. This is made possible by using prefabricated ship blocks with steel-concrete
composite connective parts. To be more easily assembled at sea, the connective parts of the ship
capability could be increased without expanding dock facilities, and maximum ship size, restricted
by the dock size, could become flexible.
 A new block assembly method for shipbuilding at sea 1001

Fig. 2. Step 2 of the new block assembly method

In this paper, we first describe the concept of new block assembly method and its detail. Then,
the strength assessment of the ship blocks applying the new assembly method is conducted. Two
kinds of target ships are chosen to be analyzed, which are a bulk carrier and an oil tanker. In order
to determine the number of steel bars for one section and the size of connective part, preliminary
calculation for the connective part is performed. Next, we establish the finite element models of
the two target ships that are attached with connective parts to check the maximum effective stress.
In addition, changes in torsional stiffness and cargo capacity caused by the attachment of
connective parts are investigated.

2. New block assembly method

Recently, Lee and his colleagues proposed a new ship block assembly method for use at sea
without a dock facility (Lee et al. 2011). In this section, we specifically explain the procedure of
the new assembly method.
(Step 1) Ship segments are fabricated in the form of several large ship blocks on dry docks. At
the same time, the connective parts are fabricated, see Fig. 1. Connective parts are made up of steel
and concrete, which consist of concave and convex modules of ship hull to be more easily
assembled at sea. To ensure the water-tightness of the ship blocks, temporary steel plates are
installed on both concave and convex modules, and blank holes for steel bars are waterproofed
using rubber packing.
1002 Bilin Zhang, Seung-Hwan Boo and Jin-Gyun Kim

Fig. 3 Step 3 of the new block assembly method

Fig. 4 Step 4 of the new block assembly method

(Step 2) Next, the concave and convex modules are welded to each ship block in the dry dock,
see Fig. 2, and the ship blocks are moved for the assembly procedure to sea. Note that the
assembly procedure must be performed in still water conditions to prevent overturn by unpredicted
wave loads.
(Step 3) In order to assemble the ship blocks, they should be aligned horizontally. In this step,
the ballasting tanks of their lighter ship blocks are filled with seawater so that all the blocks
become of similar draft, see Fig. 3. If the ballast of each block is insufficient, extra ballasting tanks
could be applied to adjust the alignment of the ship blocks.
(Step 4) Tug boats are used to drag the ship blocks close together. When two ship blocks are close
 A new block assembly method for shipbuilding at sea 1003

Fig. 5 Connective parts after pumping out the sea water

Fig. 6 Step 5 of the new block assembly method

1004 Bilin Zhang, Seung-Hwan Boo and Jin-Gyun Kim

enough, tug boats push the ship blocks so that the convex part of one block is inserted into the
concave part of another block, see Fig. 4. The seawater left in the connective part is pumped out
and then both blocks are attached by hydrostatic water pressure. Any extra ballasting tanks are also
removed. Fig. 5 shows the connective part after pumping out the water.
(Step 5) Fig 6 presents a specific assembly procedure. Until Step 4, the blank holes for insertion
of steel bars are waterproofed by rubber packing, see Fig. 6(a). After removing the rubber packing,
the steel bars are put into the holes as shown in Fig. 6(b). Note that rubber seals also could be used
to adjust for the manufacturing tolerance between concave and convex parts. Then, bolts are
connected to both ends of each steel bar, welding is done inside the connective part, and empty
places are filled with grouting materials, see Fig. 6(c). These assembly techniques (i.e., bolting,
welding and gluing) lead to improvements in the strength of the connective parts. The ship blocks
are assembled in this way one after another. After assembling the ship blocks, the steel plates used
for waterproofing are also removed.
Using the new assembly method, the dry dock facility is only used to construct the ship blocks
up to Step 2, Therefore, once the ship blocks are fabricated and cleared from the dry dock, it can
immediately be used to start building the next ship. Moreover, because the assembly of ship blocks
occurs offshore, the ultimate size of a ship does not depend on the size of the dry dock. Due to its
advantages, the proposed block assembly method could make a major contribution to increased
productivity in the shipbuilding enterprise. In the following sections, we report the results of our
investigation into the feasibility of the proposed assembly method.

3. Preliminary calculations

To design a ship to be constructed using the new assembly method, the dimension of
connective part and the number of connecting steel bars need to be decided to meet the section
requirements (e.g., section modules and inertial moments). Here, we present the necessary
preliminary calculation procedures using Common Structural Rules (CSR) (IACS 2006). We
consider two target ships to conduct the strength analysis of the ship structure attached with
connective part. One is 80,000 DWT1 bulk carrier (Amlashi and Moan 2008), the other one is
159,000 DWT oil tanker (Read et al. 2000).
In the CSR, the minimum section module Zmin of the hull is given by
Z min  0.9kCwv L2 B(Cb  0.7)  10 6 (1)
with
2
 300  L  3
C wv  10.75    , (2)
 100 
where k and Cwv represent the steel factor and wave coefficient, respectively. L, B, and Cb represent
the ship length, breadth, and block coefficient, respectively, and these parameters of the two target
ships are given in Table 1.

1
Deadweight tonnage (DWT)
 A new block assembly method for shipbuilding at sea 1005

Table 1 Parameters of target ships

Items Bulk carrier Oil tanker
L 223.8 m 272.7 m
B 32 m 46.2 m
D 20 m 25.3 m
Cb 0.896 0.830
Cwv 9.916 10.329
k 1 1
Imin 152.7 m4 410.0 m4
Zmin 22.8 m3 50.1 m3

Table 2 The preliminary calculation results of connective part sections

Bulk carrier Oil tanker
Case Nside Nbottom 2r (mm) tc (mm)
I (m4) Z ( m3) I (m4) Z ( m3)
1 8 8 80 160 266.4 22.8 660.7 50.1
2 10 10 70 160 265.2 22.7 660.5 50
3 10 10 80 150 265.6 22.7 659.5 50
4 10 10 80 160 267.8 22.9 663.3 50.2

The minimum inertia moment Imin is also given by

I min  2.7Cwv L3 B(Cb  0.7) 10 8 . (3)
Based on Eq. (1) and Eq. (3), the minimum section modules and minimum inertia moment of
the two target ships were calculated, see Table 1.
Because the preliminary calculations for the two target ships were quite similar, we just show
the calculation procedure for the bulk carrier. Furthermore, only the results for the sagging
condition are considered here because the values of I and Z for the hogging condition are much
higher than for the sagging condition. In this case, the upper and lower sides of the structure are
bearing tensile and compressive stresses, respectively. Note that the connective part is a kind of
composite structure made up of concrete and steel, and that the concrete part that is bearing tension
will not be taken into consideration (Assakkaf 2003). As a result, the concrete below the neutral
axis is only considered for bending deflection. To calculate the inertia moment of the connective
part, the distance between the neutral axis and the bottom is calculated first, and it is denoted z.
After calculating it, the inertia moment of the connective part section is calculated by

I
 
Es I plate  I bar  Ec I c
, (4)
Es
where Es and Ec are Young’s modulus of steel and concrete, respectively, and Iplate, Ibar and Ic
represent the inertia moment of steel plate, steel bar and concrete parts, respectively.
Subscript s is steel and subscript c is concrete. Here, Es=200 GPa and Ec=20 GPa. Poisson’s
ratio of both steel and concrete is defined as 0.3 in this work.
The section modulus of the connective part is also calculated by
1006 Bilin Zhang, Seung-Hwan Boo and Jin-Gyun Kim

I
Z , (5)
z max

where zmax is the maximum distance from the neutral axis to section members. Note that I and Z
are defined considering minimum values calculated in Eqs. (1) and (3) (I≥Imin and Z≥Zmin).
According to above procedures, the preliminary calculations for the connective parts are
finished. Table 2 shows the calculation results of four different cases for each target ship. Next, we
consider four variables: number of steel bars in the side and in the bottom hull (Nside and Nbottom),
concrete thickness (tc), and the steel bar diameter (2r). Table 2 shows that every case of the two
target ships meets the requirements of the inertia moments shown in Table 1, but only Case 4 of
the two target ships satisfies the minimum section modulus. For this reason, we here consider
stress assessment for Case 4 using finite element (FE) analysis.

4. Finite element analysis

FE analysis is widely used to evaluate the structural safety of ships and floating structures
(Amlashi and Moan 2008, Kim, J.H. et al. 2014, Kim, J.G. et al. 2014, Kim, K.T. et al. 2014, Liu
et al. 2005, Paik et al. 2001, Servis et al. 2003). In this paper, we performed the stress assessment
using ADINA (Automatic Dynamic Incremental Nonlinear Analysis), which is a commercial finite
element analysis program. This analysis was conducted in accordance with the CSR (IACS 2006).

Table 3 Stiffener size and hull thicknesses of the connective part in bulk carrier
Items Minimum (mm) Maximum (mm)
Deck 20 24
Outer Side plate 20 24
Outer bottom plate 18 24
Inner bottom plate 18 20
Hopper, topside sloping plate 16 18
Longitudinal girder 19 19
Side frame 20 20
Corrugated bulkhead 16 18
Horizontal girder 18 18
Longitudinals 283×9+100×14 380×10+100×21

Table 4 Boundary conditions of bulk carrier

Translational Rotational
Location
Dx Dy Dz Rx Ry Rz
Independent points - Fixed Fixed - - -
Aft end
Longitudinal members RL* RL RL - - -
Independent points Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed - -
Fore end
Longitudinal members RL RL RL - - -
* RL means rigidly linked to the relevant degree of freedom of the independent points.
 A new block assembly method for shipbuilding at sea 1007

4.1 Analysis of a bulk carrier

The FE model needs to include three cargo holds and four transverse bulkheads, and need to
cover both sides of the ship structure. We defined the connective part size for Case 4 in Table 2.
Longitudinals and steel bars were modeled by Timoshenko beam, and steel plate and hull were
modeled by MITC4 shell (Dvorkin and Bathe, 1984, Lee et al. 2008, Lee et al. 2014). The size of
longitudinals, and requirements for hull thickness were determined by considering the CSR for the
bulk carrier, see Table 3. Concrete material is used in the connective part, and hexahedron solid
element is used for its FE modeling. The total number of DOFs of the FE model is about 110,000,
see Fig. 7.
In FE analysis, ship structures are generally considered a simply supported beam. Therefore,
both ends of the FE model are to be simply supported using independent points, which are the end
points at neutral axis on centerline. The simple support conditions are applied to these independent
points, and since there are no deformations at the ends of simply supported beam, all the nodes on
the longitudinal members at both end sections are to be linked rigidly to these independent points
(IACS 2006, Servis et al. 2003). The details of the boundary conditions are shown in Table 4.

Fig. 7 FE model of bulk carrier

1008 Bilin Zhang, Seung-Hwan Boo and Jin-Gyun Kim

Fig. 8 Effective stresses of bulk carrier (N/m2): (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2, and (c) Case 3

Table 5 Loading cases of bulk carrier

Case Draught (Ts) Loading pattern (t/m3) Aft Mid Fore Design wave

1 8.32 m Beam sea

2 8.32 m Beam sea

Following
3 8.32 m
sea

From among the loading cases described in the CSR of the bulk carrier, three loading cases that
lead to the most severe tensile stress for the connective part were chosen to be analyzed, see Table
5. Here, Ts is scantling draught that is the maximum draught condition. In design wave, beam sea
means that waves come from the vertical direction of the ship, and following sea means that waves
come following the direction of the ship movement. The calculated effective stresses for the three
 A new block assembly method for shipbuilding at sea 1009

Table 6 Stress assessment of bulk carrier

Effective stresses of loading cases (MPa) Allowable stress
Group Thickness
1 2 3 (MPa)
Concrete 160 22.3 21.5 28.4 40
Inner side steel plate 30 302.9 296.1 343.0 345.6
Back side steel plate 25 118.0 116.6 137.9 235
Outer side steel plate 30 271.4 270.4 319.1 345.6
Deck 45 200.8 212.1 280.9 301.3
Steel bar - 324.6 321.3 311.6 345.6

Table 7 Stiffener size and hull thicknesses of the connective part in oil tanker
Items Minimum (mm) Maximum (mm)
Deck 16 18
Outer side plate 16 18
Inner side plate 14 16
Outer bottom plate 18 20
Inner bottom plate 16 18
Tank bottom plate 16 18
Longitudinal girder 16 18
Horizontal stringers 14 20
Transverse bulkhead 16 18
Longitudinal bulkhead 16 18
Horizontal girder 18 18
Longitudinals 283×9+100x14 333×9+100×19

loading cases are plotted in Fig. 8, and those details are presented in Table 6.
In the CSR for the bulk carrier, the allowable stress of steel is defined by
1.00 mild steel,
235 
 allow  with k  0.78 higher strength steel in grade 32, (6)
k 0.68
 higher strength steel in grade 40.

Considering the calculated effective stresses, the backside steel plate and deck could be
constructed using mild steel or higher strength steel (Grade 32). However, the higher strength steel
should be used for the steel bars and other steel plates in the connective part. For the concrete
parts, the low level allowable stress, generally 40 MPa, is enough in these three loading cases.

4.2 Analysis of an oil tanker

Here, we consider an oil tanker. The specific size of its connective part was presented in Table
2. The size of longitudinals and requirements for hull thickness were determined by considering
the CSR for oil tankers, see Table 7. The FE model of the oil tanker is modeled by 100,000 DOFs.
1010 Bilin Zhang, Seung-Hwan Boo and Jin-Gyun Kim

Fig. 9 Arrangement of ground spring elements in oil tanker

Table 8 Gound spring elements in oil tanker

Spring elements Anet (mm2) ks (MPa)
V1 420.8 13.64×103
Vertical direction V2 464.4 15.05×103
V3 657.5 21.31×103
H1 413.1 13.39×103
Horizontal
H2 442.8 14.35×103
direction
H3 577.5 18.72×103

Table 9 Boundary conditions of oil tanker

Translational Rotational
Location
Dx Dy Dz Rx Ry Rz
Longitudinal members RL RL RL
Independent point Fixed - - - - -
Aft end +
Deck - Spring - - - -
Inner and outer bottom plates - - Spring - - -
Longitudinal members RL RL RL
Independent point - - - - - -
Fore end
Deck - Spring - - - -
Inner and outer bottom plates - - Spring - - -
+Spring means the ground spring element.

The boundary conditions of the oil tanker are very similar to those of the bulk carrier, but, in
the analysis of the oil tanker, ground spring elements are added to reduce the stress concentration
caused by the rigid link between the independent points and the nodes of the end section. The
spring constant ks of the individual ground spring element, to be applied at each end of the cargo
tank model, is given by (IACS 2006)
 A new block assembly method for shipbuilding at sea 1011

Anet Es
ks  0.77 , (7)
Lt N p

where Anet is the shearing area of the individual structural member under consideration, Lt is the
length of cargo tank between bulkheads, and Np is the number of nodal points to which ground
spring elements are applied to the structural member. In this study, we here use Lt=36 m and
Np=132. The arrangement and details of the ground spring elements are presented in Fig. 9 and
Table 8, respectively. The boundary conditions of the oil tanker are shown in Table 9. These were
conducted in accordance with Appendix B.2.6 of the CSR for oil tankers (IACS 2006).
We selected three representative loading cases from the CSR for oil tankers, see Table 10. The
calculated effective stresses in the three loading cases are presented in Fig. 10 and Table 11. Head
sea means that the wave comes from the head direction of the ship.
In the CSR for oil tankers, the maximum yield stress of steel is defined as
 max   yd with   0.9 , (8)

where σyd and γ are the yield stress and safety factor, respectively, and it should be no greater than
315 MPa. As a result, the maximum yield stress of steel in the connective part is 283.5 MPa, and
this value satisfies the effective stresses calculated for the oil tanker. The effective stress on the
concrete part is also acceptable, see Table 11.

4.3 Torsional stiffness

For a ship hull with large deck openings such as bulk carriers, it is necessary to investigate the
hull girder response to torsion. In this section, we compare the torsion response of ships built using
conventional shipbuilding, and using the proposed new assembly method.
For FE modeling of the bulk carrier using the new block assembly method, the same FE model
used in Section 4.1 is used again. However, the boundary condition is slightly different. It has the
same rigid links, but all DOFs at the nodes of the unloaded end of the model are fixed, and other
DOFs at the other end of the model are set to be free (Paik et al. 2001). The FE model of the bulk
carrier using the conventional shipbuilding method can be similarly constructed except for the
connective parts.
For torsional stiffness analysis, a single wave torsional moment MWT is considered. In the CSR
for bulk carriers, MWT is defined as
MW T  M W T1  MW T2 , (9)

with
L 2  2y 
M W T1  0.4C B DC b sin  , (10a)
Ts  L 

 y 
M W T2  0.22CLB 2Cb sin   , (10b)
 L
where y is the location of the longitudinal axis. Note that the FE model here is not the whole bulk
carrier model, but only three cargo holds (0.2L≤y≤0.8L). To calculate the maximum value, the
torsional bending moment is applied to one end of the bulk carrier (y=0.2L). Then, using Eq. (9), a
1012 Bilin Zhang, Seung-Hwan Boo and Jin-Gyun Kim

Table 10 Loading cases of oil tanker

Case Draught (0.9Ts) Loading pattern (t/m3) Design wave

1 15.75 m Head sea

2 15.75 m Head sea

3 15.75 m Head sea

Port (P), Starboard (S)

Fig. 10 Effective stresses of oil tanker (N/m2): (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2, and (c) Case 3
 A new block assembly method for shipbuilding at sea 1013

Table 11 Stress assessment of oil tanker

Effective stresses of loading cases (MPa) Yield stress
Group Thickness
1 2 3 (MPa)
Concrete 160 19.4 23.0 17.9 40
Inner side steel plate 20 108.4 109.5 126.5 283.5
Back side steel plate 30 166.7 189.7 126.6 283.5
Outer side steel plate 25 111.2 137.8 108.7 283.5
Deck 25 86.5 268.5 106.8 283.5
Steel bar - 197.7 232.5 147.7 283.5

Fig. 11 Effective stresses of torsion in bulk carrier (N/m2): (a) The new block assembly method, (b) The
conventional shipbuilding method

single wave torsional moment MWT of the bulk carrier is calculated as 5.21×105 KNm.
Fig. 11 shows the effective stresses of the bulk carrier FE models using conventional
shipbuilding and the new block assembly methods, and the maximum effective stress of the ship
structure members was compared, see Table 12. It clearly shows that the maximum effective
stress, when using the new assembly method, is generally much lower than the stress of the
conventional shipbuilding method. As a result, when the new assembly method is used, the
1014 Bilin Zhang, Seung-Hwan Boo and Jin-Gyun Kim

Table 12 The maximum effective stress under torsion

Section Conventional shipbuilding method (MPa) New block assembly method (MPa)
Transverse bulkhead 58.37 27.04
Stool 139.53 152.21
Inner bottom 15.08 14.58
Topside tank bottom 215.84 124.33
Longitudinal girder 162.18 94.17
Deck knee 165.73 94.12
Side plate 42.61 41.26
Downside tank bottom 140.74 20.62
Deck 184.05 84.65
Outer bottom plating 40.64 37.27

Table 13 Weight and volume changes of ship hull

Conventional shipbuilding New block assembly
method method
Bulk carrier Hull weight (ton) 28.865×103 28.919×103
(80,000 DWT) Volume of a cargo hold (m3) 14.559×103 14.548×103
Oil tanker Hull weight (ton) 41.990×103 42.072×103
(159,000 DWT) Volume of a cargo hold (m3) 26.459×103 26.459×103

attachment by connective parts could help increase the strength of the whole ship to resist wave
torsional moment.

5. Weight and volume changes

To evaluate the economic feasibility of the new block assembly method, we investigated cargo
capacity considering ship weight and volume changes caused by the addition of the connective
parts. The bulk carrier and oil tanker were also considered. The FE model data in ADINA was
used to calculate the hull weight and volume of a cargo hold for the two target ships. Especially,
the weights in two target ships can be got directly in ADINA. Note that, for the attachment of the
connective part, it is only the part of concrete and the small steel plates to embrace the concrete
that cause the weight change.
The volume change of a cargo hold is also simply calculated. In the bulk carrier with single
hull, only the side of the connective part has influence to the cargo volume. In the target bulk
carrier, the connective part length is 0.45 m, width is 0.16 m, and the length between inner bottom
and deck is 12.7 m. Then, the volume change caused by a connective part is 1.83 m3, and the total
volume change of a cargo hold is 11 m3. Unlike the bulk carrier with single hull, the oil tanker has
no influence to the volume change by the new assembly method because it is double hull.
The hull weight and volume of a cargo hold for the two target ships are presented in Table 13.
It shows that changes of hull weight and cargo volume with the new assembly method are under
0.2% for both target ships. As a result, it could be seen that the attachment using the proposed
connective parts exert almost no influence on the ship weight and cargo volume (new method does
not reduce cargo capacity).
 A new block assembly method for shipbuilding at sea 1015

6. Conclusions

We have proposed a new method to assemble ship blocks at sea without additional dock
facility. Using prefabricated ship blocks with the proposed connective parts, assembly at sea
become easy. In the proposed method, bolting, gluing, and welding methods are used to tightly
assemble the ship blocks. We conducted strength analysis for the hull of ships with sections
attached using connective parts (potentially stronger), and the weight and volume changes caused
by applying the new assembly method were investigated (trivial loss of cargo space). Those
numerical results demonstrate the structural safety and the economic feasibility of the proposed
new assembly method.
Applying this method, shipyard construction productivity could be improved (rapid turnover of
dry docks) and ultimate ship size would not be related to the size of dry docks. Although the new
block assembly method is only considered here as a shipbuilding process, it could also provide a
new way to assemble large offshore structures. However, to employ the proposed assembly
method in practical construction, study of local effects such as fatigue and buckling need to be
conducted, and other CSR requirements must be investigated in the future.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Human Resources Development Program (No. 20134030200
300) of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) funded by
the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, and the National Research Foundation of Korea
(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No.2014M2B2A9030561).

References

Amlashi, H.K.K. and Moan, T. (2008), “Ultimate strength analysis of a bulk carrier hull girder under
alternate hold loading condition - a case study”, Marine Struct., 21, 327-352.
Assakkaf, I.A. (2003), “Beams: composite beams; stress concentrations”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Maryland, Washington.
Dvorkin, E.N. and Bathe, K.J. (1984), “A continuum mechanics based four‐node shell element for general
non‐linear analysis”, Engineering Computations, 1(1), 77-88.
Eyres, D.J. (2007), Ship Construction, Elsevier, Oxford, England.
Fearnleys (2014), Fearnleys Weekly Report, Date: 11 June 2014, Fearnresearch.
Inozu, B., Niccolai, M.J., Whitcomb, C.A., MacClaren, B., Radovic, I. and Bourg, D. (2006), “New horizons
for shipbuilding process improvement”, J. Ship Product., 22(2), 87-98.
International Association of Classification Societies (2006), Common structural rules, International
Association of Classification Societies.
Kim, H., Lee, S.S., Park, J.H. and Lee, J.G. (2005), “A model for a simulation-based shipbuilding system in
a shipyard manufacturing process”, Int. J. Comput. Integrat. Manuf., 18(6), 427-441.
Kim, J.H., Park, J.S., Lee, K.H., Kim, J.H., Kim, M.H. and Lee, J.M., (2014), “Computational analysis and
design formula development for the design of curved plates for ships and offshore structures”, Struct.
Eng. Mech., 49(6), 705-726.
Kim, J.G., Cho, S.P., Kim, K.T. and Lee, P.S., (2014), “Hydroelastic design contour for the preliminary
design of very large floating structures”, Ocean Eng., 78, 112-123.
Kim, K.T., Lee, P.S. and Park, K.C., (2014), “A direct coupling method for 3D hydroelastic analysis of
 1016 Bilin Zhang, Seung-Hwan Boo and Jin-Gyun Kim

floating structures”, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 96(13), 842-866.

Lee, P.S., Noh, H.C. and Choi, C.K., (2008), “Geometry-dependent MITC method for a 2-node iso-beam
element”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 29(2), 203-221.
Lee, P.S. et al. (2011), “Method for Constructing ahip on the aea, and connecting block used therein”, Korea
Patent 1020110129216, Korea Institute of Patent Information, Daejeon.
Lee, P.Y. et al. (2003), “Ship construction method and dam for the method”, Korea Patent
1,020,030,067,890, Hanjin Heavy Industry, Pusan.
Lee, Y., Lee, P.S. and Bathe, K.J., (2014), “The MITC3+ shell finite element and its performance”, Comput.
Struct., 138, 12-23.
Liu, Z.S., Swaddiwudhipond, S., Lu, C. and Hua, J., (2005), “Transient energy flow in ship plate and shell
structures under low velocity impact”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 20(4), 451-463.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Pedersen, P.T. and Park, Y.I. (2001), “Ultimate strength of ship hulls under
torsion”, Ocean Eng., 28(8), 1097-1133.
Read, J., Stenseng, A., Hulla, R. and Poulin, D. (2000), “Millennium class tanker structural design - From
owner experience to shipyard launching ways”, Ship Structure Symposium Meeting 2000, Washington,
D.C., United States.
Servis, D., Voudouris, G., Samuelides, M. and Papanikolaou, A. (2003), “Finite element modelling and
strength analysis of hold No. 1 of bulk carriers”, Marine Struct., 16, 601-626.
Washington State Department of Transportation (2013), SR 520 bridge replacement and HOV program,
Washington State Department of Transportation.

PL

View publication stats