Ship Structural Details: 7cte SE P2
Ship Structural Details: 7cte SE P2
Ship Structural Details: 7cte SE P2
N
CD SSC-331
(0
w
N
' 7CTE
SEP2 5 1990
r
T
"c n/
. .ity Codes
I rind/or
l.
.).u .i,:: a1
ia
F1
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
SSC-331
16. Abstract
19. Stscuty Class.#. (of this ,epartl 0 Security Classit. to$ this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Por ce
i
CONTENTS
Section Page
ABSTRACT ... . . . . . .. . . . . .
CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . *. *
. .. . . . . . . .* .-
6. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . 6-1
APPENDICES
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURES
2-10 Local Fatigue Details for Ship Structural Detail 1-B-4 2-10
2-11 Local Fatigue Details for Ship Structural Detail 1-A-i 2-11
iii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)
FIGURES Page
TABLES
iv
_ El
'I o
-L
* 0 04
- =
"+ U - 0+
0;
|.4..3t+
,, ..
"
l'm
j'j3
N~
i7
.
I
5--
.
-
,1"
~ it. -
-1".
=
.U
i -
t
1. INTRODUCTION
o -)details are often the source of cracks and local failure which
can lead to serious damage to the hull girder;
J))the trend towards decreasing ship hull scantlings has the potential
of increasing the frequency and seriousness of cracks and failures at
details;
1-1
in which the midships portions of an additional 36 ships were surveyed. The
results were combined with the results of Ref. 55 to provide data on failure
of details for use by design and repair offices. Ref. 73 summarizes this data
and ranks the details in each family sub-group in order of observed successful
performance.
From these data, the project reported here has developed a guide to
assist a designer in selecting sound, cost-effective details. The guide is a
selection of the best details (i.e., the least expensive details which have
given adequate service) from the many arrangements currently in use. This
report also provides the designer with a simple method for determining the
approximate construction cost (in terms of man-hours) of a wide range of
detail sizes.
1-2
2. REVIEW OF SHIP STRUCTURAL DETAIL LITERATURE
Structural intersections have been the source of many failures (Refs. 10,
11, 20, 24, 30, 32, 33, 36, and 45). Fig. 2-5 shows cracks near the end of a
deep tank stringer where the shear force is greatest. The cross-sectional
area of the girder web has been reduced by the large cutouts.
Fig. 2-6, ". . . shows cracks occurring at the junction between side
shell longitudinals and transverse web frames because the cross-sectional area
of the connection is too small, thus causing high shear stresses at the
support. Normally cracks occur in the fillet weld, and when the connection
has first been broken secondary cracks will appear in the shell at the edge of
the scallop in the vertical web for the longitudinal and at the weld
connection between the web and the shell.
"This problem may be eliminated by increasing the cross-sectional area of
the connection with brackets, collar plates or lapped stiffeners." (Ref. 49)
2-1
LENATI NG ,,ATWC NED\
STIFF MEMBER
FIGURE 2-1
FIGURE 2-2
2-2
POOR DETAILS IMPROVED DETAILS
CRACK !.-bIrENE~"
RRACKP77
LONGFTUCI NAI
C: R ACK
xf DC tA F R PAR qjnpF
I5U LKHEAO
~,j'FLfn
FRR.CKPT TC LnmJ.'L I
CK UQWAL
.
SIE FRAME
RID
ACK7 CALLP
~FIGURE 2-3
2-3
A
FIGURE 2-4
2-4
VCRAV
CRACKS IN A DEEP TANK STRINGER (REF. 49)
lIfQP TRANISVFREA
FIGURE 2-6
2-5
As drawn in Fig. 2-6, there is no direct connection of the longitudinal
to the web frame. Consequently, the end reaction of the longitudinal must
first be transferred to the flat bar stiffener and then into the web frame.
This connection between the longitudinal and the flat bar stiffener has been a
source of cracks in heavily loaded members even when a direct web to
longitudinal stiffener connection is provided as described in the next
paragraph.
2.2 FATIGUE
Fatigue has been identified as the cause of many of the failures in ship
structural details. Of the 6,856 failures observed in Refs. 55 and 59,
approximately 4,050 involved cracking of welds or base materials; the
remainder were buckling failures. Consequently, fatigue probably was involved
in about half of the failures observed.
o geometry,
o stresses or loading condition, and
o material.
2-6
Trip~~~inqo BrcktsBukhad
00
C8
w~b-pting
Bucl! Cracks Occurring at the Junction of Bottom
FIGURE 2-7
Side shell
FIGURE 2-8
2-7
FIGURE 2-9
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL INTERSECTIONS FROM REF. 45
2-8
FIGURE 2-9 (Cont'd.)
2-9
FIGURE 2-10
- 26
20, 2130
39
39C (New)
26 " :
20(S)-20
30A
21(S)-21
2-10
FIGURE 2-11
7A
37A
39B
38(S)-38
7
2-11
TA (New)
or misalignments, or internal weld discontinuities. The magnitude of the
discontinuity has a direct effect on the stress and strain concentrations
which adversely affect the fatigue strength. The detrimental influence of sea
water on fatigue strength is sometimes considered to be a geometrical effect.
Some of the primary stress factors which affect the fatigue behavior are
constant versus random amplitude loading, stress range, type of stress
(compressive is less damaging than tensile stress), residual stresses built-in
during construction, frequency of loading, and the sequence in which variable
loadings are applied. The type of welded steel normally used in shipbuilding
has a smaller effect on fatigue strength than other factors and in some cases
the differences among the various steels are small enough to be neglected
(Ref. 66), particularly for higher cycle fatigue problems.
2-12
of concern here is the effect normal construction tolerances have on the
selection of structural details and how well the different resulting details
perform. As an example, the right hand side of the fourth line of Fig. 2-3
shows a detail in which it is hard to fit the beam to the frame (i.e., the
tolerances on beam length and location must be tightly controlled). However,
this detail performed much better than the detail on the left hand side which
had more liberal tolerances but, consequently, required the bracket to carry
the entire beam load to the shell frame. A similar situation occurs in the
third line of Fig. 2-3. The arrangement on the right is harder to fit and
consequently costs more but it has performed better than the one on the left
with the more liberal fitting tolerances.
In general, lap welded structural details used with angle type framing
members are easier to fit and thus cost less than butt and tee welded
structural details used with tee type framing members. However, the former
details introduce eccentricities into the structural arrangement and it is
harder to maintain structural continuity. Consequently, lap welded details
generally do not perform as well as butt and tee welded details as will be
discussed in Section 3 of this report.
For the project reported here, Refs. 55 and 59 have provided the most
useful data on successful service experience. Consequently, a brief summary
of those reports is included here. As shown in Table 2-1, 86 ships were
surveyed and grouped in 7 categories. For the bulk carriers, containerships,
and general cargo ships, 12 vessels in each category were surveyed in the
midships area only.
TABLE 2-1
16 Bulk Carriers B 3 13
5 Combination
Carriers CC 5 0
24 Containerships C 20 4
17 General cargo G 15 2
2 Miscellaneous M 1 1
9 Naval N 9 0
13 Tanker T 13 0
86 66 20
2-13
Fig. 2-12 summarizes the resulting data: 607,584 details were observed in 634
different configurations which were assigned to 56 family groups and 12
families. Fig. 2-13 gives a description of the primary function of each
family along with a sketch of a typical configuration. Note that the family
numbers are not in order. Family No. 8 (Stiffener Clearance Cutouts) is
inserted before Family Nos. 3 and 4 (Non-tight and Tight Collars) because
these details are so closely related. Also, Family No. 9 (Structural Deck
Cuts) is inserted before Family No. 7 (Miscellaneous Cutouts) because the
former is more important and should be discussed first. This order is
maintained throughout the present report. Because of survey limitations, no
Knife Edge Crossings (Family No. 6) were observed.
Fig. 2-15 shows the average number of details observed and failure rate
versus ship type. The most interesting result is that miscellaneous and naval
ships had very small failure rates of 0.08 and 0.14 percent, respectively.
Since only two miscellaneous ships were observed versus nine naval ships, the
results from the latter type should be given a much higher confidence level.
Since naval ships had almost an order of magnitude smaller failure rate than
the average ship, the differences in naval and commercial ship details are
discussed in Chapter 3 and Appendix C of this report. Ref. 72 gives
the exact geometry of many naval ship details.
Fig. 2-16 shows the number of details observed, the number of failures,
and the failure rate by ship type and location (aft, midships, and forward).
The data has been normalized or ratioed to represent seven ships of each type
to permit more accurate comparison between ship types. From the combined
results (Ref. 55 plus 59), the highest failure rate occurs amidships with the
forward portion of the ships a close second. The highest failure rates were
observed in the following order: amidships on general cargo ships,
containerships, and combination carriers followed by forward on bulk carriers,
containerships, and combination carriers. Similar plots for each detail
family are included in Appendix A.
2-14
607,584
DETAILS OBSERVED
68,586
634 34,012
CONFIGURATI N
56 FAMILY
GRO--57,307
14 20,974
20,654
172
BEAM BRKTS. 7-
i ............
... -- 7, 3
7,534
2
TRIPPING BRKTS.
STIFF. CLEARANCE CUTOUTS 8
NON-TIGHT COLLAR 3 39
TIGHT COLLAR
GUNWAL CONN. 43
- 4.
KNIFE EDGES 3-
DECK CUTOUTS 9
296,689
MISC. CUTOUTS 7 23
STAN . ENDS I(
STIFF. ENDS 8 72
PANEL STIFF. I, 4
5 94
6 35
41
S-7,090
\
_40,729
S'53,837
FIGURE 2-12
2-15
FIGURE 2-13
DETAIL TYPICAL DETAILS SURVEYED
FAMILY TYPICAL
NO. FAMILY NAME FUNCTION - PROVIDES: ,ONFIGURATION
2-16
300
2901
280-
o 80-
70-
60-
CQ 50-
u)
o 40-
6 30-
20-
0o
10- i--
5 4.67
U)
W
4 3.28
3 2.91
H
< 2 1.47 1.72 0.73 1.46
U))
0 -- 0o c
02--4
U~ (n En
0 rJz
&
E4U E- U E-) 0U Z) 0-
E-4) u x 0 Oi D 4
E-4 E-4r. -4
FIGURE
2-1
2-174
15
< 10
E <
z c
U5
0
KEY
- SSC-272 DATA
--- SSC-272+SSC-294
3 2.32
j2 1.64r-
1.27r'-1. 9 1
1 _jgo ""4
0.1 08 o1N 0.58
do B CC C G M N T
SHIP TYPE
FIGURE 2-15
2-18
100
76949
51520
50 45444 46612 45381
'4104813
32053
130 94i 25645
15 1282L 1 120 13
8500 875
690 638
4 17 638
:3 51142- 42-
6F
221 -
10 21 137,~
7
~J 02 13 4 19 3152
3.41
152 0 1 68
3I
2 I
0.o.1 I Io 0 o.o-
0--]I 01
A 0 F A M F A OD F A a F A 0 F A 00 F A M F A l F
B CC C G I N T 7 AVG,SHIPS
FIGURE2-16
SUM OF ALlDETAIL FNILIES - SSC-272DATA
2-19
2.5 GENERAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
In general, the design philosophy for any given structure must be keyed
to the magnitude of the loads and the consequences of a potential failure. On
moderately loaded secondary structures the appropriate structural details can
be much simpler and less costly than those required for highly stressed main
hull grider structure. Some design philosophy has been discussed in the pre-
ceding sections. The paragraphs that follow briefly review and the twelve
families of details as presented in Refs. 50, 51, 55, 59 and 73, and give the
authors' opinions for the failures observed and the design philosophy to use
to avoid the observed problems.
2-20
The stiffener clearance cutouts of Family No. 8 are basically non-tight
collars without the addition of the collar plate. Suggestions made for
non-tight collars and miscellaneous cutouts are applicable to this family.
There were few failures for Detail Family No. 4, tight collars. Most of
the failures for Detail Family No. 5, gunwale connections, were collision
and/or abuse where the sheer strake extended above the deck.
There were a small number of failures in structural deck cuts, Family No.
9, but the critical nature of any failure in a structural deck makes it a very
important area. Structural deck cuts, because of their location, influence
the longitudinal strength of the ship. Therefore, care must be taken to
eliminate both notches in the corners and rough spots to reduce the potential
for fatigue cracks. Well-rounded corners with radii equivalent to 25% of the
width perpendicular to the primary stress flows should be used. Special
reinforcements in the form of tougher or higher strength steel, inserts,
coamings and combinations of the above should be used where fatigue and high
stresses are a problem. Extreme care should be use in locating and sizing
all structural deck cuts to reduce the amount of material that is removed from
the hull girder and to limit the perforated effect when a number of cuts are
located in line athwartship.
For Detail Family No. 7, miscellaneous cutouts, the reasons for failure
were as varied as the types of cutouts. Potential problems can be eliminated
by the designer if, during detail design, proper consideration is given to the
following:
2-21
The most damaging crack observed during the surveys was in the upper box
girder of a containership. This structure is part of the longitudinal
strength structure of the ship, in addition to being subjected to high local
stresses due to container loadings on the upper deck. Openings in this
structure must be located, reinforced and analyzed for secondary bending
streses caused by high shear loads.
In general, failures in stanchion ends, Family No. 10, were cracks which
developed in or at the connection to the attachment structure. The addition of
tension brackets or shear chocks and the elimination of snipes would reduce the
incidence of structural failure. All stanchion end connections should be
capable of carrying the full load of the stanchion in tension or compression.
Stanchions used for container stands or to support such structures as
deckhouses on the upper deck should be attached to the deck with long, tapered
chocks to improve stress flows from hull-induced loads, and in no case should
"V" notches be designed into such connections.
The stiffener ends in Family No. 11 with sniped webs and/or flanges or
square cut ends sustained failures. In nearly all cases, the failures
occurred in the attached bulkhead plate, the web connection when the flange
was sniped, or the shear clip used for square cut stiffener ends.
Panel stiffeners, Family No. 12, while classified as not being direct
load-carrying members, should be designed for the anticipated service load.
For instance, panel stiffeners on tank bulkheads, as any other stiffener
designed for pressure loads, should be designed to carry their portion of the
local load on the panel of plate material. In those instances where panel
sitffeners are subject to pressure head loads, the stiffeners should be
treated in the same manner as other local stiffening.
2-22
3. PERFORMANCE OF STRUCTURAL DETAILS
For the project reported here, most of the details shown in Ref. 59
have been assigned to family groups as shown in Table 3-1 which are more in
line with a designer's needs. For example, the previous family groups used
for tripping brackets were "one side", "two sides", and "flanged". The
comparisons between the first two groups were very useful but the present
classification gives a designer the observed alternatives for stabilizing
stiffeners, shallow girders, deep girders, hatch girders, and bulwarks.
In Figs. 3-1 through 3-16, a total of 220 details are either combined
with similar geometries or eliminated to help focus on the most significant
good and bad design features. A total of 38 details are combined with similar
details when the slight differences in detail geometry had no apparent impact
on service performance. For example, details 1-C-20 and 1-C-21 have a slight
difference in the shape of the bracket yet both performed without failure so
their survey results are combined in Fig. 3-2. In another example, many of
the miscellaneous cutouts of Family No. 7 have been regrouped by location
rather than by function. This reduces the number of details considered
because the same geometry can serve many functions such as an air escape,
drain hole, pipeway, wireway or weld clearance hole. Within each family
group, a further 182 details were eliminated because of relatively infrequent
observed use. This leaves 414 details in Figs. 3-1 through 3-16. The full
list of 634 details ranked as described above can be found in Ref. 73.
3-1
TABLE 3-1
For Stiffeners
For Shallow Girders
For Deep Girders
For Hatch Girders
For Bulwarks
Bars
Bulb Flats
Angles
Tees
Bars
Bulb Flats
Angles
Tees
3-2
Tight Collar Details - Family No. 4
Bars
Bulb Flats
Angles
Tees
Riveted
Welded
Not Reinforced
Reinforced
Hatch Corners
Access Openings
Lapped Web Openings
In Way of Corners
In Way of Plate Edge
Miscellaneous
Full Connection
Padded
Lapped
With End Chocks
With Clips
Sniped
Flat Bars
Shapes
Flat Bars on Girder Webs In Way of Longitudinals
Flat Bars on'Girder Webs
Flanged
3-3
3.1 BEAM BRACKET DETAILS - FAMILY NO. 1
The primary problem area with these details is the hard spot the bracket
gives to the bulkhead plating (see Fig. 3-1). Most of the failures observed
were cracks in the bulkhead. Detail 1-B-9 is close to the original T2 tanker
design. This and similar designs have been extensively analyzed and tested
(Refs. 2, 6, 8, 10, 17, 18, 34, 40 & 67). In addition to the bulkhead, cracks
have been observed in the plate bracket and in the attached shell plating.
The service experience of this and similar details has led to improved details
being fitted in subsequent ships. Generally, the stiffening is now continued
through the bulkhead plating with some bulkhead stiffening fitted to reduce
the hard spot caused by the stiffener flange.
The two details of this group were only observed on naval ships. The hard
spot on the bulkhead plating is distributed over the width of the stiffener
flange so it is less severe than that of the previous group. Detail 1-A-11
should have tangency chocks at the flange knuckle. No failures were observed
but these details should not be used whenever there is a significant load on
the bulkhead plating.
Only one detail was observed in this group and no failures were observed.
The first four details in this group were used on naval ships and no
failures were observed. The last three details were used on commercial ships
and failures were observed on all three. The failures were due to a combination
of factors including sniping of flanges or welding in the flanges but then
omitting the chocks backing up the bracket flanges. In detail 1-A-2 the
flange knuckle was sufficiently small that tangency chocks could be
eliminated. The stress concentrations which can occur when backup chocks are
omitted are well illustrated in Ref. 52.
This group performed similar to the previous one: the naval detail (which
had symmetric sections and adequate chocking) showed no failures while the
commercial detail (which had asymmetric sections and lapped joints) had a
failure.
3-4
FIGURE 3-1
PERFORMANCE OF BEAM BRACKET DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 1
3.5% 4.4% 5%
1-B-10 1-B-4 1-B-8
340/12 320/14 603/45
BUILT-UP
BRKT. W/O
BHD. STIFF.
1-A-1 1-A-11
7210N) 7145N)
PLATE BRKT.
I.W.O. BHD.
STIFF.
1-B-2
190
BUILT-UP
BRKT. I.W.O.
BHD. STIFF.
- , I 11 7 -7T"-
o..8% 3.6% r2%
1-A-5 1-A-9 1-A-6
240/2 110/4 60/15
BUILT-UP
BRKT. I.W.O. 1-A-7 I-A-li0 ".%
GIRD. (410N) 30/1
3-5
3.1.2 Straight Corner Brackets
3.1.2.1 Plate
A wide variety of flat plate corner brackets have been used on commercial
ships (Fig. 3-2) with only a few observed on naval ships. In some cases both
stiffeners are cut clear at their ends (e.g., details 1-C-4 and 1-C-9) while
in others at least one stiffener end is welded in (e.g., details 1-C-20 & 21
and 1-C-3) and in one case a chock was added to increase the lateral stiffness
of the joint (detail 1-C-5). Failures have been observed in more than half of
the configurations with buckling as the predominant failure mode. Providing
adequate bracket thickness to prevent buckling is the primary design problem.
Most of these details provide very little lateral restraint to the attached
stiffening so other details are preferred where the stiffening is heavily
loaded.
3.1.2.2 Flanged
Adding a flange to the flat plate corner brackets eliminates most of the
buckling failures. A few still occur probably because these commercial ship
sections are asymmetric. The weak link in this group is the bracket welding
which must transfer the entire load between the stiffeners in most cases.
3.1.2.3 Built-Up
The built-up straight corner brackets performed without failure and are
characteristic naval ship details (i.e., symmetric sections, flange ends welded
in and backed up, etc.). Detail 1-G-4 would only be adequate for moderately
loaded structures because of the missing tangency chocks.
3.1.3.1 Plate
Using a radiused cut on the inside of a flat plate bracket improves the
stress flow and stiffness distribution of these details. Consequently, these
details performed better than their straight counterparts. A few cracks and
buckles were observed, however. In fatigue tests curved corner brackets have
performed much better than straight corner brackets (Ref. 35).
3.1.3.2 Built-Up
3-6
FIGURE 3-2
PERFORMANCE OF BEAM BRACKET DETAILS-FAMILY NO. l-Cont'd
PLATE
FLANGED
BUILT -UP
rvwv
(4840N) 134 (40N) (90N)
T2.5%
PLATE
BUILT-UPx
x r6.0%
I-F-3 1-F-2 1-F-1 1-K-6 1-F-4 1-F-5
3-7
FIGURE 3-3
PERFORMANCE OF BEAM BRACKET DETAILS-FAMILY NO. l-Cont'd
5.9%%
1--6
1-J-7 1-J-1 1-J-4 /
10 24 102/71032N) 140/17
20%30
End brackets with large radii and adequate plate thickness performed well.
Cracks can be expected with near right angle ends because of the hard spot.
End brackets made from flat plates suffer the same problems as the
corresponding corner brackets: buckling due to insufficient bracket thickness
and eccentric connections.
3-8
FIGURE 3-4
PERFORMANCE OF BEAM BRACKET DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 1-Cont'd
AT "SOFT"r
PLATING 0.3%
S16% r 9
PLATES AT L O3 5;9%7.9% _E 0
RIGID STR.
FLANGED AT 2%
RIGID STR.
BUILT-UP AT14
RIGID STR.
3-9
3.1.5.4 Flanged at Rigid Structure
This group (see Fig. 3-5) was relatively trouble free: only a few cracks
and buckles were observed. Some of the details only provide limited lateral
support (for the web only in details 2-B-18, 2-A-21, and 2-A-30). Others
would only provide lateral support for relatively light stiffening on thick
plating (details 2-A-19 and 2-A-17). unless the bracket is backed up by
structure on the opposite side of the plating. Lateral support on one side of
the stiffener appears to be sufficient.
The relatively few observed failures in this group were cracks at sharp
corners or lapped welds. However, sharp corners and lapped welds performed
well on details very similar to those with failures. Hence the failures must
be on heavily loaded structures or those poorly fabricated or maintained.
Brackets on one side of the member seem to perform as well as those on both
sides except in special cases. One special case would be at knuckles in the
flange of the girder.
More failures were observed in this group than in the previous two groups
combined. This shows a trend for larger structures to have more problems than
smaller ones. One sided brackets seem to perform as well as two sided
brackets except in special cases. Buckling seems to be a more severe problem
(75% of the failures) than cracking. Even reasonably stable details such as
2-C-25 had a significant number of buckling failures which would indicate
quite high lateral loads.
3-1C
FIGURE 3-5
PERFORMANCE OF TRIPPING BRACKET DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 2
I2% 6 7%210
FOR SHALLOWT
GI RDE RS
U
2-A-29 2-B-10 2-B-9 2-A-12 2-A-22
(990N) 620(360N) 520 490 440
_ _.6
FOR DEEP
GIRDERS
0 .6% 1.8%2
3-11
FIGURE 3-6
PERFORMANCE OF TRIPPING BRACKET DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 2-Cont'd
.9% 2 r-
FOR HATCH
GIRDERS
2-C-27 2-C-13
118/50 100/60
bulk carriers were also a problem. Under such loadings these brackets become
load carrying structural members which require careful design in contrast to
normal tripping brackets whose primary function is to merely provide lateral
support to load carrying members.
Failures were observed in all details assigned to this group for many of
the same reasons as hatch girder tripping brackets. In addition, many bulwark
brackets received much abuse from cargo handling. Failures were also observed
where bulwarks were used as tie down points to secure the booms of general
cargo ships. Careful design and adequate backup structure below the deck is
needed for bulwark brackets. Other bulwark failures are discussed in Ref. 24.
3-12
3.3 STIFFENER CLEARANCE CUTOUT DETAILS - FAMILY NO. 8
3.3.1 Bars
BARS I ~i Ui' 3
BULB 01
0
FLATS 41JJ %
8-E-8 8-E-9
1820 4370/3
ANGLES J 0 5
,LjVJ~ .6%hJLe J ,j 2. 0%
2.6% 4.4%
8-D-1&2 8-D-5,6&8
1909/49 12,357/544
TEES
8-A-2
150
3-1 3
3.3.2 Bulb Flats
The two details in this group performed well although there were a few
failures in detail 8-E-9 attributed to an inadequate shear attachment for the
stiffener and poor welding.
3.3.3 Angles
A large variety of geometries has been observed for this group with
failures in many of them. The causes of failures were equally varied: poor
design, fabrication or welding along with neglect, heavy seas, and minor
collisions. Apparently these details provide an inadequate shear attachment
for the angles in many cases along with notches which should be avoided. In
addition, cracks were observed at well rounded cutouts along with some
buckling. This would indicate that collar plates and/or additional stiffening
should have been fitted in many cases. Providing a flange connection in
addition to the normal web connection for these details seems to reduce the
overall failure rate by two-thirds (15,853 observations with 104 failures =
0.7% versus 28,729 observations with 681 failures = 2.4%).
3.3.4 Tees
Non-tight collars (Fig. 3-8) provide two basic functions: increased shear
attachment for the stiffening member and reinforcement of the opening in the
penetrated plate. As a group, these details performed much better than the
simple clearance cutouts of Family No. 8 with almost an order of magnitude
difference in the failure rates (0.16% versus 1.47%, Fig. 2-14).
3.4.1 Bars
Only two configurations are shown for this group. The cutout for the
first seems unusually complicated while the second appears to be an attempt to
utilize the greater ductility of longitudinally loaded versus transversely
loaded fillet welds.
The one detail observed for bulb flats shows the characteristics of most
successful collar details: well rounded cutouts, adequate margins for
trimming, and adequate access for welding and painting.
3.4.3 Angles
3-14
FIGURE 3-8
PERFORMANCE OF NON-TIGHT COLLAR DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 3
BARS
:
3-A-22 3-A-19
120 103
BULB
FLATS
3-A-6
170
ANGLES
0.1% ._912%29
1 03.1%
3-C-3 3-A-3 3-A-25 3-C-12 3-A-16 3-C-10 3-A-17
1480/8 586/5 264/3 250/3 98/2 140/4 130/4
TEES I-T
collar details for angles was observed. The failure rate for these details is
very small and does not seem to be related to whether or not a stiffener
flange attachment is provded.
3.4.4 Tees
3-15
3.5 TIGHT COLLAR DETAILS - FAMILY NO. 4
3.5.1 Bars
The detail most often observed for this group is merely a slot in the
bulkhead which, of course, requires careful fitting. The three piece lapped
collar of detail 4-C-7 would appear to offer little advantage over the single
piece lapped collar of detail 4-C-i to offset the additional welding required.
Flush collars such as detail 4-C-2 should only be necessary on relatively
thick bulkheads at high stress locations.
Again the most observed detail for this group is a simple slot in the
bulkhead. A two piece lapped collar would be a suitable alternative for many
applications although none were observed.
3.5.3 Angles
Most of the details observed in this group are lapped collars although a
reeving slot was observed a significant number of times. The few failures
observed were attributed to neglect and minor collisions. A flush collar
plate might be desirable for thick bulkheads although none were observed.
3.5.4 Tees
3-16
FIGURE 3- 9
!-4Ik o.5%
4-D-1 4-C-2 4-C-7 4-C-I
1422 100 62 211/1
BULB
FLATS
L
4-D-3 4-C-3
ANGLES
500
~jJ
120
L J~~ t
4-A-i 4-A-II 4-D-4 4-A-12 4-A-5 4-A-13 4
2024 1442 1180 645 445 424 360
4-A-2
b1J 4-A-8 4-A-9 4-A-3
9%1
+11.
9,
4-A-6
8%
TEES i r
4-B-3 4-B-6&7 4-B-5 4-B-2 4-B-4 4-B-i 4-B-B
2545 (2100N) (490N) (460N) 453 (150N) 70 (20N)
3-17
3.6 GUNWALE CONNECTION DETAILS - FAMILY NO. 5
3.6.1 Riveted
There were only two detail types in this group (Fig. 3-10) to experience
failures and both cases were attributed to collision and/or abuse in details
where the sheer strake extended above the deck. Since the performance of all
the details is satisfactory the simplest design is the obvious choice.
3.6.2 Welded
FIGURE 3-io
PERFORMANCE OF GUNWALE CONNECTION DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 5
RIVETED
5-A-A-6
5-A 5-A-7
4 36/1 24/2
WELDED
The unreinforced deck cutouts observed (Fig. 3-11) are small openings
normally used for access. Generally stiffening members are fitted a few
inches from the opening. This group performed surprisingly well with only one
failure observed which was at a fairly small radius corner. The features
which promote good service are large corner radii, smooth cuts, and a location
in low stress areas of the deck (see examples in App. A and B of Ref. 49 and
Fig. 2-6 of Ref. 10).
3-18
3.7.2 Reinforced
This group also consists of relatively small openings normally used for
access. The reinforcement consists of a flat bar either centered on, or to
one side of, the deck plating. Seventeen failures were observed which were
attributed to poor fabrication, poor welding, neglect, abuse, heavy seas, and
minor collisions. Again, large corner radii and low stress locations are
desirable.
The relative size of hatches on many ships requires careful design of the
corners of the deck cut. This is particularly true on large containerships
which are inherently torsionally flexible (Refs. 21, 31, and 60). A total of
eleven failures were observed. The five in detail 9-C-4 were due to a
combination of poor welding, neglect, and minor collisions. The six failures
in detail 9-C-2 were due to poor design. A notch was cut into the smooth
corner radius to accommodate a container guide rail. A surprising number
(60) of functionally sound square corner cuts (detail 9-C-I) were observed on
bulk and combination carriers. Such details are not recommended even in low
stress areas.
FIGURE 3-11
HATCH
CORNERS
9-C-6 - 9-C-3 [--1 ' 9-- 9-C-4
0.4%-C-5 _9C_-2
5 60 =N1222/5
3-19
3.8 MISCELLANEOUS CUTOUT DETAILS - FAMILY NO. 7
The most successful access openings observed (Fig. 3-12) were small, flat
oval, unreinforced cuts (detail 7-A-3). Large, square cornered cuts sustained
failures even when reinforced by a coaming. In general, the large openings
are reinforced while the small ones need not be if located in low stress areas
of the ship.
Lapped web openings performed fairly well with most of the failures being
attributed to poor fabrication and welding. The three failures of
detail 7-D-1 were attributed to heavy seas.
Cuts in corners are used primarily for drainage (group 7-C details) or to
provide clearance for welding (group 7-H details). Generally they perform
well. The straight corner snipes of details 7-C-16 and 7-H-9 were observed to
perform slightly better (0.10% failure rate) than the radiused cuts of
details 7-C-15 and 7-H-10 (0.15% failure rate). This is somewhat surprising
because it is easier to wrap the ends of the welds with the latter details.
The difference in observations (77,130 for the former details versus 32,533)
may account for the slight different in failure rates.
At the edges of plates, cuts are used primarily for air escapes (group 7-B
details), drainage (group 7-C details), pipeways (group 7-F details), or weld
clearance (group 7-H details). Again the failure rate is relatively small
with a large number of observations. Most of the failures observed were in
detail 7-H-i which were attributed to poor design, fabrication, and welding
along with heavy seas and minor collisions.
3.8.5 Miscellaneous
The cuts assigned to this group are used primarily for drainage (group 7-C
details), lightening the structural member (group 7-E details), pipeways
(group 7-F details), and wireways (group 7-G details). Most of the failures
were observed in lightening holes (details 7-E-1 and 7-E-2). Lightening Holes
were oberved on all seven ship types although failures were observed mostly on
tankers and combination carriers. Some of the openings were in regions of
high shear and secondary bending stresses and some failures were attributed to
loadings from heavy seas. Ship personnel have indicated that the metal at the
edges is susceptible to rapid corrosion and the holes in horizontal structure
are dangerous. Consequently, it would appear most desirable to eliminate
lightening holes except for very weight critical structures or where the holes
are also needed for other functions such as drainage, emergency access, etc.
3-20
FIGURE 3-12
PERFORMANCE OF MISCELLANEOUS CUTOUT DETAILS-FAMILY NO.7
.8%
OPENN
ACCESS
0U
0
o o0
7-A-3 7-A-12 7-A-1 7-A-5 7-A-4 7-A-2 7-A-7 7_A,_t
2111 332 305 267 205 198 70 266/2
(610N) (20) (30N) (180N)
1.2 2% 70
i.V 6%
/ t / '
LAPPEDfl
WEB
[Tl 05%
OPENING 7.3%
7-D-5 7-D-4 7-D-3 7-D-1 7-D-2
1344 636 22/6
CORNERS L (
7-H-8 7-C-17 7-C-16 & 7-H-9 7-C-15 & 7-H-10 7-C-19 & 7-H-12
634 7 77,130/76 32,533/50 280/3
(70N) (10,OOON) (4040N) (70N)
I .W.O. 0.02%
q-_ 0.04% 0.05% _ A
/0.06%
PLATE ,
EDGE 7-C-8 &7-H-6 7-C-4 & 7-H-4 7-H-7 7-B-3 & 7-C-9 7-B-I, 7-C-I,
11,520 4022/1 2243/i 33,166/17 7-C-3, 7-F-7,
(2600N) (2740/17N) 7-H-1 & 7-H-2
0.3% 0.3% 57,148/345
(2700/3N)
MISC. 2 _0 ,-.
/ O2% .4% )t t
7-G-2 7-F-3 &7-G-3 7-F-2 & 7-G-i 7-C-13, 7-E-1 7-C-14,
1270 8458/14 3253/7 7-F-I &7-G-5 7-E-2 &7-F-8
(4770/3N) (1210N) 25,675/115 1969/65
3-21 7n.
3-21
3.9 STANCHION END DETAILS - FAMILY NO. 10
Only one detail out of this group of 10 had any serious problems. Detail
10-B-9 performed exceptionally poorly with a 100% failure rate. Two closely
spaced stanchions resulted in their stiffening chocks running into each other
and being butt welded along this vertical intersection. Where the vertical
butt weld met the sloping upper edge of the chocks a sharp "V" was formed
resulting in a point of stress concentration and eventual failure.
3-22
FIGURE 3-13
PERFORMANCE OF STANCHION END DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 10
TOP OF
CIRCULAR
STANCHIONS
0.2% V9 0
10-A-10 10-A-21 10-A-2 10-A-12 10-A-I
50(30N) (40N) 470/1 362/36 40/8
BOTTOM OF
CIRCULAR
STANCHIONS 4-w
3-23
FIGURE 3-14
PERFORMANCE OF STANCHION END DETAILS-FAMILY NO.10-Cont'd
TOP OF "H" T
STANCHIONS
2.4%7 0% 12%
BOTTOM OF "H"
STANCH IONS4?, )5+ 0.6 % 5.0%
3-24
3.10 LOAD CARRYING STIFFENER END DETAILS - FAMILY NO. 11
The details assigned to this family (Fig. 3-15) are for load carrying
members in contrast to those of the next family (panel stiffeners) which are
used principally to stabilize plating.
The only detail of this category with failures was 11-A-9. This detail
was found on six of the ship types that were surveyed, but all of the cracks
occurred on only two of the ship types (general cargo ships and tankers).
Neglect was cited in both cases as a failure cause while the one ship type
with the majority of cracks (general cargo ships) also suffered from faulty
design. The large number (4,333) of successful details of this type found on
the other four ship types seems to indicate that the basic design is not at
fault but that poor construction and maintenance led to problems.
3.10.2 Padded
No failures were seen in any of the four details of this group (743
observations).
3.10.3 Lapped
The two lapped stiffener end details of this group which lapped the two
members to be joined directly to one another (details 11-D-2 & 11-D-1) had no
failures. Both of these details are relatively simple and apparently work
well. Detail 11-D-5 uses a gusset plate to aid in making the connection. One
of the angles being joined has the end of a leg butt welded to the edge of the
gusset plate with the lapping occuring only between the plate and the other
structural member. Cracking was noted in some of these details near the butt
weld, probably due to high localized stress caused by a relatively sharp
transition in both geometry and stiffness. Detail 11-D-4, which failed in
tension and shear, appears to have a designed-in weakness where the un-sniped
leg of the smaller angle passes over the sharp corner of the larger angle.
3-25
11-B-6) out of the five observed. Cargo falling or shifting against bulkheads
(detail 11-B-4) was mentioned as a likely cause. Bulk carriers, on the other
hand, successfully used clip connections (details 11-B-7, 11-B-8, & 11-B-4)
with no observed failures.
3.10.6 Sniped
3-26
FIGURE 3-15
PERFORMANCE OF STIFFENER END DETAILS-FAMILY NO. ii
FULL
CONNECTIONS I
PADDED
LAPPED
.+f .. ,. .% i 3.3%
11-D-2 11-D-1 11-D-5 11-D-4
373 ' 312 23-/16o2
WITH I
END _
CHOCKS
1I-E-2 11-E-1 11-E-3
238604
WITH
CLIPS -,..,. D 7.o5%s I6%
0.6% I ,0.9%
.;
1I-B-7 II-B-2 II-B-8 11-B-5 11-B-4 11-B-i
412 60 56 200/1 2463/14 1663/15
PU~UF .5%
11-B-3 11-B-9 1I-B-6 11-C-6
SNIPPED
1200/11
JQ~
162/2
i ,
116/5 (ZQ/7N)
I 0.4%.5
S0.5ITUQ
T 40%
1.7% .2.5% +
3-27
3.11 PANEL STIFFENER DETAILS - FAMILY NO. 12
3.11.2 Shapes
The angle stiffening details shown vary according to their end treatment
(web sniped, flange sniped, one end cut off, and fully built-in). Every type
suffered failures, many similar to those mentioned above for flat bars. In
addition, those angles with fully built-in ends caused hard spot failures
where their leg ends contacted bulkheads. A particularly bad detail (22%
failure rate) was one in which both legs were sniped at both ends
(detail 12-B-2).
No failures were observed in details where the flat bar formed a lap type
joint with the longitudinal. By using a lap type joint rather than butting
the flat bar against the top of the longitudinal, the situation where an
inadequate weld would be placed at a point of stress concentration was
reduced. Two of the three details (details 12-C-3 & 12-C-5) where the flat bar
was welded to the top of the longitudinal failed by cracking along the weld
line. Detail 12-C-i experienced the highest failure rate of this group
(4.3%). The flat bar, which was sniped at both its upper and lower end,
would in some cases form cracks at its lower end where it was welded to the
web. Apparently flexing of the web, perhaps from some sort of lateral
loading, was causing failure at this point of transition in stiffness.
Most of the failures in this group were associated with the sniped end of
the flat bar (the end nearest the plating to which the web being stiffened was
attached). It appears that lateral loads on the web or twisting forces
between the web and the attached plating were focused on this narrow
3-28
FIGURE 3-16
PERFORMANCE OF PANEL STIFFENER DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 12
i,, , , , -/ _,_____#
FLAT +/
BARS 6% 0.8% /1.2%1 I i.%/I
1 4.0%
12-A-4 12-A-8 12-A-5 12-A-3 12-A-6 12-A-10
240 510/3 372/ 9589/118 7000/92 868/35
(150N) (490N) (2700N) (530N)
I I
12-A-1
570/24
(30/24N)
SHAPESIti I lA
0. 4V~ 0.7% 22
FLAT BARS
ON WEBS
I .W.O.
LONG.
12-C-4 12-C-8 12-C-6 12-C-9 12-C-7 12-C-2
3530 970 698(130N) 530 460 (250N)
0.3% 0.5% 43
FLAT BARS
ON WEBS .3% 7%
FLANGED L 5.%
3-29
unstiffened region causing premature failure. Both buckling and cracking were
observed. Detail 12-D-4 was also observed to have cracking problems between
the flat bar and the down turned lip at the outer edge of the web flange.
These failures might have resulted from less than ideal welds due to the
awkward positioning and sharp internal corner of this area of the detail.
3.11.5 Flanged
The only failures of this group occurred to detail 12-E-2 and were the
result of abuse, not a design defect.
3-30
4. FABRICATION MAN-HOUR ESTIMATING
4.1 PROCEDURE
FABRICATION:
CONSTRUCTION:
4-1
Man-hours were then determined for each piece and operation using
industrial standards. These values are tabulated in Appendix B and an
index to the pieces and operations can be found on page B-i. Hours for
the details selected for the design guide (Appendix C) were then
determined by simple addition of the hours for the individual pieces and
operations as will be illustrated in Section 4.3. The man-hours
represent what is perceived to be the current practice in the U.S.
shipbuilding industry and not necessarily the practice of any individual
shipyard.
4.2 LIMITATIONS
4-2
An approximate breakdown of the time for chocks (Table B-5) is:
Layoff 6.0%
Cutting 35.6%
Fitting 28.8%
Welding 23.1%
Inspection 6.5%
100.0%
4.3 EXAMPLES
4-3
TABLE 4-1
3 4
TABLE &
MEMBERS DESCRIPTION ITEM NO. MANHOURS
4-4
TABLE 4-2
DETAIL NO. SKETCH NO. OBSERVED 6x4x9#I-T 8x6-1 /2x24#I-T 12x6-1 /2x35#I-T
4-5
TABLE 4-3
-- /
(2 II
II
II
TABLE &
MEMBERS DESCRIPTION ITEM NO. MANHOURS
4-6
TABLE 4-4
vA
TABLE &
MEMBERS DESCRIPTION ITEM NO. MANHOURS
4-7
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
5. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5-1
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
6. REFERENCES
4. Bleich, F., and Ramsey, L. B., "A Design Manual on the Buckling
Strength of Metal Structures", The Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers Technical and Research Bulletin No. 2-2, September
1951.
6-1
12. Roark, R. J., Formulas for Stress And Strain, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York, Fourth Edition, 1965.
14. Clarkson, J., "A Survey of Some Recent British Work on the Behavior
of Warship Structures", Ship Structure Committee Report No. SSC-178,
November 1966.
19. Clarkson, J., "Research on Ship's Main Hull Structure, Part 1, Overall
Strength", Shipping World and Shipbuilder, May 1968, pp 821-826.
20. Clarkson, J., "Research on Ships' Main Hull Structure, Part 2, Local
Strength", Shipping World and Shipbuilder, June 1968, pp 936-938.
22. Akita, Y., et al, "Plastic and Limit Analysis", Report of I.S.S.C.
Committee 6, Proceedings of the Fourth International Ship Structures
Congress, Society of Naval Architects of Japan, September 1970.
23. Nishimaki, K., Ueda, Y., and Matsuishi, M., "On the Local Buckling
Strength of a Super Tanker", Selected Papers from the Journal of the
Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 8, 1971, pp 61-84.
24. Hawkins, S., Levine, G. H., and Taggart, R., "Ship Structure Reliability
Analysis", Ship Structure Committee Report No. SSC-220, 1971.
6-2
26. Sorkin, G., Pohler, C. H., Stavovy, A. B., and Borriello, F. F., "An
Overview of Fatigue and Fracture for Design and Certification of Advanced
High Performance Ships", Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 5, No. 2,
June 1973, pp 307-352.
28. Brockenbrough, R. L., and Johnston, B. G., Steel Design Manual, U.S. Steel
Corp., May 1974.
29. Fisher, J. W., et al, "Fatigue Strength of Steel Beams with Welded
Stiffeners and Attachments", Report for Transportation Research Board,
No. TRB-NCHRP-REP-147, August 1974.
31. Ten Cate, W., and Van Beek, A. W., "Stress Analysis of Detail Structures
of a Third Generation Containership", Netherlands Ship Research Centre
TNO, Report No. 210S, December 1974.
35. Barber, B. H., Baez, L. M., and North, G. J., "Structural Considerations
in the Design of the Polar Class of Coast Guard Icebreakers", SSC-SNAME
Ship Structure Symposium '75, 1975, pp C1-C20.
6-3
38. Szostak, D. J., "Yesterday's Technology - Today's Ships - Some Tanker
Experience", SSC-SNAME Ship Structure Symposium '75, 1975, pp G1-G16.
40. Townsend, H. S., "Observations of Ship Damage Over the Past Quarter
Century", SSC-SNAME Ship Structure Symposium '75, 1975, pp L1-L29.
42. Demo, D. A., and Fisher, J. W., "Analysis of Fatigue of Welded Crane
Runway Girders", Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of
the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 102, No. ST5,
May 1976, pp 919-933.
43. Wex, B. P., and Brown, C. W., "Limit States - Real or Imaginary In
Box Girder Bridges?", Metal Construction, Vol. 8, No. 10, October 1976,
pp 434-438.
44. Bott, G., and Schoenfeldt, H., "Design, Material Selection, Handling
and Testing of Offshore Structures", Proceedings of International
Conference on Welding of HSLA (Microalloyed) Structural Steels,
Rome, Italy, November 1976, American Society of Metals, pp 655-678.
45. Haslum, K., Kristoffersen, K., and Andersen, L. A., "Stress Analysis of
Longitudinal/Girder Connections", Norwegian Maritime Research, No. 3,
1976, pp 13-30.
46. Johnsen, K. R., and Haslum, K., "A Design Procedure for Triangular
Brackets", Norwegian Maritime Research, No. 4, 1976, pp 2-8.
48. Fisher, J. W., and Yen, B. T., "Fatigue Strength of Steel Members
with Welded Details", Engineering Journal/American Institute of
Steel Construction, Vol. 14, No. 4, November 1977, pp 118-129.
49. Glasfeld, R., et al, "Review of Ship Structural Details", Ship Structure
Committee Report No. SSC-266, 1977.
51. Jordan, C. R., and Ward, W. C. Jr., "Structural Details Failure Survey",
Proceedings of the 10th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, May 1978,
pp 2159-2172.
6-4
52. Mair, R. I., "Beam-to-Column Weld Efficiency in Steel Frames", BHP
Technical Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 2, November 1978.
54. Schilling, C. G., et al, "Fatigue of Welded Steel Bridge Members Under
Variable-Amplitude Loadings", National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Report No. 188, 1978.
56. Basar, N. S., and Stanley, R. F., "Survey of Structural Tolerances in the
United States Commercial Shipbuilding Industry," Ship Structure
Committee Report No. SSC-273, 1978.
58. "Innovative Cost Cutting Opportunities for Dry Bulk Carriers", U.S.
Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration, Contract No. 7-38053,
July 1980.
60. Lui, D., and Bakker, A., "Practical Procedures for Technical and Economic
Investigation of Ship Structure Details", Marine Technology, Vol. 18, No.
1, January 1981, pp 51-68.
61. van Douwen, A. A., "Design for Economy in Bolted and Welded Connections",
Joints in Structural Steelwork, Proceedings International Conference,
Middlesbrough, England, April 1981, pp 5.18-5.35.
62. "Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships, Notice No. 11",
Lloyd's Register of Shipping, May 1981.
63. Albrecht, P., and Simon, S., "Fatigue Notch Factors for Structural
Details", Journal 3f the Structural Division, Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 107, No. ST7, July 1981,
pp 1279-1296.
6-5
65. Munse, W. H., "Fatigue Criteria for Ship Structure Details", SSC/SNAME
Extreme Loads Response Symposium, SNAME, October 1981, pp 231-247.
68. Beach, J. E., Johnson, R. E., and Koehler, F. S., "Fatigue of 5086
Aluminum Weldments", Second International Conference on Aluminum
Weldments, Munich, FRG., May 1982.
6-6
APPENDIX A
Contents
A-i
6188 6213
6 3508 5367
5- - r 1 4804
3 40 5276 409 29
2418
0.
5-
- 1 245
:190: .r
S 2
.e 110 10310
726
.5 021 4213 0
_ 0 _ 0
0" 3 r-.L2 6 2
7- 6.29
6-
4.26
2 20.47
1
0.34
i0 2 1 o 0 o 0
1
0 A F A r 0-. F A 0 F A F A 0 F A D F A F A II F
B CC C G M 4 T 7 AVG.SHIPS
FIGURE A-I E
g
REAMBRACKET N 1
DETAILS-FAMILY - SSC-272DATA
DATAFOR SEVENSHIPSOF EACHTYPE)
(NORMALIZED ----SSC-272SSC-294
L- 2
2697 2848
308 2902093 21'0
22 1797. -" 1976
1078: i
1
21r81' '
. . '97 '
1 60 1 67 1 85
3~3
14-
13 - 12 -
9.- :9.00
10 InI
72- 6.71
3I
- Z.94
r i1
6-
5-
I-4.29
ii
:3.73'39
0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0
A 0 F A F A 0 F A 8 F AU F A U F A U F A B F
B CC C G 4 T 7 AG. SIPS
FIGURE A-2
TRIPING RAC8!T NQ?
DETAILS-FAMILY - SSC-272
DATA
(NOMALZED FORSEVEN
DATA OFEAC TYPE)
SHIPS .-- SSC-272+SSC-294
A-3
10-
8610
8190
6-
g 4- 3617
2198
2- 1278 12 86 !121 1248
, '76 9 77-
5- 491
209,
F] 107
3 6 2 C 2 5 1 _ o o o c c __
15
0
9-
8.10
8-
0.15 .89
-
A F A F F 0A F A F 4 F A~ F A F
CC FGR A pl 7 AVC.SKIPS
Q
51IFFEEKR (IUT CAI.S-FMILf
CLEARACF ET N a - SC-272 DATA
(NOWALIZEDDATA
FORSIVENSHIP' OF ....SSC-272-SSE-294
A- 4
5- 4743
3360
26 490
20
3 1 11 1
1 2 00 0 0 1 0o 0 0
3.93
] 3.27
5
2.33
- 2-
0.11
0.-- .71- 66 3.72
) _.c 1 0 0 0 1 1 ']ri 0
A Z F A 0.2 A 3 F A 2 C A L F A 0. F A U F A J F
CC 0G e N 7 AVG.SHIPS
.UPF A-,
A- 5
3038 2800
20
0 0 0 5 0 3
2.71
A A F A F A A A 3~ F A ~lA U2 F A5 F
B IT 7 AVO. SHI1PS
10-
6-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8- 7
0i 50
so.
50-
20
10 7.14 7.14
0 11000 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 800 0 7
A 0 F A OD F A Ul F 0 F A fl F A lA F A N0 F A F
B cc C G m N T 7 AVG.SNIPS
FICIAE A-6
CONNETION
G&1NWAIE MgS
OFTAILS-FAAI[Y
(MORMLIZCO
DATA SHIPSOFEACHTYPE)
FORSEVEN
A-7
7- 669 0
5- 455 44490 7
4-391 385
2-22 201
2052 1 5
1 126 126 1 112
10
9"
8-
7-
6-
4
4- r
3- I3 A0.
r 1
2- 2I 2
1I
-- I I __il 1
0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 00 0 -00
3 -
2.04
FIGUI A-7
BECKCUTS-FALYNQ9
STIUCT, SSC-272
DATA
DATAhOl SEVENSHIPSOF EACH'YPE;
IOMfoiALILED ----SSC-272-SSC-294
A-8
50 48736
40,-
27335
23643 22812 23470
,0 15050 14957
10
6 7055
- 8I 524
I 5740
ET
11760 1099
I I77
77.5
F 6902
29 ]8 2674 2633920
1 2643
2- 122
120
0 E33 F
IDD- 90
78 74
6056 56 5
40 5024 -33
20- L 13 24
3- 2.65
4 o.12 2.00 0.50 024
W 2, 0.03 .38 7'0.23
0. 5 0 1.6 6
'1 s0III.~ 0 81 A6 8 0 7,7
0.1 0 08 8a 84 8805
A 0 F A " F A B F A 0 F A 0 F A U F A U F A U F
B CC C 6 m N T 7 AVG.SNIPS
FIGURE A-8
MISrfIAEDIAJS DETAILS-FNLY N 7
CUTOUT - SSC-272DATA
(NOMRLIZEDDATAFORSEVENSHIPSOFEACHTYPE) ---- SSC-272SSC-29il
A-9
9- 887
8-
7-
525 525
5- 490
4
332 392 392
X 857 40434
319 285 314 316
21621
2-
0-
60-
53
40
30 28
20 16
00 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 1 1
60-
50-
40-
~30-
20 16.67 13.52 9
0] 8.94
00 11650.46 J1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0. 29F 0
AD F AU8 F A U F A F A UF A F A U F AU F
B cc C G 7 AVG.SHIPS
FIGURE
A-9 r
STAIN FEDS-FAMILYXA M8 - SSC-272DATA
DATA
(NORMALIZED FORSEVENSHIPSOFEACHTYPE) ---- SSC-272-SSE-294
A- 10
3990 36,3
877 24 2070
1950 02
83 966 1204 0 n 1100
x 77 3 1143 1018 872 1416
1 659 I I 77 770 773
80-
73
70-
60-
50-
30- 29
20- 18 16 17
10. 7 o 5
00 0 0 r4 _ 0 0 0 02_= r "
00
2 1.71 1.98
10.67 1.07
J" -. 1.12
1.."-- 0.42
0 0 [0 0 0 0 0 020
A i F A H F A U F 4 0 F A U F AU F AU F AU F
S CC C 0 T 7 g , lNF
A-il
7358
775
6 5670
S
3527
3 2993 2945 3.
2422 2246 2275
2 42 :l8
3173 73 ' 8 1618 4 16
2 rl~ IQ
120892
116m1130'
1 798jj~ 607
185
68
30 --
1 26 1
11 4
0f-o M o 0 0 o 0 .
'
48
7-
6- 6.28
5- 4.59
6.225
- 32- 2633.01286
5 r.5'7.2 4
0 0 M o 1 0o 0 0 0 0. .418
AU F A 0 F A U F A U F A U F A U F A F A F
8 Cc C G N N T 7 Vg. HIPS
FIGUREA-11
sTIFFEFl-FAMII y NQ12
PANEL - SSC-272
DATA
SHIPSOF EACHTYPE)
DATAFORSEVEN
(NORMALIZED ----SSC-272-SSC-294
A-12
APPENDIX B
B-i
TABLE B-I
FABRIC. CONSTRUCTION
STEPS STEPS TOTAL MANHOURS FOR:
SIZE
ITEM t: I 4-
O4-1 -1- -14. (a x b) l/4"P,_ 3/8"Ft I/2"PLt 3/4"IE I",.
>14 4>4 4.J 4J
ro :5 0 ro :3-,1 a
a 60.6" - -
2 a
x x x x x x 6" x 6" 0.19 0.37 0.60 - -
3j
x x x x x x 6" x 6" 0.16 0.31 0.50 - -
10" x 10" 0.27 0.53 0.85 1.10 -
14" x 14" - 0.77 1.26 1.62 2.48
18" x 18" - - 1.66 2.13 3.28
5
a x x x x x x x 6" x 6" 0.16 0.40 0.51 - -
10" x 10" 0.28 0.53 0.86 1.10 -
14" x 14" 0.41 0.78 1.26 1.62 2.49
K LG 18" x 18" 0.53 1.02 1.66 2.13 3.28
6
a x x x x x x x 6" x 6" 0.20 0.37 0.61 - -
10" x 10" 0.33 0.62 1.01 1.30 -
8-2
TABLE B-2
S IZE
ITEM t
441 z:J - 1 H-1 1(Cut from 9-101 12-131 16-1181 24-261 33-351
0 4jI-T)
4j P
(a 0 fa ;j-4Q
4 L _ - 1
TABLE B-3
FABRIC. CONSTRUCTION
STEPS STEPS ____ TOTAL MANHOURS FOR: ___
S IZE
ITEM 0 P j y0
0- ., 3-1 1 4a (Stiffener 1/4"It 3/8"RL 1/2"Rt 3/4"R. 1" it
>i 4J 4 4 - Depth-a)
B-3
TABLE B-4
FABRIC. CONSTRUCTION
STEPS STEPS TOTAL MANHOURS FOR:
SIZE
ITEM 4 Z r.o C U
4J-4 "
-H *--
" Z 'If
" "-I -d
H
0 j o
0 J rO 0 (Bracket 1/4"tP 3/8"PF 1/2"- 3/4"It I" tL
-W. > J 4 J r- U)
z 0 u- .1 a r. Length a)
I-l u FL4 U :r
2_
x x x x x x 12" - 0.48 0.92 1.51 -
24" - - 1.66 2.71 2.42
30 36" - - - 3.91 3.50
48" - - - - 4.58
4j
x x x x x x x 12" 0.48 0.48 0.93 1.51 -
24" - 0.87 1.67 2.71 2.43
36" - - 2.41 3.92 3.50
4"-4FLG. 48" - - 3.15 5.12 4.58
B-4
TABLE B-5
FABRIC. CONSTRUCTION
STEPS STEPS TOTAL MANHOURS FOR:
SIZE
ITEM 44 c: 4' z v z
4 -,1 .,1 :3 "' - -- ) (a x b x c 1/4"1. 3/8"ft 1/2"Pt 3/4"Pt 1" t
J
O 0 (a : -H
U L4 14U 11
a
x x x x x 1.5" x 4.51 0.16 0.19 0.28 - -
2" x 6" 0.21 0.26 0.37 0.67 -
b 4" x 12" 0.42 0.52 0.73 1.33 1.48
6" x 18" - 0.79 1.10 2.00 2.22
2j a
x x x x x 1.5"x3"x1" 0.15 0.19 0.25 - -
B-5
TABLE 8-6
2
x x 6" 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02
8" 0.02 0.02 O.C- 0.02 0.03
10" 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03
12" 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04
3 x x
6" 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
8" 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
10" 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04
12" 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04
41
x x x x x 6" 0.06 0.12 0.20 0.26 0.40
411 8" 0.07 0.13 0.20 0.26 0.40
r" 10" 0.07 0.15 0.21 0.27 0.40
12" 0.07 0.13 0.21 0.27 0.41
5_
F x x x x x 6" 0.10 0.18 0.30 0.39 0.60
8" 0.13 0.25 0.40 0.52 0.79
10" 0.16 0.31 0.50 0.64 0.99
12" 0.19 0.37 0.60 0.77 1.19
61
x x x x x 6" 0.07 0.14 0.23 0.29 0.45
8" 0.10 0.20 0.33 0.42 0.64
B-6
TABLE 8-6 - Fabrication Man-hour Norms for Stiffener Clearance Cutouts (Cont'd)
FABRIC. CONSTRUCTION
STEPS STEPS TOTAL MANHOURS FOR:
, SIZE
ITEM 44 .,.
'4-4 -- - * -,. - U
3
o -w i o -w .w o (Stiffener 1/4"t? 3/8"? 1/2"Pt 3/4"? 1" Pt
0 0 -H W c
* Depth)
7
x x x x x 6" 0.07 0.14 0.22 0.28 0.44
8" 0.10 0.20 0.32 0.41 0.64
10" 0.13 0.26 0.42 0.54 0.84
12" 0.16 0.32 0.52 0.67 1.04
8
X X x x x 6" 0.09 0.17 0.28 0.35 0.54
8" 0.12 0.23 0.38 0.48 0.75
10" 0.15 0.30 0.48 0.61 0.94
12" 0.18 0.35 0.58 0.74 1.14
91
x x x x x 6" 0.20 0.39 0.64 0.82 1.27
8" 0.27 0.52 0.84 1.08 1.66
LOT) 10" 0.33 0.64 1.04 1.34 2.06
12" 0.40 0.76 1.24 1.60 2.46
101
x x x x x 6" 0.23 0.44 0.72 0.92 1.42
8" 0.29 0.56 0.92 1.18 1.81
SLOT) 10" 0.36 0.69 1.12 1.44 2.21
12" 0.42 0.81 1.32 1.70 2.61
B-7
TABLE B-7
FABRIC. CONSTRUCTION
STEPS STEPS TOTAL MANHOURS FOR:
SIZE
ITEM 4- - 4- r. o (a x b or 3 4
o .'- ",4
- 0 Stiffener 1/4" 3/8"t /2"t / "IL 1" t
0 o :1 Size)
B-8
TABLE B-7 - Fabrication Man-hour Norms for Lapped Collars (Cont'd)
FABRIC. CONSTRUCTION
STEPS STEPS TOTAL MANHOURS FOR:
- - -o SIZE -
ITEM " o of
51
,x x x x x x 6" x 4"1-7 0.78 1.28 1.14 2.53 3.64
-'
8" x 4"1 0.91 1.48 1.32 2.93 4.21
10" x 4"I-' 1.03 1.68 1.50 3.32 4.78
' ,,- 12" x 4"1-' 1.16 1.88 1.68 3.72 5.36
' 4" x 3" L 0.66 1.08 0.96 2.13 3.07
6" x 6"1- 0.91 1.48 1.32 2.92 4.21
8" x 6"1-" 1.03 1.68 1.50 3.32 4.78
10" x 6"1-1 1.16 1.88 1.68 3.72 5.36
12" x 6"1- 1.28 2.08 1.86 4.12 5.93
6m x 4" L 0.85 1.38 1.24 2.73 3.93
8" x 4" L 0.97 1.58 1.41 3.13 4.50
1 1O" x 6" L 1.22 1.98 1.77 3.92 5.64
6N I
x x x x x x 6" x 4"1-' 2.44 3.59 3.43 6.96 9.33
j . 4. 8" x 4"1-1 2.69 4.00 3.79 7.76 10.48
10" x 4"1-' 2.94 4.40 4.15 8.55 11.62
12" x 4"1- 3.18 4.80 4.51 9.34 12.76
Bi 8" x 6"1- 3.12 4.69 4.42 9.15 12.48
10" x 6"1- 3.37 5.10 4.78 9.94 13.62
12" x 6"1- 3.62 5.50 5.13 10.73 14.76
B-9
TABLE B-8
z SIZE
ITEM 44CC JCC0( of
C- I ' W.4 "' ~ t!ffener 1/4"?. 3/8"Ft 1/2"tt 3~/4"t~ I" It
21
x x x x x x 6" x 4"1-' 1.36 2.88 2,80 4.76 6.00
8" x 4"1-' 1.69 3.62 3.52 5.92 7.41
10" x 4"1-' 2.01 4.35 4.24 7.08 8.82
12" x 4"1-' 2.33 5.08 4.96 8.24 10.22
8" x 6"1-' 1.81 3.82 3.69 6.31 7.98
10" x 6"1-' 2.14 4.55 4.42 7.48 9.39
P 3 TP12" x 6" 1-" 2.46 5.28 5.14 8.63 10.79
3j
x x x x x x 6 x 4"1-" 2.01 4.48 4.40 7.16 8.76
8" x 4"1-' 2.34 5.22 5.12 8.32 10.17
10" x 4"1-' 2.66 5.95 5.84 9.48 11.58
x 4"1-' 2.98 6.68 6.56 10.63 12.98
tr12"
B28" x 6"1-' 2.62 5.78 5.66 9.29 11.45
(TYP.) 10" x 6"1- 2.94 6.52 6.38 10.46 12.86
12" x 6"1-1 3.27 7.25 7.10 11.61 14.26
8-10
TABLE B-9
FABRIC. CONSTRUCTION
STEPS STEPS TOTAL MANHOURS FOR:
SIZE
ITEM 4-4 C C- 4J s= i: (
44 -Z -H-H
- -4
': Q (a x b) 1/4"PF 3/8"Pt 1/2"It 3/4" 1" Ft
b,4- 4 :> 4J 41 -
2 a
x x I" x 2"F.O 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
2" x 4"F.O, 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
b 4" x 8"F.0. 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
15"x18"F.O.
18"x36"F.O 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.12
26"x66"F.O, 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.20
3
x x 4" x 8" 0,02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
" a/4 18" x 36" 0,07 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.12
b 26" x 66" 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.20
31" x 72" 0.13 0,13 0.16 0.18 0.22
4a
x x 2"x4" Elps, 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
4"x8" Elps, 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02
b 15"x 18"EIp. 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06
18"x36"EIp. 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.11
B-11
TABLE B-10
2
x x x x x x 4"x8"F.O. 1.10 1.92 2.24 - -
a
31
x x x x x x 4" x8" 1.11 1.94 2.68 - -
a/4 4"xt
a/4 18" x 36" 2.30 4.03 5.11 6.48 8.52
6"xt
26" x 66" 2.96 5.21 6.97 8.84 12.09
6"xt
31" x 72" 3.12 5.51 7.46 9.48 13.08
6"xt
B-12
TABLE B-11
TABLE B-12
x x x x x 6 x 6 WF 0.55 0.84 - - -
B-13
TABLE B-13
FABRIC. CONSTRUCTION
STEPS STEPS TOTAL MANHOURS FOR:
SIZE
ITEM 4 r - 1 r c r u
44 .,-1 *-4 H T
04e
0
j , 1
a) (a x b) 1/4"It 3/8"PL t/2"Pt 3/4"ft n
I"
U O rd : -, c
a
x x x x x 2" x 5" 0.35 0.35 0.32 0.69 -
b 2" x 7" 0.45 0.45 0.41 0.89 1.29
2" x 9" 0.55 0.55 0.49 1.09 1.57
2" x 11" - 0.65 0.58 1.29 2.48
7" x 7" 0.70 0.70 0.63 1.39 -
9" x 9" 0.91 0.91 0.81 1.79 2.57
11" x 11" 1.11 1.11 0.99 2.18 3.14
13n x 13" - 1.31 1.50 2.58 3.71
3
x x x x x 3" Dia. 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.47 -
6" DIa. 0.47 0.47 0.43 0.94 1.35
9" Dia. 0.71 0.71 0.64 1.40 2.02
12" Dia. - 0.95 0.85 1.87 2.69
B-14
TABLE B-14
FABRIC. CONSTRUCTION
STEPS STEPS TOTAL MANHOURS FOR:
SIZE
ITEM 44 4J 0 c z U
0 ., E 0/4J4.. 3/8"I 1/2"f 3/4"f, 1" It
> -W 4 > 4J 4- 1- I
3
, x 1" R 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
2" R 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10
3" p 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
4" R 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09
B-15
TABLE B-15
FABRIC. CONSTRUCTION
STEPS STEPS TOTAL MANHOURS FOR:
SIZE
ITEM 4-4 4c z i- u
0 4J Z 9- 0d (F.B. I/4"t 3/8"t 112-qL 3/4"tL 1"
I"
0 - w r-" Width)
21
x x x 4" 0.14 0.28 0.28 - -
0.28 0.28 0.40 -
6" 0.14
8" 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.40 0.58
10" - 0.28 0.28 0.40 0.58
31
x 6"R 4"FB 0.31 0.44 0.48 - -
R x x x x
6"R 6"FB 0.35 0.48 0.50 0.62 -
6"R 8"FB 0.36 0.50 0.52 0.64 0.85
6"R 10"FB - 0.51 0.53 0.66 0.87
12"R 4"FB 0.34 0.47 0.51 - -
12"R 6"FB 0.37 0.50 0.52 0.65 -
12"R 8"FB 0.39 0.52 0.54 0.67 0.88
12"R IO"FB - 0.53 0.57 0.69 0.92
18R 4"FB 0.36 0.49 0.53 - -
B-16
TABLE 8-16
FABRIC. CONSTRUCTION
STEPS STEPS TOTAL MANHOURS FOR:
SIZE
ITEM 0) U t 1, a
_4
0 -W "14
4-4
1- 0:3 -
4- " c (F.B. 1/4"t 3/8"It 1/2"Ff 3/4"Ft 1" t
>, >, 4-4J Depth)
- 1
21
x x 4" 0.16 0.16 0.16 - -
6" - 0.15 0.15 0.15 -
8" - - 0.15 0.15 0.15
3 10" - - - 0.15 0.15
5
xX 4" 0.11 0.11 0.11 - -
6" 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 -
8" 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13
10" - 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14
6j
x x 4" 0.17 0.17 0.17 - -
71
r - x x x x x 4" 0.27 0.71 0.72 - -
& B2 6" 0.40 1.07 1.08 1.52 -
B-17
TABLE 8-17
21
x 4" x 3" 0.15 0.15 0.15 - -
6" x 4" - 0.15 0.15 0.15 -
31
x x 4" x 3" 0.20 0.20 0.20 - -
6" x 4" - 0.19 0.19 0.20 -
8" x 4" - - 0.19 0.19 0.20
10" x 6" - - 0.18 0.18 0.19
4
x x 4" x 3" 0.26 0.26 0.26 - -
6" x 4" - 0.24 0.25 0.25 -
8" x 4" - - 0.24 0.25 0.26
*"SNIPED 45? I0" x 6" - - 0.23 0.24 0.24
:5 02
x x x x x 4" x 3" 0.29 0.47 0.42 - -
6" x 4" - 0.67 0.60 1.32 -
8" x 4" - - 0.72 1.59 2.29
10" x 6" - - 0.95 2.12 3.05
71
x x x x x 4" x 3" 0.14 0.25 0.22 - -
6" x 4" - 0.38 0.34 0.62 -
8" x 4" - - 0.47 0.86 1.28
10" x 6" - - 0.60 1.08 1.61
B-18
TABLE B-18
2j
x x 6" I-T 0.18 0.18 0.18 - -
41
x x 6" I-T 0.27 0.28 0.28 - -
8" I-T 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.28 -
10" I-T 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.28
SNIPED 45 N/F 12" I-T - 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.28
5SNPD
I x x x x x 6" I-T 0.21 0.26 0.27 - -
8" I-T 0.22 0.35 0.35 0.35 -
10" I-T 0.23 0.23 0.44 0.44 0.45
12" I-T - 0.28 0.52 0.53 0.54
SNIPED 45 N/F
71
/- x x x x x 6" I-T 0.32 0.43 0.55 - -
8" I-T 0.27 0.51 0.63 0.76 -
10" I-T 0.40 0.40 0.71 0.80 0.92
12" I-T - 0.44 0.68 0.93 1.22
8-19
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
B-20
APPENDIX C
Contents Page
C-i
C.I INTRODUCTION
subtotal 596
subtotal 289
C-2
C.2 BEAM BRACKET DETAILS - FAMILY NO. 1
Only one detail was observed in this group as shown in Fig. C-i.
This is a typical commercial ship detail with lapped brackets which can
be fabricated in significantly fewer hours than the typical naval ship
details in the next family group.
All three details shown in this group are naval ship details. The
first two details are built-up from plate to slightly different
configurations while the third detail is built-up primarily from rolled
shapes. For the 8" deep stiffener used, the third detail (1-A-8) shows
a significant cost savings over the first two details. Table 4-2 shows
the same trend for a 12" deep stiffener while calculations for a 6" deep
stiffener show essentially the same construction hours for all three
details.
C-3
C.2.2 Straight Corner Brackets
C.2.2.1 Plate
The details shown in this group follow a distinct trend for the
strongest details to require the most fabrication time. The few
failures observed have been buckling which is attributed to insufficient
bracket thickness rather than the basic geometry. Detail 1-C-4 is the
least expensive although there is potential for failure in the
unsupported plating in the corner similar to that shown in Fig. C-2.
Detail 1-C-8 eliminates this potential failure mode for a small increase
in both fabrication time and material required (i.e., longer stiffeners
must be ordered if the webs of both stiffeners are to be sniped). The
remaining details (1-C-3, 1-C-20, & 1-C-21) are the strongest and most
expensive details. The increased cost is due to the fitting and welding
of the flange and web at the end of one of the stiffeners in each
detail. This connection helps to reduce the load which must be
transferred through the bracket plate, increases the lateral stiffness
of the detail, and could provide backup for a stiffener on the opposite
side of the connection if needed. If none of these features is required
at a given location, the flange of the attached beam could be sniped for
a savings of about 1/4 hr. per detail.
C.2.2.2 Flanged
C.2.2.3 Built-Up
The one detail shown in Fig. C-I for this group performed very
well. Detail 1-G-1 is a typical naval ship detail with symmetric
sections and adequate chocks at critical areas which requires more time
to fabricate than the typical commercial ship details of the previous
two groups.
C-4
FIGURE C-1
SCOST VERSUS PERFORMANCE - BEAM BRACKET DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 1
I.W.O. BHD.
STIFF.
1-B-2
190
4.33 hrs.
BUILT-UP BRKT.
I.W.O. BHD. STIFF.
:iL :
1-A-3 1-A-4 1-A-8
(2410N) (830N) (350N)
10.50 hrs. 10.80 hrs. 8.42 hrs.
BUILT-UP BRKT.
I.W.O. GIRD.
1-A-7
(410N)
6.28 hrs.
PLATE-
FLANGED
BUILT-UP
C-5
C.2.3 Curved Corner Brackets
C.2.3.1 Plate
Fabrication costs for flat plate curved corner brackets (Fig. C-3)
are essentially the same as the similar straight corner brackets.
Appropriate application areas are also similar. The curved brackets
generally have a much smaller failure rate although the numbers observed
are also much smaller than the straight corner brackets.
C.2.3.2 Built-Up
Only one detail is shown in this group in Fig. C-3 because all
others observed had a significant incidence of failure. The hours for
this detail are relatively high because of the face plate, chocks, and
panel stiffening required to stabilize the thin plating used in the
corner. The butt welds required at the bracket-stiffener intersections
also increase the fabrication time over the lap welded connections of
the previous group.
Only two details are shown in this group (Fig. C-4) and again the
strongest detail (1-H-6) is the most expensive. The fabrication time
shown for this detail includes about 1/4 hour for welding the stiffener
flange to the deck which could be eliminated in some cases as discussed
in the section on straight flat plate corner brackets. If no bending
restraint at the end of the stiffener is required, the padded end
connections of Family No. 11 could be used with significant cost
savings.
C-6
CRUMPLE
UPPER OK
FRAME
FIGURE C-2
POTENTIAL FAILURES IN WAY OF CORNER BRACKET
FIGURE C-3
COST VERSUS PERFORMANCE - BEAM BRACKET DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 1 - Cont'd.
PLATE 1
BUILT-UP
6.38 hrs.
C-7
C.2.5.2 At Structural Sections
Of the three details shown, the primary cost differences are due to
the size of the bracket (detail 1-L-6 is smaller than detail 1-L-1) and
the fitting requirements (detail 1-L-3 must be fitted to two surfaces
rather than one as on details 1-L-6 and 1-L-1). The failures observed
in details 1-L-3 and 1-L-1 were attributed to insufficient bracket
thickness rather than the basic detail geometry.
The fabrication times shown for these details are for brackets with
the same thickness as plate brackets. In many cases, thinner plates
could be used for flanged brackets with significant savings in
fabrication time. The least expensive detail (1-M-2) terminates the
beam clear of the joint by a small amount. The next detail in order of
expense (1-M-5) terminates the beam well clear of the joint with the
bracket replacing the stiffener at the end which helps reduce the length
of welding involved. In details 1-M-1 and 1-M-3, the stiffeners are
fully welded to the deck with the bracket added on. F.)r these two
details, about 1/4 hour could be saved by sniping the beam flange if
this loss in strength is acceptable at a given location. Detail 1-M-3
is more expensive than detail 1-M-1 because its bracket must be fitted
to two surfaces (the deck and the beam flange).
C-8
FIGURE C-4
COST VERSUS PERFORMANCE - BEAM BRACKET DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 1 -Cont'd.
AT "SOFT"
PLATING
1-H-6 1-K-i
503 116
2.44 hrs. 1.85 hrs.
AT STRUCTURAL
SECTIONS
1-H-12 1-H-14
1195 332
0.59 hrs. 1.20 hrs.
PLATES AT
RIGID STR.
FLANGED AT 0.1
RIGID STR.
BUILT-UP AT
RIGID STR.
C-9
C.3 TRIPPING BRACKET DETAILS - FAMILY NO. 2
Three of the deep girders shown in Fig. C-5 have centered flanges
and, consequently, smaller tripping brackets than the fourth detail
(2-C-i). The bracket size rather than the bracket flange is the primary
reason why detail 2-C-i has the highest fabrication time. Of the other
three details, the lapped bracket of detail 2-A-4 is the least expensive
primarily because the portion attached to the stiffener is smaller and
consequently requires less welding than the radiused brackets 2-A-8 and
2-A-7.
C-10
FIGURE C-5
COST VERSUS PERFORMANCE - TRIPPING BRACKET DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 2
FOR STIFF.
(8" deep, iE.I
40" spac.) 2-A-19 2-C-16 2-A-13 2-A-14
1362 (1270N) (290N) 120
0.26 hrs. 2.59 hrs. 1.88 hrs. 0.99 hrs.
FOR SHALLOW 1
GIRDERS i
(24" X 8" GIRD., 2-A-29 2-A-22 2-A-28
8" deep STIFF.) (990N) 440 124
0.38 hrs. 0.43 hrs. 0.64 hrs.
FOR DEEP
GIRDERS
T
(48" X 8" GIRD., --- | - -
8" deel, STIFF.)
2--A- 4 2-C-1 2-A-8 2-A-7
506 390 320 278
2.44 hrs. 2.87 hrs. 2.82 hrs. 2.69 hrs.
FOR HATCH%
GIRDERS
(42" deep)
2-C-10 2-C-9 2-C-4 2-C-8
60 248/1 1672/85 1188/94
4.40 hrs. 7.39 hrs. 4.04 hrs. 3.41 hrs.
FOR BULWARKS /
(42" deep) 17% 19%
2-C-23 2-C-19
52/9 1754/330
2.50 hrs. 1.60 hrs.
C-l
C.3.4 For Hatch Girders
The lower end of the flanges of the first two brackets shown in
Fig. C-5 are sniped while the hours for the last two brackets are with
the flanges welded to the deck. Most of the failures observed in the
latter two brackets occurred where the flanges had been sniped where
they meet the deck. Detail 2-C-8 is the least expensive and generally
provides adequate service when the flange is welded to the deck and the
detail is adequately "backed-up" by structure below the deck. Detail
2-C-4 requires more time because of the welding associated with its
centered face plate. The primary reason for the difference in cost for
the first two brackets is the larger size of bracket detail 2-C-9.
The major portion of the fabrication hours shown in Fig. C-6 is due
to the welding required. All of the details shown provide some shear
attachment for the stiffening member to the penetrated plate for a
relatively modest cost. Details 8-C-6&7 provide both a web and flange
attachment for the angle which gives more lateral support to both the
angle and the penetrated member. The cost increase for the increased
strength is fairly small. Detail 8-A-2 is suitable only for stiffening
members with relatively smaller lateral loads than those of the other
details shown.
C-12
shear but whether the local load Q tends to add to or subtract from the
initial load in the flat bar stiffener caused by the basic girder shear
force. The second paragraph on page 60 of Ref. 60 states that "for
Configuration (b), where a counter clockwise shear is applied..., the
distance d across the cutout is increased, resulting in tension in the
flat bar stiffener... This tension will now be reduced when the local
load Q from the shell longitudinal is applied." However, when the
loading is reversed, the local force Q relieves the "compressive
stresses in the clockwise case." When the loading is reversed, the
direction of the girder shear is also reversed. Thus for both loading
directions, the location with minimum stresses referred to is the upper
one in Fig. 27 of Ref. 60 where the shear connection to the longitudinal
is on the side closest to the girder support. Consequently, there is a
preferred orientation for the shear connections to the longitudinals as
shown in Fig. C-7.
FIGURE C-6
COST VERSUS PERFORMANCE - STIFFENER CLEARANCE CUTOUT DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 8
BARS -7
8-E-12
1200
0.32 hrs.
BULB
FLATS
8-E-8
1820
0.33 hrs.
ANGLES T1 0.5%
TEES
8-A-2
150
0.20 hrs.
Note: Hours shown are for 8" deep stiffeners penetrating " plate.
C-13
t f1+ 4
APPROXIMATE
GIRDER
SHEAR
FORCE
FIGURE C- 7
ON THESE
FIT COLLARS
/ .
MEMBERS
APPROXIMATE
GIRDER SHEAR FORCE
FIGURE C- 8
C-14
C.5 NON-TIGHT COLLAR DETAILS - FAMILY NO. 3
FIGURE C-9
COST VERSUS PERFORMANCE - NON-TIGHT COLLAR DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 3
BARS
3-A-22 3-A-19
120 103
1.03 hrs. 1.87 hrs.
BULB
FLATS
3-A-6
170
1.09 hrs.
ANGLES.
TEES
M
3-B-5 3-A-11 3-A-12
1760 1740 450
1.80 hrs. (1680N) (160N)
1.54 hrs. 1.73 hrs.
Note: Hours shown are for 8" deep stiffeners penetrating " plate.
C-15
accurately during construction as they do on details 3-A-22 and 3-A-6).
Typical commercial shipbuilding tolerances are discussed in Ref. 56.
In general, it appears that fabrication costs can be minimized by using
clearance cutouts which provide one of the required shear attachments
thereby eliminating as many collar plates as possible.
C.5.2 Angles
The two details shown differ mainly in that one detail (3-B-i)
provides a larger collar with a flange attachment in addition to the
standard web attachments to the supporting structure. Again the
stronger connection is the more expensive one.
C.5.3 Tees
The three details shown follow the same trend as those for angles:
the strongest detail is the most expensive.
C.6.1 Bars
Three different designs are shown in Fig. C-10 for flat bar
framing. The least expensive (the simple slot of detail 4-D-1) also
requires the most accurate fitting so it has the highest potential for
requiring rework during construction which is not reflected in the
fabrication hours shown. The clearance cutout with lapped collar
(detail 4-C-1) simplifies the fitting but requires more welding and
hence considerably more fabrication time. The hours for the flush
collar (detail 4-C-2) show that butt welds are significantly more
expensive than fillet welds.
The cost and performance of the two details shown in this group
follow the same trends as for bars.
C.6.3 Angles
C.6.4 Tees
The lapped collar (detail 4-B-3) is both the least expensive and
most observed detail. If flush collars are required, their expense can
be minimized by using a clearance cutout with some attachment to the
stiffening member (detail 4-B-6&7 versus 4-B-8).
C-16
FIGURE C-10
COST VERSUS PERFORMANCE - TIGHT COLLAR DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 4
BARS L IF,. 5%
BULB
FLATS
4-D-3 4-C-3
500 120
0.92 hrs. 3.36 hrs.
ANGLES 7J 7 "J F
4-A-1 4-A-11 4-D-4 4-A-12 4-A-13
2024- 1442 1180 645 424
2.36 hrs. 3.29 hrs. 1.20 hrs. 3.29 hrs. 2.61 hrs.
TEES W -,
Note: Hours shown are for 8" deep stiffeners penetrating " plate.
C-17
C.7 GUNWALE CONNECTION DETAILS - FAMILY NO. 5
C.7.I Riveted
C.7.2 Welded
Two alternate welded designs are shown in Fig. C-11. The rolled
plate of detail 5-B-i eliminates the raw plate edge of detail 5-B-5 but
it has the disadvantage of requiring transitions to square corners near
the ends of the ship and loss of deck area. The latter may be a
significant consideration on containerships and roll-on/roll-off
vessels. This tyDe of trade-off is beyond the scope of the project
reported here.
FIGURE C-Il
COST VERSUS PERFORMANCE - GUNWALE CONNECTION DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 5
RIVETED
WELDED r
5-B-1 5-B-5
10
C.8 DECK CUTOUT D AILS - FAMILY NO. 9
C-18
C.8.1 Not Reinforced
C.8.2 Reinforced
V 0.3%
NOT 36
/ 0.1% 1
3D6- e 1%
REINFORCED
0.3%
9-B-3 9-B-5 9-B-1
765/1 1375/4 357/4
(380N) (470N) (190N)
6.58 hrs. 6.55 hrs. 4.02 hrs.
HATCH
CORNERSr%0.4
Note: Hours shown are for 3/4" plate and automatic burning equipment.
C-19
C.9 MISCELLANEOUS CUTOUT DETAILS - FAMILY NO. 7
The least expensive openings are those where only one of the plates
is sniped (details 7-D-3 and 7-D-1). The three observed failures in
detail 7-D-1 were attributed to heavy seas rather than basic detail
geometry. It is easier to wrap the ends of the welds and paint plate
edges on detail 7-D-1 than on details 7-D-4 and 7-D-3. Consequently,
detail 7-D-1 is the recommended geometry.
Both performance and cost seem to favor the straight snipe over the
radiused corner. These openings are used for drainage and to provide
welding access. For a given leg dimension, the latter detail (7-C-15)
performs both functions better and allows more space to wrap the weld
ends and paint the plate edge. Since the failure rates are so small and
the fabrication hours are so close, a choice between the two details is
difficult, but detail 7-C-15 is recommended.
C.9.5 Miscellaneous
C-20
FIGURE C-13
COST VERSUS PERFORMANCE - MISCELLANEOUS CUTOUT DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 7
ACCESS 1.3%
OPENINGS 00
/0
7-A-3 7-A-4 7-A- i 7-A-8
2111 (610N) 205 266/2 847/11
18"x36": 18"x36": 26"x66": (250/5N)
0.08 hrs. 5.17 hrs. 7.08 hrs. 26"x66":
7.14 hrs.
LAPPED
WEB 0.5%
OPENINGS
I.W.O. %
1'0 015%
CORNERS
7-C-16 & 7-H-9 7-C-15 & 7-H-10
77,130/76 32,533/50
(10,OOON) (4040N)
311x3" : 3"R:
0.08 hrs. 0.09 hrs. 0.06% 0.3% 0.3%
0.02% 0.05% ,
I .w.o. =c I
\
I -
+
- *
PLATE
7-C-8 & 7-C-4 & 7-B-3 & 7-B-I, 7-C-I, 7-B-2 7-B-5,
EDGE
7-H-6 7-H-4 7-C-9 7-C-3, 7-F-7, 7160/20 7-C-7,
11,520 4022/1 33,166/17 7-H-1 & 7-H-2 (1370/20N)7-H-3
2"x8": (2600N) (2740/17N) 57,148/345 1 'Dia: 7-H-5
0.01 hrs. 3"x6": 3"x6": (2700/3N) 0.01 hrs. 20,835/
0.01 hrs. 0.01 hrs. I "R: 67
0.01 hrs. (1600/2N)
211x8" :
0.01 hrs
MISC.
7-G-2
0.2%
7-F-3 &
/ 10'.%
7-F-2 &
:,
7-C-13, 7-E-1,
: 0,3.3%
7-C-14,
1270 7-G-3 7-G-1 7-F-1 & 7-G-5 7-E-2 & 7-F-E
4"x8": 8458/14 3253/7 25,675/115 1969/65(70N)
2.70 hrs. (4770/3N) (1210N) (I1,050N) 15"x23":
15"x23": 18"Dia.: 18"Dia.: 0.06 hrs.
3.91 hrs. 2.94 hrs. 0.05 hrs.
Note: Hours are for " plate and automatic burning equipment for the first,
fourth, and fifth groups.
C-21
C.O0 STANCHION END DETAILS - FAMILY NO. 10
The least expensive detail shown in Fig. C-14 for this group is a
simple pad (detail 10-B-2). However, two failures were observed for
this detail. The two chock detail 10-B-10 and the four large chock
detail 10-B-13 show a normal increase of cost with increasing numbers of
added pieces. The remaining two details shown (10-B-8 and 10-B-i) are
sometimes called tension chocks and are used where space is not
available to fit chocks as in detail 10-B-13. These details are
fabricated by slotting the end of the stanchion and fitting it over a
rectangular plate previously welded to the deck. The only difference
between the two details shown is the length of the plate. The resulting
details are relatively inexpensive although the potential for rework
is higher than that of the other details shown.
C-22
FIGURE C-14
COST VERSUS PERFORMANCE - STANCHION END DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 10
TOP OF
CIRCULAR
STANCHIONS
T
10-A-3 10-A-22 10-A-24 10-A-7 10-
240(230N) 150 90 50
1.30 hrs. 3.00 hrs. 4.46 hrs. 2.03 hrs. 4.11 hrs.
t2%
10-A-2
470/1
0.57 hrs.
BOTTOM OF 11
CIRCULAR
STANCHIONS i
TOP OF "H"
STANCHIONS
BOTTOM OF "H" + .6
STANCHIONS
Note: Hours shown are for 8" dia. x" thick pipe or 8"x8"x48# WF.
C-23
C.10.4 Bottom of NH" Stanchions
Of the three details shown in Fig. C-14, the least expensive is the
simple pad (detail 10-B-16). Using existing structure to back up one
flange (detail 10-B-15) gives a relatively economical design which is
very similar to the top connection detail 10-C-31. The remaining design
(detail 10-B-18) costs considerably more because of the difficulty in
fitting and welding the stanchion to a sloping girder and the additional
chocks required.
The fabrication hours shown in Fig. C-15 are for two approximately
equal strength members based on section modulus. In general, the hours
for the I-T section details are less than those of the angle section.
This result comes primarily from the I-T section having a thinner web
and flange than the angle section and, consequently, requiring smaller
fillet welds.
The term full connection is used here to indicate that the entire
web and flange of a stiffener is connected to supporting structure. The
best detail structurally is 11-D-3 where the stiffener lands on another
member which enables both shear and bending moments to be transmitted
through the connection. However, this detail is also the most
expensive. For the other two details, very little bending moment can be
transmitted by the connection so the primary justification for welding
in the flange is to provide lateral support for the stiffener. These
two connections should not be used where the plating at the end of the
stiffener is subject to hydrostatic loading unless such plating is
relatively thick. For example, navy requirements limit these two
details to stiffeners 6" or smaller on 0.75" or thicker plate.
Otherwise, backup structure or pads should be fitted. Most of the
failures in detail 11-A-9 were attributed to poor maintenance.
C.11.2 Padded
C.11.3 Lapped
C-24
FIGURE C-15
COST VERSUS PERFORMANCE-STIFFENER END DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 11
FULL7-",7[
CONNECTIONS
PADDED
'
LAPPED
II-D-2 II-D-1
373 312
0.59 hrs. 0.97 hrs.
WITH END
CHOCKS
1I-E-2 11-E-3
238 40
1.20 hrs. 1.20 hrs.
WITH0
CLIPS 6%
iI-B-4
2463/14
0.84 hrs.
SNIPPED
.2% .5%
05
11-A-7 11-A-8
12,415/26 870/4 (670/4N)
0.49 hrs. 0.35 hrs.
C-25
C.11.4 With End Chocks
End chocks are relatively expensive and only transmit the beam's
shear load to the backing structure which presumably exists on the
opposite side of the plating.
C.11.6 Sniped
The fabrication times for the flat bars shown in Fig. C-16 vary
almost directly with the amount of welding on the ends. The shape of an
unwelded end is relatively insignificant (compare the hours for 12-A-4
with 12-A-5 and 12-A-3 with 12-A-i) and sniped ends seem to perform
better than straight end cuts (comparing 12-A-3 and 12-A-i). Welding
in the straight end cuts as in detail 12-A-6 increases the lateral
stiffness of the flat bar but leaves hard spots on the attached plating
which can lead to cracking.
C.12.2 Shapes
Shapes performed better than flat bars as panel stiffeners and tees
performed better than angles. Angles are slightly more expensive than
tees for the sizes and arrangements shown in Fig. C-16 because the angle
has a thicker web and consequently requires heavier welds than the tee.
C-26
FIGURE C-16
COST VERSUS PERFORMANCE - PANEL STIFFENER DETAILS-FAMILY NO. 12
FLAT
BARS 0.8% A.2% 4.2%
12-A-4 12-A-5 12-A-3 12-A-6 12-A-1
240(150N) 372/3 9589/118 7000/92 570/24
1.23 hrs. 1.26 hrs. (2700N) (530N) (30/24N)
1.00 hrs. 1.51 hrs. 0.94 hrs.
SHAPES0.7%
FLAT BARS
ON WEBS
T 3% 0.5%
I.W.O.
LONG.
12-C-4 12-C-8 12-C-6 12-C-3 12-C-5
3530 970 698(130N) 7223/21 2346/12(1160N)
1.21 hrs. 1.47 hrs. 1.51 hrs. 1.26 hrs. 1.37 hrs.
FLAT BARS
ON WEBS
12-D-1
(240N)
1.20 hrs.
Note: Hours shown are for 6"x " F.B., 6"x4"x3/8"L, or 6"x4"x16# I-..,
all 36" long.
C.12.3 Flat Bars on Webs In Way of Longitudinals
Only one detail is shown in this group because most of the others
observed were very similar. Ending or sniping the stiffener clear of
the attached plating both reduces the cost of the detail and eliminates
a hard spot on the plating.
C-27
COMMITTEE ON MARINE STRUCTURES
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council