RINA ICSOT 2006: DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION & OPERATION OF NATURAL GAS CARRIERS & OFFSHORE SYSTEMS 14 – 15 September 2006, Busan, Korea © 2006: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects The Institution is not, as a body, responsible for the opinions expressed by the individual authors or speakers THE ROYAL INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS 10 Upper Belgrave Street London SW1X 8BQ Telephone: 020 7235 4622 Fax: 020 7259 5912 ISBN No: 1-905040-27-X ICSOT 2006: Design, Construction & Operation of Natural Gas Carriers & Offshore Systems, Korea CONTENTS Ship Structural Design and Construction of Large LNG Carriers (LNGC’s) at Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) – Malaysia International Shipping Corporation (MISC) Representative Perspectives Mohd Fauzi Yaakob, International Shipping Corporation, Malaysia Gas Carrier Development for an Expanding Market Sverre Valsgård, Tom Klungseth Østvold, Olav Rognebakke, Eirik Byklum and Hans O Sele ,Det Norske Veritas, Norway The Propulsion of a 250000m³ LNG Ship John Carlton, Lloyds Register, UK Gas Combination Units for Dual Fuel Diesel / Electric or Slow Speed Diesel LNG Carriers Damien Féger, Snecma Moteurs, France The New Generation of LNG Carrier Machinery Barend Thijssen, Wärtsilä, Finland Trimariner Corporation’s LNG SeaTrain©, The First Truly-Modular LNG Shipping System Stephen Henderson and Mary Lou Harrold, Trimariner Corporation, USA LNG LiteTM – The Real Alternative to LNG Bruce Hall, SeaOne Maritime Corp, USA Ian Robinson, SeaTec Engineering, UK Optimization of a Composite CNG Tank System Thomas Plonski, Galal Galal, Gerhard Würsig and John Holland, Germanischer Lloyd, Germany Design and Construction of Bilobe Cargo Tanks Ivo Senjanovi, Smiljko Rudan and Vedran Slapniỵar, University of Zagreb, Croatia A study on Fatigue Management System for LNG Carriers Using Fatigue Damage Sensor Toshiro Koiwa, Norio Yamamoto and Hirotsugu Dobashi, Nippon Kaiji Kyokai, Japan Osamu Muragishi, Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd., Japan and Yukichi Takaoka, Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation, Japan CSA-2 Analysis of a 216k LNGc Membrance Carrier Torbjørn Lindemark, Håvard N Austefjord Hans O Sele and Hang Sub Urm, Det Norske Veritas, Norway Keon Jong Lee, Hyundai Heavy Industries Co, Ltd, Korea, and T M Ha, Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd, Korea Extreme Sloshing and Whipping-Induced Pressures and Structural Response in Membrane LNG Tanks Mateusz Graczyk, Torgeir Moan and MingKang Wu, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Norway © 2006: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects ICSOT 2006: Design, Construction & Operation of Natural Gas Carriers & Offshore Systems, Korea The Parametric Study on the Response of Membrane Tanks in a Mark III Type LNG Carrier Using Fully Coupled Hydro-elastic Model Sung Kil Nam, Wha Soo, Kim, Byeong Jae, Noh Hyung Cheol, Shin and Ick Hung, Choe, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Korea Selected Hydrodynamic Issues in Design of Large LNG Carriers Mirela Zalar, Sime Malenica and Louis Diebold, Bureau Veritas, France Veritification of Numerical Methods applied to Sloshing Studies in Membrane Tanks of LNG Ships Nagaraja Reddy Devalapalli and Dejan Radosavljevic, Lloyds’s Register, UK Strength Assessment of Box Type LNG Containment System Bo Wang, Jang Whan Kim, and Yung Shin, American Bureau of Shipping, USA Dynamic Strength Characteristics of Membrane Type LNG Cargo Containment System Jae Myung Lee, Jeom Kee Paik and Myung Hyun Kim, Pusan National University, Korea and Wha Soo Kim, Byeong Jae Noh and Ick Heung Choe, Hyundai Heavy Industries Co, Ltd Korea Numerical Analysis of 3-D Sloshing in Tanks of Membrane-Type LNG Carriers M Arai and H S Makiyama, Yokohama National University, Japan L Y Cheng, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil A Kumano, Nippon Kaiji Kyokai, Japan T Ando, National Maritime Research Institute, Japan A Imakita, Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co, Ltd, Japan Authors’ Contact Details © 2006: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects ICSOT 2006: Design, Construction & Operation of Natural Gas Carriers & Offshore Systems, Korea SHIP STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF LARGE LNG CARRIERS (LNGCS) AT SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES – MISC BERHAD REPRESENTATIVE PERSPECTIVES M F Yaakob, MISC Berhad, Malaysia SUMMARY The paper would like to present MISC perspectives for the structural and construction of Large LNG Carriers* at Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) due to the heavy interest in LNG Carriers in the newbuilding market Currently, MISC as the front-runner of LNG Carriers Ship Owner/Operator in the world and combined experience more than 20 years would share the experience in design review, quality management and project management in order to promote high quality of standards in terms of safety and reliability with other Ship Owners The paper would like to share the lessons learned from designing until building stages with other prospective Owners of the Large LNGC at SHI This effort will hope to alleviate and maintain the current safety records of LNGC operations around the world The current rush of large LNGC newbuilding should be encouraged and promoted by the LNG industry However, the rush should be cautioned with promotions of discussions between new and experience Owners through various organizations like SIGGTO in terms design and production of the Large LNGC * Large LNG Carriers is generally defined as cargo tank capacity bigger than 100,000cbm whilst Very Large LNG Carriers is defined as cargo tank bigger than 200,000cbm INTRODUCTION The trend of current LNG newbuildings is that the cargo capacity keeps increasing every year The shipyard proposal keeps adding the numbers of tank capacity until there is no limit to the membrane LNG carriers Prior to this phenomenon, the Large LNG Carriers standard designs are limited to 130,000cbm to 138,000cbm In 2004, Qatar Gas selected two designs proposed by Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI)/Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) Consortium and Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME) to build larger than 200,000cbm capacity LNG Carriers The contract of the Very Large LNGCs clearly showed that there is no limitation of what is coming to the industry The construction of the LNG newbuildings around the world will increase until the Qatar Gas acquisitions of LNG ships settled sometime in 2012 Previously in the past, any LNG newbuildings will be based on a fixed charter contract between the Charterer and the Owner However, recent trend of the LNG newbuildings is now moving towards the spot charter market and speculative in nature making the newbuildings slots for LNG very tight among the LNGC capable shipyards In order to become pro-active player in the LNG transportation market and promoting high quality standards in LNGC newbuildings, MISC would like to share the experience gained during supervision of newbuildings of Large LNGC MISC experience in LNGC newbuildings is further augment by the fact that most of the newbuildings ordered in the recent years are based the membrane-type insulation rather than other type of insulation like the Moss-type or independent tank-type In 2004 alone, the big three shipyards in Korea won almost 90 percent of the LNG tanker ©2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects contracts awarded (membrane-based insulation) (Herald Tribune, 2004) All of the fleet under MISC operation is based on the membrane type insulation, NO96 and Mark III systems MISC, as the front-runner of the LNG Carrier ship owner/operator in the world, is keeping pace with the development constantly Six new LNGC project in Japan with capacity of 137,000cbm were contracted in 1998, designed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) whilst the construction were shared between MHI and Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding (MES) In 2003, another five LNGC were signed with SHI with capacity of 145,000cbm to be delivered between 2005 until 2007 Recently in 2004, another five LNG were signed with MHI with capacity of 152,300cbm to be delivered between 2007 and 2009 The trend of the LNGC capacity growing as the time goes by By the 2009, MISC will have about 29 LNG ships for operation worldwide Figure 1: MISC First LNGC at SHI, SERI ALAM, during Gas Trial ICSOT 2006: Design, Construction & Operation of Natural Gas Carriers & Offshore Systems, Korea INTRINSIC FACTORS 2.1 CLASSIFICATION The six LNG Carriers built in MHI/MES was classed by LR under the notation LR +100A1, Liquefied Gas Tanker, Ship Type 2G, Shipright (SDA, FDA, CM, HCM, SERS), PCWBT, +LMC, UMS, IWS (Maximum Vapor Pressure 25 kPaG at sea, Minimum cargo temperature –163oC, Maximum cargo density 500 kg/m3) while the LNG Carriers built in SHI is classed by BV under the notation of BV I + Hull, + Mach, Liquefied Gas Carrier, Shiptype 2G (Membrane Tank, Maximum Pressure 25kPaG and Minimum Temperature –163oC, Specific Gravity 500 kg/m3), Unrestricted Navigation, + VeriSTAR-HULL, +AUT-UMS, InWaterSurvey, +SysNeq-1, Mon-Shaft, Mon-Hull Both Classification Societies have their own concept of approval the structural design of the large LNGCs The Societies requirements on the local scantling are the same where a simple program is able to calculate the minimum requirements of each Class Then, in order to minimize and optimize the steel structure the Yards will pursue the matter using the direct calculation method where a finite element modeling is performed for the cargo hold area Both shipyards only performed minimum 3-cargo tanks structural modeling of FEA (minimum requirements by the Classification Societies) Full structural modeling of the ship structure integrity were not performed both shipyards because there is no requirement for the full modeling under the Building Specification However, due to importance of the connection between the cargo holds and the engine room and the forepeak tank, SHI performed the detail connection analysis of the structure as required BV Detail discussion of the FEA approach by SHI will be discussed in detail later 2.2 COST Based on the experience of MISC over the past 20 years, the cost of the Large LNGC is going down from the early deliveries of Large LNGC from French shipyard to the Japanese shipyards During the early stage of the Large LNGC construction in Europe the prices may reach more than USD200 million per ship The price offered by MHI/MES consortium was lower than the French shipyard when MISC decided to build the next batch of Large LNGC in Japan The price was lower than the Japanese consortium when MISC decided to build the Large LNGC in Korea specifically in Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) However, due to sudden requirements from Charterers or Ship Owners for LNG tonnage the price increases for the LNG Carriers in the recent years The situation worsens when the slot for the construction of the LNG Carriers diminishing rapidly with the high requirements for new start up projects like QatarGas and RasGas, NLNG Train In order to compete with the Korean shipyards, the Japanese shipyards need to increase the capacity and other modifications / improvements to maintain or lower the price of Large LNGC in Japan Due to high volume of orders from the Ship Owners, the Korean shipyards like DSME and SHI, are able to offer prices lower than their Japanese counterparts In 2004 alone, the big three Korean shipbuilders grabbed about 17.3 million compensated gross tons (CGT) last year, the world’s largest, and far higher than No.2 Japan’s 12.2 million tons (Yonhapnews, 2004) At the end of 2004, South Korean yards had a combined order backlog of 35.4 million gross tonnage, the first time it has passed the 30-million-gross tonnage level (Tradewinds, 2005) 2.3 DESIGN The design of the 145000cbm LNGC at SHI is a development from its standard design of 138000cbm LNGC As Owners are pushing the capacity higher and higher, SHI keep coming up with various designs for Owner consideration The designs vary from higher capacities to various type of propulsion system But one thing for sure, the capacities of the LNGCs are increasing to lower the cost of LNG transported per shipment The bigger the capacity with the similar power, the capital cost is obviously lower For example, the cargo tank capacity of MISC Large LNGC ordered and built increasing from the Tenaga ships (130,000cbm) built in France, Puteri Satu ships (137,000cbm) in Japan, Seri ‘A’ series (145,000cbm) in Korea to the latest LNGCs signed at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of 152,3000cbm for steam propulsion and of 157,000cbm for dual-fuel diesel electric propulsion The size of Large LNGC will increase when Charterer or Ship Owner is looking at attractive or lower economics from newbuilding to operation in order to lower the cost of transported per MMBTU For example, the cost of transported on the 200,000cbm LNGC is cheaper compared with 137,000cbm LNGC The cost is even lower when the Very Large LNGC is using slow speed diesel where the propulsion system is much more efficient than the steam propulsion system As the size of the ships keep increasing, the Designers in the shipyards will try to come up with various design possibilities to get the basic idea of lower cost of LNG transported per shipment For whatever possible combination for the new designs by the shipyards, the limitations of Very Large LNGCs are the propulsion system, visibility, sloshing and import and export terminals Since all of the LNG fleet in MISC is all steam driven, the limitation for the size is always the propulsion system Currently, the biggest steam turbine delivered by the top turbine Maker is limited to lower than 30,000 kW Therefore, new generation of MISC LNG Carriers ©2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects ICSOT 2006: Design, Construction & Operation of Natural Gas Carriers & Offshore Systems, Korea need to be changed from traditional steam propulsion to dual-fuel diesel electric propulsion to cater for increasing capacity of LNG Carriers as required by the market forces Otherwise MISC will have a limited market for LNG transportation when the size of steam ships is limited to 150,000cbm The shipyards on the other hand had proposed diesel-electric propulsion system to cater for the increase in the efficiency by achieving higher capacity of the LNG transported per the same size of ships 2.4 a b c d STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENT Engine Room FE analysis (to study the effect of static and dynamic acceleration of the machineries and the ship hogging and sagging) Manifold Deck Connection FE analysis (to study the effect of effective connection between the ship structure and the manifold deck Manifold Deck Saddle Strength FE Analysis (to study the strength of the manifold deck under stress) Engine Room Girder FE Analysis (to study the misalignment of the 14960mm off CL with 15120mm off CL) The structural arrangement of the LNGC is an evolution of previous standard size of 138,000cbm LNGC by SHI The structural arrangement is to remain the same but rearranged to suit the current 145,000cbm For MISC ships at SHI, the connection of the fore and aft structure is analyzed in detail through finite element analysis Some reinforcement was done to increase the strength of the structure globally (Sohn, C.H., August 2003) 2.5 LONGITUDINAL GIRDERS ARRANGEMENT Detail review of the structure showed that the forepeak alignment of the longitudinal girders is easy to perform because of no foundation alignment required at the fore area However, there is a slight mis-alignment of the main girders of the cargo tanks with the engine room girders The outer most main girder (cruciform joint lower hopper arrangement) for the cargo tanks is arranged at 15120mm off centerline while the sea chest girder is arranged 14960mm off the centerline All other girders are aligned between the cargo holds and the engine room SHI did not explain the reason for the mis-alignment arrangement, but willing to perform finite element study to verify the connection (Yoon, K.S., 2004) Based on the study, through various loading conditions and static and dynamic conditions for the machineries, the misalignment connection is lower than the allowable stress but the opening for the seawater cross connection pipe showed that the stress is above the allowable stress limits by the Society Further improvement was suggested by the Hull Structure Design Team to improve the conditions Thicker plate was arranged in way of the opening to compensate the loss of the structure and reduce the stress concentration due to large opening (1800mm diameter) at the girder 2.6 OTHER AREAS ARRANGEMENT Other specific studies, other than the standard studies requested by the Society, were also performed by the Hull Structure Design Team to look into areas of concern The studies include; ©2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects Figure 2: Results from the Engine Room FE Analysis at Reduction Gear and Turbine Foundation 2.7 CARGO CONTAINMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN The ship structural arrangement is designed around the inner hull geometry for carrying the LNG cargo The structural design of the ship is fairly typical of a tanker design except for the notable differences in the detail joints inside the cargo holds and the cargo hold connection with the fore and aft section of the ship structure The hopper connection of the cargo tanks and the cofferdam foot arrangement is very important for the LNGC due to the fact LNGC allows zero tolerance of any possibility of crack or failure on the joints Not like any other tankers, GTT Mark III membrane LNGC cargo tank is insulated by mastic glue with Reinforced Polyurethane Form (R-PUF) and covered by Triplex (Continuous Strand Matt and aluminum) as the secondary barrier and finally covered by a Primary Membrane of 1.2mm SUS 304 corrugated membrane There is a notable difference between the NO96 and Mark III system where the maximum allowable stress for the LNGC by SHI is 185 MPa (GTT, 2001) while the allowable stress for LNGC built by MHI is 120 MPa (GTT, 1982) The difference of the allowable limit is because of the type of membrane system used for each ship The Mark III system allows higher limit because of the inherent properties of the double layers of R-PUF that ICSOT 2006: Design, Construction & Operation of Natural Gas Carriers & Offshore Systems, Korea is separated by the Triplex While the NO96 system limitation is the box design of the insulation system Since both membrane systems are having lower allowable stress than the ship structural allowable stress by Bureau Veritas (BV, 2003), the Designers are playing with delicate structure in order to ensure 40 years of fatigue life for the cargo tanks as required by MISC The highest von Mises stress designed for the No96 system by MHI is only 118MPa while the highest stress designed for the Mark III system by SHI is 186MPa (coarse mesh study) at the vertical web of the cofferdam foot opening Even with that condition BV still requires SHI to increase the thickness of the vertical web from the proposed design 2.8 HOPPER/COFFERDAM CONNECTIONS Through MISC experience, the typical failures in the structure normally occur at the top and bottom knuckle due to discontinuity of stress flow vertically between the top and bottom structure Therefore, MISC highlighted the possible problems early to SHI during the design process The problems of hopper connection were acknowledged and experienced by SHI Hull Design and Welding Research Institute Thus through various discussions, SHI agreed to design extra leg length at the cruciform joint and smooth grind the cruciform to increase the fatigue life of the connection Smooth grinding of the cofferdam and the longitudinal connection was also applied to increase the fatigue life and facilitate better stress transfer The effect of the effect of the smooth grinding increased the fatigue life of the connection up to 70 years FE ANALYSIS The Hull Strength Analysis required under the Society for the approval of the ship structure was also performed by the Society However, SHI only requested the Society to perform the minimal analysis as required by the Society, mid cargo hold structure analysis (Sohn, C.H., August 2003) and the cargo hold analysis and fore and aft connection (Sohn, C.H., November 2003) Other than the structural design technology at the hopper connections, LNGC design lies in the connection between the fore and aft part of the ship where the stress transfer is high If the connection details are not carefully managed and arranged, the connection will create hotspots for the stress transfer thus promoting possible failure of the ship connection between the strong cargo hold area and the forepeak and engine room area The main concentration of the structure analysis is the connection between the cargo holds and the fore and aft sections Some modifications are required to improve the connection between cargo holds and the fore and aft sections The strengthening of the connections includes the following a b c d e MISC also insisted for SHI to simulate the proposed full penetration welding at the hopper area and smooth grinding in order to provide a proper sequence for the welders Based on the simulation at the Welding Laboratory, a welding sequence was written by SHI to be used by the welders during construction of the MISC LNGC at SHI 2.9 FATIGUE ANALYSIS The Building Specification of the MISC LNGC also specified 40 years fatigue life for the ship structure based on the North Atlantic wave data as specified in IACS Recommendation 34 The fatigue analysis is performed by the Society based on the Society’s propriety FEA software, BV VeriSTAR Hull, with the dynamic loads at 10-8 probability level The results of the ship showed that improvements were made to achieve the required fatigue life stated by MISC The fatigue analysis performed by Society is based on the damage ratio calculation of the Society’s software The fatigue analysis results made by the Society showed that the lowest fatigue life were at the fwd and aft cofferdam foot, 41 and 44 years respectively (Sohn, C.H., August 2003) f Reinforcement of Cofferdam Vertical Bulkhead for Cargo Hold (at CL) Reinforcement of Cofferdam Vertical Bulkhead for Cargo Hold (2700 off CL) Reinforcement of Cofferdam Vertical Bulkhead for Cargo Hold (5370 off CL) Reinforcement at Cofferdam Vertical Bulkhead for Cargo Hold (10710 off CL) Reinforcement of Stringer (145000 AB) inside the Cofferdam no.5 for Cargo Hold Reinforcement of Stringer (22790 AB) inside Fwd Pump Room for Cargo Hold SHI also perform other specific local FEA to cater for local strength analysis besides the global strength analysis as required by the Society The specific FEAs for the ship structural design like the Cargo Hose Handling Crane FEA, The Provision Crane FEA, Sunken Bit FEA and forward mooring/anchor windlass foundation beam analysis CONSTRUCTION The number of ships constructed in SHI keeps increasing as the year goes by In 2003, the total ships delivered by SHI were only 43, while the total ships delivered in 2004 were 50 Before the recent spat of increasing trend of LNG newbuildings, the total number of LNGC ships normally built by SHI is around per year However, in 2005 SHI is targeting to build around LNGC to take advantage of the current drive of LNGC by Owners around the world The number of LNGC to be built in SHI will also keep increasing as SHI is planning to bring ©2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects ICSOT 2006: Design, Construction & Operation of Natural Gas Carriers & Offshore Systems, Korea in second floating dock for the docking of Very Large LNGC signed under the QatarGas project The construction of the LNG ships at SHI is simplified through proper planning of the hull construction and relieving the chock point of the hull construction – drydocks SHI will design and plan the construction of the ships so that a fixed and regime timeframe will be observed at the drydocks So far, Dock Hull Erection team already conversed with the LNG newbuildings and can easily build, erect, weld and launch a typical 145,000m3 LNG ships within 45 working days The main target for the SHI Hull Erection Team is always and has been the Keel Laying date and the Launching date for every ship erected inside Dock BLOCK DIVISION The ship is roughly divided into 265 assembly blocks including the 411 sub-assembly blocks The ship is also divided into several main block location i.e B-block for the double bottom ballast, S-block for the wing ballast, T-block for the cofferdam, F-block for the forward ballast and forepeak, DS-block for the trunk passageway, DC-block for the inner trunk deck, E-block for the engine room, A-block for the stern section, M-block for the superstructure and funnel casing SHI went one step further in freeing the dock time by making mega blocks (3000 – 3500tonnes) around the shipyards and Sub-Contractors 1 Working Day 26-Jun-04 28-Jun-04 28-Jun-04 29-Jun-04 30-Jun-04 Date Plan Actual Working Day Date Plan Actual 7-Jul-04 10 8-Jul-04 4 11 9-Jul-04 1-Jul-04 1 2-Jul-04 1 5-Jul-04 6-Jul-04 12 13 14 15 10-Jul-04 12-Jul-04 14-Jul-04 15-Jul-04 16-Jul-04 19-Jul-04 1 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Working Day 20-Jul-04 21-Jul-04 22-Jul-04 23-Jul-04 24-Jul-04 25-Jul-04 26-Jul-04 27-Jul-04 25-Jul-04 Date 2 Plan 2 0 Actual 23 24 Working Day 26-Jul-04 27-Jul-04 28-Jul-04 29-Jul-04 30-Jul-04 31-Jul-04 1-Aug-04 2-Aug-04 3-Aug-04 Date 1 3 Plan 0 11 18 0 0 Actual 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Working Day 10-Aug-04 11-Aug-04 12-Aug-04 13-Aug-04 15-Aug-04 16-Aug-04 17-Aug-04 18-Aug-04 19-Aug-04 Date 4 Plan 4 Actual 33 34 40 Working Day 20-Aug-04 22-Aug-04 23-Aug-04 24-Aug-04 25-Aug-04 26-Aug-04 28-Aug-04 4-Sep-04 22-Oct-04 Date 2 1 1 Launching Plan 0 0 Launching Actual Table 1: Ship block erection history for Hn1502 in the Dock Practically, the shipyard is able to erect complete ship for launching/commissioning within 40 working days ©2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects ICSOT 2006: Design, Construction & Operation of Natural Gas Carriers & Offshore Systems, Korea For MISC Project Hn1502 and 1503, there were mega blocks consist of the Tank double bottom to the 2nd stringer, engine room double bottom up to the 2nd Flat, the whole accommodation block and the whole funnel casing For the MISC Project Hn1589, 1590 and 1591, SHI will further increase the number of the mega blocks to minimum of six with additional two mega blocks for the engine room from the 2nd Flat up to the Main Deck and Tank double bottom to the 2nd stringer expanded their facilities to go in hand with SHI corporate agenda to become a Global Leader by 2010 Figure 5: Hull erection method is even simpler Figure 6: Simple block division through various improvement Figure Lifting of Tank3 into Dock Figure 4: Lifting of Engine Room into Dock The block division of the ship is common in the shipbuilding industry nowadays after the ingenuity of the Japanese shipbuilder However, SHI is moving one step further by simplifying the system to facilitate dock erection time Combined with the minimum of 6-8 Hull Sub-Contractors around the shipyard and China, and better arrangement of the block division, SHI could simply shave off 4-6 months from the normal shipbuilding process The Hull Sub Contractors are located within 2060minutes driving from the Yard complete with the gantry cranes allow the block to be fabricated bigger and bigger This will make the block erection in the shipyard simpler For example, Anjung Hull Fabrication area that is located about 60 minutes from SHI consists of four Sub-Contractors namely, Sung Dong, Dong Yang, Kastech and Gaya Sung Dong and Dong Yang already The block division is designed so that all complicated sections and detail construction sections like the lower hopper joints will be done during the block stage This strategy will limit the Hull Erection Team to concentrate on the straight joints A typical erection of the wing ballast tank is taking about 30 minutes where the actual erection time is about minutes In fact, the erection team needs more time on bringing the block in place from the turning over area and tacking the block in place This concept is possible to be put in placed because of the well-thought out block division to suit the facilities and reduce the time in dock Due to simpler erection at dock, the accuracy of the hull erection is very high The connection between a typical transverse bulkhead is about 5-8mm and the side shell connection is almost perfect match even when the blocks are constructed about 45% outside of SHI ©2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects ICSOT 2006: Design, Construction & Operation of Natural Gas Carriers & Offshore Systems, Korea Confirmation) of repair work due to defect noted (based on Samsung Shipbuilding Quality Standard) is higher for outside fabrication than the inside fabrication In short, the quality the block inside the Yard is better than the quality of the block outside the Yard 1502 Figure 7: High accuracy of erection Manufacturer Blocks % SHI Outside SC 423 254 62.5% 37.5% Total 677 Manufacturer Blocks % SHI Outside SC 391 284 57.9% 42.1% Total 675 Manufacturer Blocks % SHI Outside SC 441 213 67.4% 32.5% Total 654 Manufacturer Blocks % SHI Outside SC 530 139 79.2% 20.8% Total 669 Manufacturer Blocks % SHI Outside SC 416 252 62.3% 37.7% Total 668 1503 1589 Figure 8: Gap between the transverse bulkhead CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1590 On average, SHI needed only months to build the blocks for the LNGC and another two months in the Erection period inside the Dock SHI could practically complete the hull construction of the LNGC within months a feat comparably very efficient compared with other Builders around the world like Japan or France The main reason for the fast construction of the hull is because SHI is good in managing the Sub-Contractors (inside and outside the Yard) especially when the construction of the ships largely dependent on the performance of the Sub-Contractors The project management works on the set target dates where it is the normal practice of current shipbuilding practice Then, the Planning department will work backward and distribute the construction of the blocks within the available contractors For MISC Project, the construction of the blocks for the outside contractors is about 45-47% Among the blocks that were built inside Yard, 52 blocks built the SubContractors and 371 blocks built by the SHI workers The quality of the construction of the blocks between the inside and outside Sub Contractors is comparatively the same However, the amount of re-inspection (Owner ©2006: Royal Institution of Naval Architects 1591 Table 2: Comparison Table for hull construction inside SHI and outside SHI for Hn1502, Hn1503, Hn1589, Hn1590 and Hn1591 SHARED LESSONS The main success criterion for any project management is planning MISC planned for the Site Team is set up in ... 10-Aug-04 11-Aug-04 12-Aug-04 13-Aug-04 15-Aug-04 16-Aug-04 17-Aug-04 18-Aug-04 19-Aug-04 Date 4 Plan 4 Actual 33 34 40 Working Day 20-Aug-04 22-Aug-04 23-Aug-04 24-Aug-04 25-Aug-04 26-Aug-04... 5-Jul-04 6-Jul-04 12 13 14 15 10-Jul-04 12-Jul-04 14-Jul-04 15-Jul-04 16-Jul-04 19-Jul-04 1 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Working Day 20-Jul-04 21-Jul-04 22-Jul-04 23-Jul-04 24-Jul-04 25-Jul-04 26-Jul-04... shipyards and Sub-Contractors 1 Working Day 26-Jun-04 28-Jun-04 28-Jun-04 29-Jun-04 30-Jun-04 Date Plan Actual Working Day Date Plan Actual 7-Jul-04 10 8-Jul-04 4 11 9-Jul-04 1-Jul-04 1 2-Jul-04 1 5-Jul-04