BENJAMIN W. LANKFORD, JR.

A Comparicon of Naval and Commcial

S t a d r d s for Design of Ships Hull Structum

THE AUTHOR
is Supervisory Naval Architect responsible for the Hull Design of
Auxiliary Ships and Minesweepers in the Hull Structural Branch, Hull
Systems and Weapons Support Division. of the Naval Ship Engineering
Center, Washington, D. C. He graduated from Virginia Polytechnic In-
stitute in 1954 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Architectural Engi-
neering. Received training as a Naval Architect at the Bureau of Ships,
predecessor of the Naval Ship Engineering Center. Author and co-
author of several papers appearing in the NAVALENGINEERSJOURNAL.
Member of American Society of Naval Engineers and the Association
of Senior Engineers of the Nuval Ship Systems Command.

INTRODUCTION design where major cost differences occur in order

to gain a more rational answer to the overall ques-
IN RECENT YEARS, NAVAL SHIP designers have been
called upon to produce, within a limited budget, a
tion of hull cost differences.

larger quantity of ships of greater efficiency and of NAVY AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS D E F I N E D
increased capabilities over former designs. To For this discussion, Commercial standards are
achieve lower costs, a trend towards greater utiliq- defined as those resulting from the use of American
tion of commercial standards has evolved. However, Bureau of Shipping R i h i for Building and Classing
because of many variances in design parameters Steel Vessels for design, and those construction de-
such as service experience and ship’s mission, full tails generally accepted by ABS as good Commer-
adherence to the lower cost commercial standards cial shipbuilding practice based on Commercial
in a Naval design has been impracticable. service experience. Navy standards on the other
A description of the differences in Commercial hand, utilize engineering design procedures devel-
and Naval hull structural design standards, and the oped for a particular loading on a ship. The con-
background experience on which Naval hull de-
signs are based will be presented to clarify the struction details are those developed by the Navy
Navy designer’s position which precludes full use through research and from experience gained from
of commercial practices. Further, the discussion will ships of the fleet.
serve to identlry some of the specific areas in a hull While the above distinctions are made between

Naval Engineers Journal. February I968 83

NAVAL VS COMMERCIAL STANDARDS LANKFORD

Commercial and Navy standards, it should be em- COMPARISON OF HULL WEIGHT

phasized that no major difference exists in the basic The Navy’s design approach has been largely
engineering principles underlying both standards. based on the contention that “Weight Costs Money.”
Excepting for variations resulting from different On this premise, a number of weight studies were
service experiences, both are based on “text book” conducted to provide a means of comparing the
design principles, structural costs of Commercial and Naval designs.
NAVY SHIP TYPES Results indicate that the null weight of Naval de-
Ships of the Navy can be grouped, according to signs are about 5 to 15 per cent lighter than the
their type of construction, into three basic cate- weight of Commercial designs. Some of this differ-
gories. First, there are the combatant ships, such as ence can be attributed to unavoidable factors such
aircraft carriers, destroyers, cruisers, and subma- as differences in hull configuration, load selection
rines. These ships provide the Navy’s fighting ca- and pure “rounding-off” of calculated scantlings or
pability and are thus indispensable to the Navy. the arbitrary ruggedness added by the structural
Their mission requires that they be capable of with- designer. The major part of the weight difference,
standing the rigsrs of battle and be capable of pro- however, can be ascribed to differences in the two
viding sustained service in all sea conditions. An design procedures.
additional design requirement imposed on com- One significant difference in overall weight re-
batant ships, but not on non-combatant auxiliaries, sults from the type of framing system used. The
is the ability to resist shock loads from underwater more favorable orientation of stiffened plate panels
explosions. To provide the ruggedness necessary to resulting from the longitudinal system of framing
meet these service requirements, closely fitted, time provides a greater hull girder strength for a given
and labor consuming Navy construction details are structural weight, and for this reason, this has been
used on the combatant ships. the system most consistently used on Navy designs.
The second group consists of non-combatant ships In contrast, Commercial designs, until recently, have
such as tenders, salvage ships, cargo ships, ammuni- employed the transverse framing system almost ex-
tion ships, troop transports and oilers. These designs clusively. The advent of larger commercial ships has
do not possess the attack capabilities of the com- resulted in recent trends towards the use of longi-
batant ships and are used primarily to support the tudinally framed decks and bottom structures for
fighting force. In this role they are not required to maximum strength with minimum weight, and
have the same high degree of ruggedness required transversely framed sides for maximum stowage
of a combatant ship; therefore, more economical capacity. Even with this composite system, com-
commercial standards can be used for this group. mercial designs appear to be heavier than Navy
However, unlike the non-military commercial ships, designs. This is probably due to the corrosion al-
a Navy non-combatant ship is expected to operate lowances incorporated in the Rules, and due to the
in a combatant environment; hence, the selection of fact that the Rules do not permit any reduction in
commercial standards to be used on these ships plate thicknesses to take advantage of the greater
must be made discriminately. buckling strength of longitudinally framed plating.
The third group includes such types as the Another area of significant weight differences lies
oceanographic research ships and the surveying in the transverse bulkheads. Here, Navy designs
shps. They are usually manned by civilian crews are as much as 40 per cent lighter than commercial
and are for the most part designed to ABS Rules. designs. However, since the amount of weight in
Since these ships function in a strictly non-com- transverse bulkheads is small compared to the total
batant role and are not expected to operate in a hull weight, this difference does not affect the over-
hostile environment, the relatively inexpensive a l l percentages appreciably.
commercial construction details are commonly em-
ployed in their design. COMPARISON OF HULL COST
From the above it is seen that the type of con- If weight was the sole factor affecting structural
struction details employed in a Navy ship design is cost, then it should follow that the lighter Navy de-
largely predicated upon the service requirement of signs would be less costly than Commercial designs.
the ship. The high standards of ruggedness required “his, unfortunately, is not always the case, as is
in the combatant ships precludes the use of com- shown by a number of Navy designs which proved
mercial standards in this group; however, they can to be more costly in spite of Substantially less
be profitably employed on the auxiliaries of the l a b weight. By the same token, there have been in-
ter two groups. Further, since more auxiliaries are stances where the concept of “Weight Costs Money”
built to support the smaller number of combatants, has proven correct. One such case is the design of
it is in this area that the greatest promise of econo- a longitudinally framed submarine tender. On the
mies is to be found. It is reasonable, therefore, to premise that the cost M e r e n t i d lay more in the
confine further discussions to a comparison of the cost of labor than in the cost of hull steel, the Navy
commercial design with the non-combatant auxil- deliberately used the smallest number of stiffener
iary. members practicable to reduce the amount of struc-

84 N a v a l Enqinows Journal. hbruaw 1768

LANKFORD NAVAL VS COMMERCIAL STANDARDS

tural fitting and welding, and increased the plate COMPARISON OF DESIGN METHODS
thicknesses to compensate for the resulting wider The Commercial approach to selecting structural
frame spacing. Further, the builder was given the scantlings differs from that of the Navy in that engi-
option to incorporate design changes aimed at re- neering calculations are reduced to a minimum by
ducing costs. The Contractor did, in fact, save some relying primarily on the scantling tables of the
$300,000 in hull structural cost, but he accomplished Rules. This provides a simplified method of select-
this, surprisingly, by increasing the number of stiff- ing structural members and results in consistent
ening members and reducing plate thicknesses for a scantlings for all ships of the same general size and
lower hull weight. In other words, the Contractor function. However, allowable stresses, design loads
reduced cost by reducing weight which corresponds and corrosion allowances are not readily recogniz-
with Navy’s concept. able, especially to those unfamiliar with the devel-
The question arose as to why this particular ship opment background of the Rules.
design resulted in a lower cost using standard Navy In the following outline of design methods, em-
design methods when the trend has been going in phasis is placed on those areas where variations
the other direction. One possible explanation is that occur between Navy and Commercial practice in
this particular Contractor is familiar with both order to locate the areas where cost and weight
Navy and Commercial design practices and had no differences become significant.
particular preference of one over the other. A strong Design Loads-The design loads for the various
possibility exists that the Contractor was reluctant elements of ship structure used by the Navy cannot
to completely depart from the longitudinal framing be described as being significantly different from
system and design requirements developed in the ABS Rules in any sense. The primary difference in
Navy contract design. If another builder who had a the resulting scantlings lies with the selection of fac-
strong preference for Commercial methods were to tors of safety or corrosion allowances; ABS being
have constructed the ship, he might have elected to more conservative in this respect. The previously
use the transverse framing system to further reduce noted, “Weight Cost Money” theory has led the
cost. Navy to use the lowest factors of safety commen-
While this example cannot be construed to be a surate with design requirements. Also, a greater
fully controlled experiment, it serves to indicate significance is placed in the static hogging, sagging
that building costs are closely affected, not only by and stillwater bending stresses in determining the
the structural weight and construction details of a adequacy of Naval hull girder strength.
design, but also by the experience and preference of Although the basic loading criteria of the ABS
the individual builder. The trend towards larger and Rules are not obvious in the scantling tables,
faster Commercial ships will undoubtedly encour- standard hydrostatic loads for damage control bulk-
age a wider use of lighter longitudinal framing sys- heads, tanks, decks and shell plating and cargo deck
tems, since weight reductions for speed and stability loads form the basis for selection of scantlings. This
will become an increasingly critical factor. As more is also true for Navy designs; however, slight differ-
widespread experience is gained in fabricating lon- ences occur because the Navy designs each specific
gitudinally framed ships, the cost differential be- compartment for the anticipated loading condition
tween longitudinal and transverse construction whereas AF3S has standardized these loads to a large
might be reduced. degree. It is presumed that in the future additional
Another trend which will surely affect the Navy- requirements may appear in the ABS Rules to ac-
Commercial comparison is the “Life-Cycle Cost” count for loads of any new or heavier vehicles and
concept. By this cost concept, more emphasis is di- helicopters which may be carried on board. How-
rected towards the overall reliability, maintainabil- ever, the Navy does not anticipate any basic changes
ity and operational characteristics of a ship and not in the method of selecting the appropriate load cri-
in the initial costs alone. Utilization of commercial teria and design methods in the future than has
practices or reduction of weight for cost savings may occurred in the past. As larger Commercial ships
not be the answer as it has been in recent years. are developed there is a possibility that ABS Rules
The Navy designer will have to look more toward will be modified, providing less factors of safety and
the maintenance aspects of a design. An interesting corrosion allowances to meet the demands for lower
recent commercial design which has considered this weight. This has p a r t i i y been done in the last few
concept is the L a v e Lloyd, a 12,000 dwt fast cargo years, as evidenced by the reduction permitted in
liner constructed by Nippon Kokan KK in Japan. shell platings which are coated with accepted protec-
This ship has 47% tons of steel in the hull which is tive coatings.
equivalemt to that used for 23,000 dwt classes, to Ice Strengthening-ABS has recently included
provide additional strength and durability. The ship new and more restrictive requirements for strength-
is also equipped with copper piping and other cor- ening of the hull for navigation in thin ice condi-
rosion resisting material to provide a ship “free tions provided the customer desires such strength-
from maintenance problems, and one which will be ening. This is one area of hull structure where the
modem even after 20 years of service.” cost of the Commercial design exceeds Navy de-

Naval bqln**rs Journal. hbruafy IT& 85

 NAVAL VS COMMERCIAL STANDARDS LANKF'ORD

signs, for at the present time the Navy does not

include any such strengthening in large ships, ex-
cept for icebreakers and the oceanographic research
and survey ships which may have to operate inde-
pendently in remote coastal waters. Fleet experi-
ence has shown that the absence of ice strengthening
has not hndered the operation of Naval auxiliary
ships and thus far there has been no ice damage re-
ported to warrant a change in the hull design
requirements.
Crack Arrestors-For all-welded Naval and Com-
mercial ship hulls over 300 feet in length, some
means of preventing the propagation of cracks in the
hull girder is required to reduce the possibility of
a catastrophic failure in service. For a number of
years riveted seams have been used for this pur-
pose. In the past few years mechanical fasteners, Figure 1. Average Charpy V-Notch Energy-Temp Rela-
tiOnShipS.
namely, Huck Bolts [l] and Hi-Lok Fasteners [2],
have been accepted by both Navy and ABS as a average curves for Charpy V-notch tests, medium
replacement for rivets for a cost reduction, and be- steel and high tensile steel, which are similar to the
cause of the general lack of qualified riveters in the grades acceptable to ABS, have decreased impact
shipbuilding industry. The results of the Navy test resistance at the zero degree temperature. Within
work on these fasteners is contained in [3, 41. In the normal scatter band of test results, the lowest
general, the number and location of riveted or me- test specimen values are considerably below these
chanically fastened seams required by the Navy is averages shown in Figure 1. Without tests to con-
the same as those required by ABS except for the firm a given performance level, it is entirely pos-
shell bilge strake. ABS requires a single seam at sible that plates of low impact resistance could be
the turn-of-the-bilge; consideration being given only built into the hull. Even if the 32 F temperatures
to dividing the hull into several nearly equal parts. used by ABS were acceptable, the Navy would re-
The Navy requires a seam both above and below the quire testing to assure a given minimum toughness
bilge keel because this member protrudes from the level for the hull. The Navy is considering use of
hull, is highly stressed, easily damaged and, there- HY-80 steel, which as shown by Figure 1, provides
fore, a potential crack starter. The cost for a Navy the high level of impact resistance which is consid-
design as compared to a Commercial ship designed ered necessary in order to approach the protection
to ABS Rules would therefore be higher in this area formerly attained with riveted seams. HY-80 has
because of the cost for installing these seams. There been used for the latest DLGN design on a trial
are other areas in the hull where consideration is basis.
given to crack prevention, which will be discussed A more detailed discussion of the impact resis-
later. tance comparisons between HY-80 and HTS is given
Another recent development relating to crack in [5].
stoppers is the use of a high notch tough steel insert Although the use of these plates in lieu of riveted
plate in lieu of riveted or mechanically fastened seams results in lower costs for both Navy and
joint. ABS permits the use of certain grades of me- Commercial ships, this is still another area where
dium and high tensile steel for providing the re- Navy costs are higher since HY-80 structure is
quired notch toughness for arresting possible hull nearly twice as expensive as that for HTS.
cracks. However, the rules in one case do not re- Welding-Before discussing the detailed differ-
quire impact testing and in other cases the impact ence in the welding techniques of the Navy and the
requirements are inadequate under Navy standards Commercial industry, it may be worthwhile to dis-
to assure high impact strength, i.e. maximum cuss what has transpired in recent years with weld-
Charpy V-notch upper shelf properties down to the ing specifications for Naval auxiliary ships. As
lowest service temperature. The lowest service tem- mentioned earlier, the welding specifications [S]
perature considered acceptable by Navy is 0 F; developed by the Navy have generally been asso-
ABS considers only 32 F.Although the temperature ciated with the combatant ship and as a result little
of steel is raised because of the heat generated in- regard has been given to the auxiliary. The cost
ternally and by the sea water in which the hull is differential has forced the Navy, reluctantly, to use
immersed, 32 F is considered unsatisfactory to the ABS specifications with several exceptions which
Navy. Naval ships are designed to operate in air will be discussed later. The ABS Rules on welding
weather conditions below 0 F and the resulting hull are general in nature, and requires a considerable
steel temperature above the waterline could be as amount of control by individual ABS Surveyors
low as 0 F. As can be seen by Figure 1 showing assigned to the shipyard. For ships not certified by

86 Naval E n q i n m Journal, hbruary I T U

 LANKFORD NAVAL VS COMMERCIAL STANDARDS

ABS, the services of ABS Surveyors are not avail- designs, however, the Navy has for the most part
able. This has led to numerous controversies be- accepted the ABS procedures, but as cited previ-
tween the Contractor and Navy inspectors on the ously, the basic problem has been in controlling
proper interpretation of ABS welding requirements. these inspection procedures.
Navy inspectors are generally familiar only with Materials-Several years ago, military specifica-
Navy requirements, and tend to either force Navy tions used for procurement of hull structural ma-
standards on the Contractor or neglect some of the terials contained a considerable amount of more
necessary ABS controls essential for satisfactory restrictive testing procedures and other controls
performance of the welds. Despite these contro- than contained in typical ASTM specifications used
versies, the Navy agrees that many of the Com- for Commercial purposes. "he basic medium steel
mercial welding standards are suitable for non- used in non-combatant naval ships, as a result of
combatant ships and that an effort should be made these restrictions, were more costly. In order to
toward their use. To this end, the Navy has de- reduce these costs, the military specifications were
veloped a new welding specification [7], which is revised to make them essentially the same as the
comparable to Commercial welding standards and ASTM specifications. One exception to the Com-
which is applicable only to welding of non-combat- mercial standard required by the Navy is that
ant ships. Inasmuch as this document is new, the plates over one-inch in thickness must be normal-
cost comparison with ABS rules is unknown. ized. The toughness of plating is reduced as the
Several designs must be completed or a special cost thickness is increased and the Navy desires to retain
study performed before a valid comparison can be toughness by a normalizing heat treatment to pre-
made. The document includes as many of the Com- vent brittle fracture in service. ABS rules do not
mercial standards as practicable, and its use should specifically invoke normalizing except for plates
eliminate the past controversies of interpretation, over 1%inches although a Surveyor of ABS may
and assure the Navy of a satisfactory product at a require this treatment in special cases.
lower cost. Structural DetaiZs-Commercial methods utilized
The actual welding details and inspection pro- for the connections of beams and girders, although
cedures vary between ABS and Navy standards. not precisely defined by ABS rules have been stand-
Because the Navy is not willing to accept certain ardized in industry through cost considerations,
requirements for Naval ships, full adherence to through precedence established by previous ABS
ABS Rules has not been feasible. As an example, plan approvals, and by various reports describing
intermittent welds permitted by ABS is considered proper methods and test results. The type of struc-
unsatisfactory for use in certain critical areas of tural detail is generally dictated by the loading
Naval ships such as peripheries of oiltight and water- condition imposed. For lightly loaded members
tight bulkheads, areas subject to fatigue, blast from where beam end restraint and shear considerations
the ships guns, and dynamic loading such as heli- are of less significance, the stiffener web and flange
copter landing loads. The use of intermittent welding are snipped as shown in Figure 2(a'), or where
for these areas has been proven unsatisfactory es- additional end restraint is necessary, only the flange
pecially in the areas subject to dynamic loadings. is snipped; Figure 2 (b) . Even these simple details
After World War 11, a number of ships investigated require some fitting of beams and, as a result, a
were found to have severely cracked intermittent number of connections are made using a small
welds. Also, intermittent welding of shell plating attachment bracket similar to that shown in Figure
stiffeners subject to impact of boats alongside has 2(c). For hgher loaded members, a bracket or
suffered cracking. A more recent example of a beam knee is used, as shown in Figure 2(d), to
failure was seen in a Commercial catamaran which provide moment and shear restraint at the ends of
suffered cracking of the intermittent welds in the the beam and to permit a reduction in the size of
side frames due to the high sea loads imposed be- the basic member. This type of bracket can also be
tween the two hulls during a storm. Because of these used purely as a connection bracket as noted pre-
problems the Navy requires continuous welds for viously, without any consideration given to its
these areas in all Naval ships regardless of the de- moment carrying ability. For large frame brackets
sign standards used. For other areas of the structure similar to those used for tanker construction, Figure
that are considered less critical, intermittent weld- 2(e), the web is lapped; again to eliminate close
ing is allowed, which accounts partially for the cost tolerances. In reviewing these typical Commercial
saving. details, it is apparent that their desijp is based on
Another source contributing to the cost differen- a desire to provide lower cost and easier construc-
tial lies in the welding inspection procedures; the tion techniques.
Navy being more critical in this respect by requir- Typical details commonly used in Navy construc-
ing generally a greater number of nondestructive tion are shown in Figure 3. These details have been
tests,and more comprehensive record keeping. Also developed primarily for combatant ships to provide
the basic electrodes purchased to Navy specifications a greater degree of ruggedness under battle condi-
have more restrictive controls. For the auxiliary tions. Greater attention is given to eliminating hard-

Naval Enpinearc Journal. hbruary I9M a7

 NAVAL VS COMMERCIAL STANDARDS LANKFORD

3
Figure 2. Commercial Beam C O M ~ ~ ~ ~ O I I S .

spots, notches and similar stress concentrations;

accordingly, their construction requires close fitting
butt joints in lieu of laps, and employs more refined
welding techniques. These refinements obviously add
significantly to the fabrication cost of the ship. For
the numerous small boats, barges and other service
craft in Naval service, the less costly commercial wfru 6RACYET
details have been used with satisfactory results.
There are also many areas in some of the larger Figure 3. Navy Beam Connections.
auxiliaries where commercial details can be profit-
ably used; however, as noted earlier, their applica-
tion must be made selectively. Owing to the higher frequently subject to notches, weld cuts, holes, and
service requirements placed on Naval auxiliaries it other unknown abuses inflicted by the ships crew.
is not likely that a complete adoption of commercial The Navy currently prefers a detail, as shown in
practices can be made. However, since the large Figure 4(b), which eliminates the exposed edge
number of joints involved in the construction of a of shell plating and uses a mechanically fastened
ship represents a sizeable percentage of the total angle to serve as a waterway bar. While this detail
cost, economic considerations will make it increas- may prove to be more expensive than the Commer-
mgly necesary for the Navy in investigate those cial details, operating circumstances force the Navy
areas in which commerical details can be accepted to accept the added cost in the interest of overall
with confidence. ship safety. This or similar details are specified for
As mentioned earlier, there are other structural all new Naval ships including the smaller ships with
details which are hportant in preventing the initia- low hull bending stresses. The reasoning being that
tion of cracks in the hull girder. In Commercial although the average hull stresses are low, the actual
designs the side shell plating is extended above the local stresses at notches may be considerably higher
uppermost strength deck to form a waterway coam- due to stress concentration factors in the range of
ing as shown in Figure 4(a). Experience on Naval 6 to 9. Under this condition the high stresses can
ships have shown that this exposed extension of the lead to fatigue cracking. Cracking in the d e r
side plating is easily damaged in service and is ships of less than about 300 feet in length could

88 Naval Enqinwrr Journal. February 1968

LANKFORD NAVAL VS COMMERCIAL STANDARDS

I::;
CONCLUSIONS
5 Some of the salient differences between Commer-
cial and Naval design practices and the effect of
these differences on hull structural cost have been
discussed. Owing to the higher standards of relia-
-- bility necessarily required of Naval ships, it is not
likely that all of these differences can be entirely
eliminated even where the comparison is limited to
Naval auxiliary types. However, much has already
been done to reduce these differences in the areas
of hull material procurement, welding techniques
and inspection. Some progress towards adoption
of simpler Commercial methods have been made in
(a) C O M M E R C I A L GUNWALE structural details, and continued efforts promise to
bring further cost reductions in this area.
“he cost differential associated with the hull fram-
ing system and the shipbuilder’s preference of one
over the other will be a continuing problem for
fl which there appears to be very little that the Naval
designer can do. The longitudinal framing system
offers advantages in structural strength which
makes it attractive for Naval use and will continue
to be the principal system used in Naval auxiliaries.
Hopefully, wider familiarity through greater usage
of this system in Commercial construction will help
to reduce this source of cost difference.
The considerations of individual structural de-
tails and procedures as a basis for weight and cost
comparisons will probably be of less value in the
future as the “Life-Cycle Cost Concept” more and
more becomes the governing criterion on which to
base structural design decisions.
(b) N A V Y GUNWALE ACKNOWLEDCEMENTS
“he author wishes to acknowledge the guidance
Figure 4. and suggestions of Messrs. Kazuyoshi Ikeda, Thomas
Gallagher, Ivo Fioriti and Donald Wilson of the
potentially be serious because both Commercial and Hull Structures Branch. Also to Mrs. Jane Doyle
Naval practice have dispensed with crack arrestors. for her typing assistance.
The possibility of catastrophic cracking becomes 111 “Pins and Collars, Swage Locking”-Military Specifi-
particularly acute when the hull material is at or cation MIL-P-23469
121 “Bolt and Nut, Torque Controlled, Pre-stress”--Mili-
below the Nil Ductility Temperature (NDT) as tary Specification MXL-B-23470
may be the case for the research and salvage ships 131 “Evaluation of Mechanical Fasteners for Ship Struc-
which are required to operate in extremely low tural Joints” by Louis A. Becker DTMB Report 1661
temperature environments. of June 1963
Other considerations for the prevention of frac- 141 “Evaluation of Hi-Lok Fasteners for Ship Structural
Joints” by Louis A. Becker DTMB Report 1681-3 of
ture in the hull girder include such precautions as June 1964
rounding corners of all openings, smoothing rough 151 “An Evaluation of HYSO Steel as a Structural Ma-
edges of plating, and eliminating abrupt changes in terial for Submarines by Capt. S. R. Heller, Jr. USN,
scantlings which may create stress concentrations and Messrs. Ivo Fioriti and John Vasta.
I61 “Fabrication, Welding and Inspection of Ship Hulls”
and subject cracks. These requirements, however, NAVSHE3 o9oo-OO-1ooO
are found in both Navy and Commercial practice [71 “Fabrication, Welding and Inspection of Non-Combatant
since similar experience has been gained in the past. Ship Hulls” NAVSHIPS 0900-014-5010

Naval Enqinaars Journal, Fabruary 1960 89