1 / 22

Passenger Ship Flooding Survivability

Passenger Ship Flooding Survivability. William S. Peters , Life Member, Naval Architecture Division, U.S. Coast Guard Riaan van’t Veer , Visitor, MARIN Andrea Serra , Member, Fincantieri Anna-Lea Rimpela , Visitor, Kvaerner-Masa Yards Yoshiho Ikeda , Visitor, Osaka University.

ocean-peterson
Download Presentation

Passenger Ship Flooding Survivability

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Passenger Ship Flooding Survivability William S. Peters,Life Member, Naval Architecture Division, U.S. Coast Guard Riaan van’t Veer, Visitor, MARIN Andrea Serra, Member, Fincantieri Anna-Lea Rimpela, Visitor, Kvaerner-Masa Yards Yoshiho Ikeda, Visitor, Osaka University Chesapeake Section SNAME

  2. Passenger Ship Flooding Survivability • Background – Old and Recent • IMO Large Passenger Ship Safety • LPS at SLF 47 (Sept. 2004) • Framework for LPS Investigations • Practical Assessment • Model Tests • Time-to-Flood Study • LPS Tasks Chesapeake Section SNAME

  3. Recent Background • 1999 – Ad Hoc 8 established • 2000 – IMO LPS Initiative • Does SOLAS handle LPS the right way? • 2001 – 2003 SLF involved – HARDER • LPS conclusion – downward trend • May 2004 –MSC 78 agreed on upward trend • Establish “Casualty Thresholds” • Sep 2004 –SLF 47 LPS Chesapeake Section SNAME

  4. IMO Large Passenger Ship Safety • How well does current SOLAS handle safety needs of passenger ships carrying > 2,500 persons? • 80+ passenger ships with this capacity today – More Planned (15) • Reasons for concern – • 4.3 million North American passengers embarked in 1st half of 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME

  5. LPS at SLF 47 (September 2004) • Completed: Subdivision and damage stability criteria (presented under “Harmonization”) • Work in Progress: • measures to limit progressive flooding • usefulness of time-to-flood studies • characterization of designed survivability – “floatability assessment” • structural integrity after damage • “threshold criteria” - Chesapeake Section SNAME

  6. Framework of LPS Investigations(post SLF 46 – 2003-2004) • Practical Assessment (Finland) • Model Tests (Italy & Japan) • Refine Time-to-Flood study (US) • Independent projects to share information Chesapeake Section SNAME

  7. Practical Assessment • Weather-tight doors which start to leak, but with a high collapse pressure • Fire door with no leakage threshold but with moderate to high collapse pressure • Joiner door with no leakage threshold and with low to moderate collapse pressure. • Provided suggested parameters to MARIN study: Chesapeake Section SNAME

  8. Model Test Projects: Italy & Japan • Common unbuilt design used for model tests. • Similar sized model – scale 1/40 & 1/50 • Two compartment cases investigated. • Model included only steel boundaries. Chesapeake Section SNAME

  9. Italy Model Test Results Agreement with static calculations Chesapeake Section SNAME

  10. Japan Model Test Results High sensitivity to intermediate conditions – flooding on multiple decks Chesapeake Section SNAME

  11. Time-to-Flood Project • 2003 - Initial study completed and submitted to SLF 46 (Sept. 2003) • Sponsored by US – performed at MARIN • 2004 – Follow-on study incorporated refinements suggested at SLF 46 and results from Practical Assessment Chesapeake Section SNAME

  12. MARIN Time-to-Flood (TTF): Assumed Damage Extents Chesapeake Section SNAME

  13. TTF Results: 2 Comp’t, BHD Deck Breached, Splashtight Doors Closed Chesapeake Section SNAME

  14. TTF Results: 3 Comp’t, BHD Deck Breached, Splashtight Doors Closed Chesapeake Section SNAME

  15. 3 Compartment Damage, Righting Arm & s-factor results • GM = 1.6m e= 15,915 deg Range = 0 deg GZmax = 0.0 m K = 0 Sfinal= 0.0 Chesapeake Section SNAME

  16. 3 Compartment Damage, Righting Arm & s-factor results • GM = 2.1m e= 2,658 deg Range = 13.031 deg GZmax = 0.134 m Sfinal= 0.95 Chesapeake Section SNAME

  17. TTF Results: 3 Comp’t in Waves Chesapeake Section SNAME

  18. TTF Results: 3 Comp’t with Different Downflooding Assumptions Chesapeake Section SNAME

  19. TTF Results: 3 Comp’t with Different Downflooding Assumptions Chesapeake Section SNAME

  20. Time-to-Flood Conclusions from Final Study • Refined modeling provides improved simulation results – • reduced heel in intermediate stages • Results are sensitive to modeling of downflooding points – • Protection by doors • How doors leak and collapse critical • Initial GM important to survivability Chesapeake Section SNAME

  21. LPS Tasks Underway • SDS Correspondence Group work: • consideration of the usefulness of time-domain flooding studies • investigation of raking damage issues • determine if a “floatability assessment” criteria can be established (when s-factor = 0) • develop “threshold criteria” for survivability to satisfy either of two scenarios – • 1) return to port or • 2) remain habitable for at least 3 hours for evacuation Chesapeake Section SNAME

  22. Passenger Ship Flooding Survivability • Thank you for attending. • Please visit the Ad Hoc Panel #8 website to follow ongoing activity: • www.sname.org/committees/tech_ops/O44/passenger/home.html • www.sname.org/committees/tech_ops/O44/passenger/activity.html Chesapeake Section SNAME

More Related