High Speed Damage Stability Criteria: past & present for fast ferry design

M. Acanfora, T. Coppola, F. De Luca“Dipartimento di Ingegneria Navale”

University of Naples “Federico II”

IntroductionThe main concern with the Ro-ro passenger ship design relatesto safety. It is vital that a rational approach to safety isdemonstrated, validated and adopted. The safety levelsrequested by the passenger transportation demand aninvestigation on the actual damage stability standards and onpossible rules developments.

The standards of SOLAS 90, for vessels operating in seas withsignificant wave height less than 1.5m, are equivalent to the HSCcode. To take in account the effects of significant wave heightsover than 1.5m the adoption of the SA has been proposed for theHSC vessels.

The Conceptual and Preliminary Studies of Typical SubdivisionsThree example ships have been developed complying the mainstandard practices for the Ro-ro pax mono- and multi-hullsaccording to the HSC code 2000/2009 damage stability criteria.

Figure 2. 3D view of the M1 ship subdivision.

SA applications and results to HSC vessels

Figure 5. Side damage RA for M1 ship, according to the HSC codes.

Figure 6. SA application to M1 ship, worst damage cases

Figure 1. Added water on Ro-ro deck calculation.

Figure 3. CAT2 general arrangement

Figure 4. 3D view of the M3 ship subdivision.

Figure 7. M1 ship: case 9 damagecondition after modifying subdivision.

Figure 8. SA application to acatamaran, worst damage case.

•In this case, the ship does not require variation of externalgeometry to pass SA additional stability criteria but only internalsolution that does not invalidate the effectiveness of the hull.

•The large multi-hulls present high volume of the Ro-ro deckwith a wide water-plane area, that means raising in volume ofadditional water on Ro-ro deck, with heightened free surfacemoments;•The M3 mono-hull presents the Ro-ro space arranged ondifferent decks, connected by non-watertight ramps, that havebeen modeled as internal flooding points.

Figure 9. SA results for the M3ship, worst damage case.

ReferencesD. Vassalos, O. Turan, L. Letizia and D. Konovessis (2001) Impact Assessment of Stockholm Agreement on EU Ro-ro Passenger Vessels Covered by it, (B99-B2702010-SI2.144738), Final Report Part I, NAME-SSRC, March 2001.

A. Papanikolaou, K. Spyrou, E. Eliopoulou and A. Alissafaki, (2001) Impact Assessment of Stockholm Agreement on EU Ro-ro Passenger Vessels not Covered by it, (B99-B2702010- SI2.144738), Final Report Part II, NTUA-SDL, March 2001.

RINA (1994) Rules for the Classification of HSC Craft, Effective from 1 January 1996

RINA (2000) Rules for the Classification of HSC Craft, Effective from 1 January 2002

RINA (2009) Rules for the Classification of HSC Craft, Effective from 1 January 2009

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency International (MCA 2000) Code of Safety for High-Speed Craft (2000), Appendix C-Guidance On Application Of Stockholm Agreement

D. Vassalos, C.Tuczu, O. Turan, M. Bole, A. York and L. Letizia, (2003) The Application of Advanced Numerical Tools in Design For Stockholm Agreement Upgrading. Int. Marine Design Conf. IMDC, 1, 383-400.

DL n. 65 (2005) Attuazione della direttiva 2003/25/CE relativa ai requisiti specifici di stabilita' per le navi Ro-ro da passeggeri, Effective from 12 may 2005

Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti, DM 750 (2005) Individuazione dei tratti di mare in cui le navi Ro-ro da passeggeri effettuano servizi di linea e corrispondenti valori d’altezza significativa d’onda.

J. H. Rousseau, D. Molyneux and M. Koniecki (1996) Damage survivability of Ro-ro ferries, National Research Council Canada, www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca