Passenger Ship Flooding Survivability

December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 1

Passenger Ship Flooding SurvivabilityPassenger 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



Background – Old and RecentIMO Large Passenger Ship SafetyLPS at SLF 47 (Sept. 2004)

Framework for LPS Investigations– Practical Assessment– Model Tests– Time-to-Flood Study

LPS Tasks


Recent BackgroundRecent 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


IMO Large Passenger Ship SafetyIMO 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


LPS at SLF 47 LPS at SLF 47 (September 2004)(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” -


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


Practical AssessmentPractical 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:


Model Test Projects: Italy & JapanModel 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.


Italy Model Test ResultsItaly Model Test Results

Agreement with static calculations


Japan Model Test ResultsJapan Model Test Results

High sensitivity to intermediate conditions –

flooding on multiple decks


Time-to-Flood ProjectTime-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


MARIN Time-to-Flood (TTF): MARIN Time-to-Flood (TTF): Assumed Damage ExtentsAssumed Damage Extents


TTF Results: 2 Comp’t, BHD Deck TTF Results: 2 Comp’t, BHD Deck Breached, Splashtight Doors ClosedBreached, Splashtight Doors Closed

BULKHEAD-148 damage

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

0.0 300.0 600.0

TIME [s]

HE

EL

[d

eg

]

new model, splastight\fire\cabin collapsing

old model, splastight collapse, fire\cabin doors open


TTF Results: 3 Comp’t, BHD Deck TTF Results: 3 Comp’t, BHD Deck Breached, Splashtight Doors ClosedBreached, Splashtight Doors Closed

Three compartment damage

-20.00

-18.00

-16.00

-14.00

-12.00

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600

TIME [s]

HE

EL

[d

eg

]

GM = 1.60 m

GM = 2.10 m


3 Compartment Damage, 3 Compartment Damage, Righting Arm & s-factor resultsRighting Arm & s-factor results

GM = 1.6me= 15,915 deg

Range = 0 deg

GZmax = 0.0 m

K = 0

Sfinal= 0.0


3 Compartment Damage, 3 Compartment Damage, Righting Arm & s-factor resultsRighting Arm & s-factor results

GM = 2.1me= 2,658 deg

Range = 13.031 deg

GZmax = 0.134 m

Sfinal= 0.95


TTF Results: 3 Comp’t in WavesTTF Results: 3 Comp’t in Waves

Hs = 3.5 m, Tp = 7.5 s, beam seas drifting

-16.00

-14.00

-12.00

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

0 3600 7200 10800 14400 18000 21600

TIME [s]

HE

EL

[d

eg]


TTF Results: 3 Comp’t with Different TTF Results: 3 Comp’t with Different Downflooding AssumptionsDownflooding Assumptions

COMP-3 damage

-20.0 -18.0 -16.0 -14.0 -12.0 -10.0

-8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0

TIME [s]

HEEL [deg]

FIRE DOOR, DECK 3, DOWNFLOODING 146 SPLASHTIGHT DOOR, DECK 3, DOWNFLOODING 146 DOWNFLOODING 146 CLOSED


TTF Results: 3 Comp’t with Different TTF Results: 3 Comp’t with Different Downflooding AssumptionsDownflooding Assumptions

Three compartment damage

-14.00

-12.00

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

0 3600 7200 10800

TIME [s]

HE

EL

[d

eg]

CLOSED

SPLASHTIGHT

FIRE

OPEN


Time-to-Flood Conclusions Time-to-Flood Conclusions from Final Studyfrom 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


LPS Tasks UnderwayLPS 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



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

Documents

Passenger Ship Flooding Survivability