Page 1
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
Page 2
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 2
Passenger Ship Flooding SurvivabilityPassenger Ship Flooding Survivability
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
Page 3
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 3
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
Page 4
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 4
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
Page 5
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 5
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” -
Page 6
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 6
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
Page 7
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 7
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:
Page 8
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 8
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.
Page 9
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 9
Italy Model Test ResultsItaly Model Test Results
Agreement with static calculations
Page 10
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 10
Japan Model Test ResultsJapan Model Test Results
High sensitivity to intermediate conditions –
flooding on multiple decks
Page 11
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 11
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
Page 12
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 12
MARIN Time-to-Flood (TTF): MARIN Time-to-Flood (TTF): Assumed Damage ExtentsAssumed Damage Extents
Page 13
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 13
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
Page 14
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 14
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
Page 15
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 15
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
Page 16
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 16
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
Page 17
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 17
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]
Page 18
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 18
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
Page 19
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 19
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
Page 20
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 20
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
Page 21
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 21
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
Page 22
December 1, 2004 Chesapeake Section SNAME 22
Passenger Ship Flooding SurvivabilityPassenger 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