Introduction. List of Contents. Passenger Ships DRY CARGO & PASSENGER SHIPS HARMONISATION OF DAMAGE STABILITY RULES DRY CARGO SHIPS

Transcription

1 DRY CRGO & PSSENGER SHIPS HRMONISTION OF DMGE STBILITY RULES WEGEMT WORKSHOP Lisbon, October 2 Introduction Equivalence of safety of the new harmonized regulations with the currently valid probabilistic/deterministic standards. new R RB Rnew R Rnew = new = new Passenger Ships Deterministic current compliance ssumption: R / = and taken into account the limit GM curve with respect to damage stability. new R Rnew R Rnew = new B Probabilistic current compliance postolos Papanikolaou, Professor, Head of NTU-SDL Eleftheria Eliopoulou, Dipl. Eng., Dr. Eng. Cand., NTU-SDL new Rnew R R Rnew = new R = new List of Contents DRY CRGO SHIPS HRMONISTION OF DMGE STBILITY RULES Passenger Ships nnex 2, SLF 7/3 Final nalysis of Results of ISCG-SLF7 SLF7 proposal,

2 List of Contents Status of SLF6 (HRDER proposal) Status of SLF6 (HRDER proposal) Sample of SLF 7 R-Index, SLF7 proposal Supplementary Studies,8 Sample of 8 ships ll ships DCRR & CC excluded, HRDER Proposal Rnew-HRDER (Calculated) Rnew-HRDER (Formula) C2= C=27 C3=33,8 excluded DCRR & CC ships HRDER Proposal Rnew-HRDER (Calculated) Rnew-HRDER (Formula) C2= C=27 C3=37,7,7,6,6,5 Rnew,5 Rnew,,,3,2,3,, SLF7 Proposal Calculation formula changes impacting the cargo sample ship calculations Draft regulation 7-: reconsideration of the damage statistics used in the HRDER project led the SLF7-ISCG committee to decide on limiting the absolute maximum damage length to 6m along with the appropriate adjustments to the damage length distribution. The adjustment was done by keeping b() constant. The particular limitation led to slightly modified p-factor as well as r-factor, compared to the SLF6 damage length formulation. Draft regulation 7-2: For cargo ships other than ro-ros, the s factor did t change from that used in the HRDER project sample ship calculations. For ro-ro cargo ships the SEM formula was adjusted slightly and a new FB-factor was introduced as a simple, conservative alternative to the SEM method. s the impact of these changes was t expected to be that significant, it was considered unnecessary for the deduction of the R values according to the SLF 7 proposal to request the repeat of the calculations for the entire sampling plan of, considered in the st SLF 6 study. SLF7 sample Calculations were provided for 2 Dry Cargo ships. Bulk Dry 5% Ro-Ro Cargo % Car Carrier 5% 6 SLF7, Sample of Dry Cargo ships Figure 3 SLF7, ' sample Ship Subtype Container vessel 5% General Cargo 35% New ships st study Sample of 2 ships -Index.3.2 # of Ships SLF7 Dry Cargo ships' Sample sample of 2 ships, June 2 CHIN SWEDEN GERMNY US DENMRK # SLF7 Results, Entire SLF7 sample DC RR & CC New Ships

3 , ll proposals, R-SLF7 () -Index.3.2. CC5 China- ShipC- China- shipd- China- ShipE- GC st study, SLF2 st study, HRD SLF7 Side figure presents the differences [%] of the global ttained Indices acc. to the SLF 7 proposal compared to the indices acc. to the HRDER proposal (SLF 6), sorted in ascending order of ship size. % of differences GC8, 8m GC 8, 8m GC GC, 2m DCRR ttained Indices according to three alternative concepts, namely the SLF 2 proposal, the SLF 6 proposal (HRDER, st study) and the latest SLF 7 proposal results. DCBC DCRR GC3 GC5 GC8 GER8- GER82- GER83- GER92- GER83- GC, 9m GER8- GC, 26m GER82- GC, 33m GC5, 3m CC5, m 27, 9m GC3, 97m DCBC5, 2m DCRR, 22m 5, 26m, 275m 2, 285m 7, 35m Required Index SFL7 RESULTS, RSLF7-Calculated RSLF7-Formula R-HRDER [out DCRR & CC] C=28, C2=, C3=52 Resulting formulae of R-Index per ship size R-Index.3.2. For the derivation of the new R-SLF 7 formula by regression analysis of the sample ship results, the CC & DCRR ships were excluded from the cargo ships sample The resulting coefficients for R-SLF7 are: C=28, C2=, C3=52. Required Subdivision Index R-SLF7 R-HRDER (out DCRR & CC) R-SOLS B , R-SLF7 (2), Conclusions R-Index SLF6 Proposal, HRDER C=27, C2=, C3=37, R-Index R-SLF7 R-HRDER R-SOLS B SLF7 Proposal (L>=m) C=28, C2=, C3=52 R-SLF7, % differences to the R-Index of HRDER proposal and SOLS B-. Resulting formulae of the dry cargo ships R-Index according to various probabilistic concepts, namely SLF7, SLF 6-HRDER and SOLS B-. % of difference , R-Index differences R-SLF7 (% of diff [HRDER]) R-SLF7 (% of diff [SOLS B-]) R-Index The proposed R Index formulation resulting from the ISCG-SLF SLF 7 sample ships analysis and relevant formulations for the probabilistic factors leads, compared to the SLF 6-HRDER proposal, to higher values of R, practically for all ships over about 3m. The percentage difference reaches a maximum of about 8% for the larger ships over 3m length. For ships of length less than about 3m the values of R-index are decreased,, reaching a minimum of -8% at 8m length. Considering the equivalency of the investigated various probabilistic concepts (/R to remain about the same), the above results suggest that calculated values according to the ISCG- SLF7 proposal, tend to be higher than the corresponding ones according to SLF 6-HRDER for ships over about 3m and lower for ships of length below about 3m. R-SLF7 R-HRDER (out DCRR & CC) % of difference R-SLF7 (% of diff [HRDER])

4 -SLF7 vs. R-SLF SLF7 Results, i/ average values Considering a margin of up to about -.% deviation from the proposed R-SLF7, it is ticed that only 25% of the sample, namely 5 ships, do t meet the new requirements. The large differences with respect to compliance are related to two General Cargo ships (green circles) and one DCRR (red circle) that is, anyway a type excluded from the analysis for the set-up of R. Small differences are coming from two rather small DCBC and ships. subd / = 68% partial / = 2% light / = % - SLF7 Results Non-weighted i-values subd/ partial/ light/ vrg-subd vrg-partial vrg-light.9 -SLF7 R-SLF7 -SLF7 vs. R-SLF Subdivision Draught: 68% Partial Draught: 2% Light Draught: % less 25% comply w ith R 75% SLF7 sample: SLF7 Results, Non-Weighted i-values per ship subtype SLF7 Results HRDER Results subd/, partial/, light/ DCRR & CC: 75 / / 5 Dry Cargo Bulk Carriers: 58 / 7 / 5 Dry Cargo Containerships: 67 / / 5 General Cargo: 57 / / 58 5% Subdivision Draught, Minimum () subd=r HRDER, SLF6 subd = R, 6% HRDER sample: DCBC subd-slf7 subd=r DCRR % subd = R, 5% SLF7 sample: 2 subd=. =R subd-slf7 subd=r 2% HRDER, SLF6 subd = R, HRDER sample: 59 8% % subd = R 8% SLF7 sample: 2

5 Subdivision Draught, Minimum (2) subd= R-[]*(-R) Subdivision Draught, Minimum (3) Overview of minimum proposals subd-slf7 subd=r-[]*(-r) subd = R-[]*(-R), Subdivision Draught, min, Subdivision Draught, min subd-slf7 subd=r subd=r.3.2. DCBC DCRR % 5% SLF7 sample: 2.3 subd-slf7 subd=r subd=r subd=r-[]*(-r) subd subd=r-[]*(-r) Log. (subd=r) Log. (subd=r) Log. (subd=r-[]*(-r)).3 HRDER, SLF6 subd=r-[]*(-r), % 53% HRDER sample: 59 PSSENGER SHIPS HRMONISTION OF DMGE STBILITY RULES List of Contents Passenger Ships Status of SLF6 (HRDER proposal) Sample of SLF 7 R-Index, SLF7 proposal Supplementary Studies nnex, SLF 7/3 Final nalysis of Results of ISCG-SLF7 SLF7 proposal, Passenger Ships

6 Status of SLF6 (HRDER proposal) The LRP boundary lines SLF7 Proposal Calculation formula changes impacting the passenger sample ship calculations. The following C2 values were parametrically investigated: C2 = ¼, ½,, 2,. Best correlation with respect to the associated risk (-R) and the value (L+C2 N) was achieved for the value C2= and the resulting Required Subdivision Index. Sample of 37 ships Rnew PSSENGER SHIPS rev.2 - HRDER Proposal ssumption: N=N+2 N2 R-HRDER (Calculated) R-HRDER (Formula) C2= C=25 C3= HRDER PROPOSL R-HRDER (Calculated) L+N R-HRDER (Formula) Formula based on C2= & N=N+2N2 The reconsideration of the damage statistics led the SLF7-ISCG to decide on limiting the absolute maximum damage length to 6m along with the appropriate adjustments to the damage length distribution. The adjustment was done by keeping b() constant. The particular limitation led to slightly modified p-factor as well as r-factor, compared to the SLF6 damage extent formulation. The effect of passenger heeling moment was modified in order to better reflect the currently in-force deterministic requirements of this concept (SOLS 9). The introduction of intermediate stages of flooding was likewise introduced in equivalence to SOLS 9 requirements. Modifications on the factors related to the SEM-method (for the water on deck effect) were considered. Introduction and evaluation of a new freeboard factor (FB-factor) regarding an alternative approach to the effect of water on deck. SLF7 Passenger Ships sample Passenger Ships, R-SLF7 () Calculations were provided for 32 Passenger ships. SLF7 Passenger ships' Sample 7 sample of 32 ships, June 2 SLF7, Passenger ships' sample f_heel_int Formula-Rnew (sf_heel_int) C=25 C2=3.5 C3=53 With respect to the correlation of results of calculated associated risk with the (L+C2N) value, the best regression analysis fitting appears for C2=3.5 (highest regression R 2 ). New ships st study # of Ships Figure 3 GERMN DELTM FRNCE DENMR CHIN FINLND SWEDEN UK SSRC ITLY Y RIN K # f_heel_int Formula-Rnew (sf_heel_int) C=5 C2=2.5 C3=5225 (sf) SLF7, Passenger ships' sample Person On Board (sf) SLF7, Passenger ships' sample Criterion: the lesser number of extracted ships from the sample. The least number of extracted ships is met in 2 cases. For C2=2, seven ships were extracted from the sample. For C2=2.5, seven ships were extracted from the sample. The best fitting is given for C2=

7 Passenger Ships, R-SLF7 (2) SLF7 Proposals, lternative (C2=3.5) and lternative2 (C2=2.5). Resolution Required Subdivision Index SLF7 Proposal, lt C=25, C2=3.5 C3=53 -f_heel_int R-SLF7 Frm C2=3.5 R-.265 R-SLF7 Frm C2=2.5 SLF7 Proposal, lt 2 C=5, C2=2.5 C3=5225 Passenger Ships, R-SLF7 (3) HRDER proposal Final SLF7 Proposal, lternative 2: C2=2.5). Resolution PSSENGER SHIPS, Required Subdivision Index SLF6, SLF7, SLF6 Proposal, HRDER C=25, C2= C3=6922 R-HRDER R-.265 R-SLF7 Frm C2=2.5 SLF7 Proposal, lt 2 C=5, C2=2.5 C3=5225 -SLF7 vs. R-SLF7 i/ average values Considering a margin of up to about 3.3% deviation from the proposed R-SLF7, it is ticed that the 8% of the sample, does t meet the new requirements. ll Passenger ships, subd/ ll Passenger ships, partial/ ll Passenger ships, light/.9 -f_heel_int Formula-Rnew (sf_heel_int) C=5 C2=2.5 C3=5225 -SLF7 vs. R-SLF subd/ vrg-subd verage subd/: 97% partial/ vrg-partial verage partial/: 99% light/ vrg-light verage light/: 7% N=N+2N2 comply with R 52% less 8% SLF7 sample: 27

8 Subdivision Draught, Minimum () Subdivision Draught, Minimum (2) 29% subd= R, subd = * R 7% Sf_heel-int-subd subd=r % subd = * R 37% SLF7 entire sample: 27 subd= R-[.5]*(-R).2 Sf_heel-int-subd subd=r-[.5]*(-r) 52% subd = R-[.5]*(-R) 8% % SLF7, sample ships passing R: subd=. =.9R subd =.9 * R %.2 Sf_heel-int-subd subd=.9r % subd =.9 * R 56% SLF7 entire sample: 27 7% subd = R-[.5]*(-R) % SLF7 entire sample: 27 SLF7, sample ships passing R: SLF7, sample ships passing R: Subdivision Draught, Minimum (3) Overview of minimum proposals, Subdivision Draught, min, Subdivision Draught, min subd-slf7 subd=r subd=.9r subd-slf7 subd=r subd=.9r subd=r-[.5]*(-r) subd=r-[.5]*(-r) Log. (subd=r) Log. (subd=.9r). Log. (subd=r-[.5]*(-r))

9