Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A critical look at SOLAS CH II-1 with respect to floodable length of compartments in RoPax ships

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Marine Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper presents findings of a research project (RP625) funded by the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) with the purpose to provide evidence of equivalence, or lack thereof, between previous and currently in force legislative instruments governing damage stability of RoPax ships, with special focus on inboard spaces with low degree of subdivision, referred as long lower holds (LLH). The outcome of this research brings more clarity and reassurance to the industry and administrations when addressing the specific safety implications of new designs with such large un-subdivided spaces, specifically indicating that the present SOLAS 2009 regulations are able to adequately cater for ship design equipped with LLH.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.napa.fi.

  2. Obviously such inconsistency in SOLAS 2009 could not be observed, as index “A” (SOLAS2009 Regulation 7) was used as the instrument to demonstrate this inconsistency.

References

  1. Jasionowski A et al (2006) Fast and accurate flooding prediction—analytical model, in SAFEDOR deliverable D2.1.3. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

  2. Jasionowski A, Vassalos D (2006) Conceptualising risk. In: 9th international conference on stability of ships and ocean vehicles. Rio de Janeiro

  3. Jasionowski A, York A (2007) Investigation into the safety of Ro–Ro passenger ships fitted with long lower hold phase 1. Safety at Sea Ltd

  4. Jasionowski A (2001) An integrated approach to damage ship survivability assessment, in NAME. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jasionowski A, Vassalos D, Scott A (2007) Ship vulnerability to flooding. In: 3rd international maritime conference on design for safety. Berkeley, California

  6. HARDER (Harmonisation of Rules and Design Rationale) (1999–2003) In: EC funded project. DG XII-BRITE

  7. Tsakalakis N, Puisa R, Mohamed K and Vassalos D (2011) A performance-based survivability assessment of regulatory frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 12th international ship stability workshop. Washington, DC

  8. McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics (Am Stat Assoc) 21(2):239–245

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Puisa R, Mohamed K (2011) Prudent platform for multidisciplinary ship design exploration, analysis and optimisation. In: International conference on computer applications in shipbuilding (ICCAS 2011). RINA, Trieste, Italy

  10. Puisa R et al (2012) Design customisation and optimisation through effective design space exploration in international marine design conference 2012 (IMDC2012). University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

    Google Scholar 

  11. Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott EM (2000) Sensitivity analysis. Wiley, New York

  12. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New York

  13. Jasionowski A (2008) Investigation into the safety of Ro–Ro passenger ships fitted with long lower hold phase 2. In: UK MCA RP592. Safety at Sea Ltd

  14. Puisa R, Mohamed K (2011) WP3: parametric identification. In: a critical look at SOLAS CH II-1 with respect to floodable length of compartments in RoPax ships. UK MCA research project RP625. Ship Stability Research Centre, Glasgow

  15. Tagg R, Tuzcu C (2003) A performance-based assessment of the survival of damaged ships: final outcome of the EU research project HARDER. Mar Technol 40(4):288–295

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research work was funded by the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which is gratefully acknowledged. Furthermore, our colleague Dr Andrzej Jasionowski is admiringly acknowledged for his vital contribution throughout the course of the project and to the introductory part of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hydrodynamics Laboratory, The Ship Stability Research Centre of University of Strathclyde, Acre Road, Maryhill, Glasgow, G20 0TL, Scotland, UK

    Romanas Puisa, Nikolaos Tsakalakis & Dracos Vassalos

  2. Stability Unit, UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Greenock, Scotland, UK

    Cantekin Tuzcu

Authors
  1. Romanas Puisa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nikolaos Tsakalakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dracos Vassalos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cantekin Tuzcu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Romanas Puisa.

Appendix: offsetting the detrimental effect of LLH through alternative arrangement

Appendix: offsetting the detrimental effect of LLH through alternative arrangement

An demonstrative study was carried out with the purpose to investigate the effect of reserve buoyancy on the main car deck to ship’s survivability, provided the ship is equipped with LLH. Specifically, the subdivision of the medium size ship (150 m in length) was modified from the one comprising a centre casing to the one with side casings, which are also referred to as outer side casings. Additionally, the ship’s car deck was further subdivided to three longitudinal compartments separated by watertight doors, as shown in Fig. 17. These compartments are also referred to as inner side casings.

The introduction of the outer side casings resulted in a significant reduction of the share of (s i  = 0) (the survival factor “s” as defined in SOLAS 2009) amongst all damage scenarios, as seen in Fig. 18. A slight increase of the share (0 < s i  < 1) can be attributed to the asymmetries created with the introduction of the side casings. An additional introduction of inner side casings further reduced the number of cases with (s i  = 0) and (0 < s i  < 1) to an almost negligible 3 %. The effect of these design modifications can be also seen amongst damage cases involving LLH (see Fig. 19), reducing the number of non-survival cases from 46 to 13 %.

The above example demonstrates that by considering damage cases of three or more compartments, it is not the presence of LLH that compromises survivability but rather insufficient residual stability. Thus, regardless of the subdivision arrangement shaped by one or other regulation, if a ship does not survive 30 % of all statistically possible damages with many being unrelated to LLH, there is no basis to single out LLH as a cause of all “ills”. Therefore, it may be concluded that the perceived vulnerability introduced by LLH can be offset by means of informed design decisions, such as an introduction of extra watertight volumes above the bulkhead deck. This conclusion echoes findings of an earlier UK MCA research project RP564 [3].

About this article

Cite this article

Puisa, R., Tsakalakis, N., Vassalos, D. et al. A critical look at SOLAS CH II-1 with respect to floodable length of compartments in RoPax ships. J Mar Sci Technol 18, 50–62 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-012-0193-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-012-0193-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation