Advertisement

Journal of Marine Science and Application

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 389–405 | Cite as

Wave-Induced Vertical Motions and Bending Moments in Damaged Ships

  • A. Mikulić
  • J. ParunovEmail author
  • C. Guedes Soares
Research Article
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

The wave-induced vertical ship motions and bending moments of a double hull-oil tanker in realistic flooding conditions are studied. The scenarios investigated are represented by water ingress into the starboard ballast tanks for collision damage cases and both starboard and portside ballast tanks for grounding situations. Seakeeping computations are performed for eight damage scenarios and for the intact condition, each corresponding to different changes in displacement, trim, and heel. For each of the damage conditions, transfer functions of vertical motions and loads are calculated using a potential linear 3D panel hydrodynamic code in the frequency domain that includes effect of the motion of the water in flooded tanks. A MATLAB code is developed to facilitate automated hydrodynamic simulation of many damage scenarios. Verification of seakeeping results is performed by comparing transfer functions with results of the previous study. Wave-induced vertical responses of damaged ship are then compared to those of intact ship using two spectral-based methods originating from uncertainty analysis of wave loads, which are convenient tools to assess consequences of damage on short-term ship responses. Generally, observed trend is that vertical wave-induced responses of damaged ship converge toward those of intact ship with increasing wave period. Fairly small differences between responses of asymmetrically damaged ship with respect to the symmetrical incoming wave directions are found. The results of the study are an efficient method for seakeeping assessment of damaged oil tankers and the framework for evaluating consequences of damage scenarios, heading angles, and sea conditions on seakeeping responses of damaged ships. The results can be used to decide if the intact ship model can be used instead of the damaged one for the emergency response procedure or for the risk assessment studies when modeling and computational time represent important limitations.

Keywords

Oil tanker Collision Grounding Seakeeping Wave-bending moments Emergency response Uncertainty analysis 

References

  1. Ando S (1998) Quantification of correlation of predicted and measured transfer functions for ship motions and wave loads, RINA, International Conference on Ship Motions and Maneuverability, London, p 1–10Google Scholar
  2. Begovic E, Incecik A, Day AH (2011) Experimental assessment of intact and damaged ship motions in head, beam and quartering seas. In: HSMV Conference. Naples, Italy, p 1–8Google Scholar
  3. Begovic E, Day AH, Incecik A (2017) An experimental study of hull girder loads on an intact and damaged naval ship. Ocean Eng 133:47–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chan HS, Incecik A, Atlar M (2001) Structural integrity of a damaged Ro-Ro vessel. Proceedings of the second international conference on collision and grounding of ships, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, p 253–258Google Scholar
  5. Chan HS, Atlar M, Incecik A (2003) Global wave loads on intact and damaged RO-RO ships in regular oblique waves. Mar Struct 16:323–344.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8339(03)00002-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DNV (2010) Global performance analysis of deep water floating structures, recommended practice, DNVRP-F205Google Scholar
  7. Downes J, Moore C, Incecik A, Stumpf E, McGregor J (2007) A method for the quantitative assessment of performance of alternative designs in the accidental condition, 10th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures, Houston, Texas, p 1–8Google Scholar
  8. Folsø L, Rizzuto E, Pino E (2008) Wave induced global loads for a damaged vessel. Ships Offshore Struct 3(4):269–287.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17445300801990921 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guedes Soares C (1991) Effect of transfer function uncertainty on short-term ship responses. Ocean Eng 18(4):329–362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-8018(91)90018-L CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guedes Soares C, Teixeira AP (2001) Risk assessment in maritime transportation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 74:299–309.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00104-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hirdaris S, Argiryiadis K, Bai W, Dessi D, Ergin A, Fonseca N, Gu X, Hermundstad OA, Huijsmans R, Iijima K, Nielsen UD, Papanikolau A, Parunov J, Incecik A (2014) Loads for use in the design of ships and offshore structures. Ocean Eng 78:131–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.09.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. HydroSTAR (2011) User's manual. Bureau Veritas, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. IACS (2012) Harmonized common structural rules, external release, International Association of Classification Societies, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. IACS (2015) Hull girder residual strength. Technical background report on Pt 1, Ch 5, Sec 3. International Association of Classification Societies, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. IMO (2003) Interim guidelines for the approval of alternative methods of design and construction of oil tankers under regulation 13F (5) of annex 1 of MARPOL 73/78, Resolution MEPC 2003;110(49), Annex 16Google Scholar
  16. Jafaryeganeh H, Rodrigues JM, Guedes Soares C (2015) Influence of mesh refinement on the motions predicted by a panel code. In: Guedes Soares, Santos (eds) Maritime technology and engineering. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 1029–1038Google Scholar
  17. Ko H-K, Park T, Kim K-H, Kim Y, Yoon D-H (2011) Development of panel generation system for seakeeping analysis. Comput Aided Des 43:848–862.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2011.04.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Korkut E, Atlar M, Incecik A (2004) An experimental study of motion behavior with an intact and damaged Ro-Ro ship model. Ocean Eng 31:483–512.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2003.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Korkut E, Atlar M, Incecik A (2005) An experimental study of global loads acting on an intact and damaged Ro–Ro ship model. Ocean Eng 32:1370–1403.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2004.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee Y, Chan H-S, Pu Y, Incecik A, Dow RS (2012) Global wave loads on a damaged ship. Ships Offshore Struct 7(3):237–268.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2011.588081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lloyd’s Register (2000) World casualty statistics: annual statistical summary of reported loses and disposals of propelled sea-going merchant ships of not less than 100 GT. Lloyd’s Register, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  22. Luis RM, Teixeira AP, Guedes Soares C (2009) Longitudinal strength reliability of a tanker hull accidentally grounded. Struct Saf 31(3):224–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mikulić A (2016) Assessment of global vertical loads in damaged ship, Master’s Thesis, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Zagreb, p 1–46Google Scholar
  24. Mohammadi M, Khedmati MR, Vakilabadi KA (2014) Effects of hull damage on global loads acting on a trimaran ship. Ships Offshore Struct 10(6):635–652.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2014.943387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parunov J, Ćorak M, Gledić I (2015) Comparison of two practical methods for seakeeping assessment of damaged ships. In: Guedes Soares, Shenoi (eds) Analysis and design of marine structures.Taylor and Francis Group, p 37–44Google Scholar
  26. Prestileo A, Rizzuto E, Teixeira AP, Guedes Soares C (2013) Bottom damage scenarios or the hull girder structural assessment. Mar Struct 33:33–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2013.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saydam D, Frangopol DM (2013) Performance assessment of damaged ship hulls. Ocean Eng 68:65–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.03.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Teixeira AP, Guedes Soares C (2010) Reliability assessment of intact and damaged ship structures. In: Guedes Soares C, Parunov J (eds) Advanced ship design for pollution prevention. Taylor and Francis Group, London, pp 79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Varela JM, Rodrigues JM, Guedes Soares C (2014) On-board decision support system for ship flooding emergency response. Procedia Comput Sci 29:1688–1700.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Varela JM, Rodrigues JM, Guedes Soares C (2015) 3D simulation of ship motions to support the planning of rescue operations on damaged ships. Procedia Comput Sci 51:2397–2405.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.416 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. WAMIT (2006) User manual version 6.4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, BostonGoogle Scholar
  32. Wen F (2017) Rapid response damage assessment, In: Kelly, D. (ed) Marine technology (mt), October 2017 issue, SNAME, Alexandria, 40–47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval ArchitectureUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Centre for Marine Technology and Ocean Engineering (CENTEC), Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversidade de LisboaLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations