Damage Stability Making Sense

  • George Mermiris
  • Dracos VassalosEmail author
Part of the Fluid Mechanics and Its Applications book series (FMIA, volume 119)


Although aviation, nuclear, processing, etc. industries have long ago adopted and established preventative frameworks and procedures to safeguard against unwanted outcomes of daily operations, the maritime industry still places the emphasis on the mitigation of consequences following an accident. Despite the widely expressed opinion that prevention is the way forward, curing occupies a central position not only in every day practice but in the underlying regulatory framework as well. Contrary to this approach, the work presented here aims to create the necessary momentum towards rationalisation of the fundamental choices made during the design process, thus attracting attention to areas where prevention strategies can find fertile ground and be fruitful and cost-effective. The methodology addresses the occurrence of a collision event and the crashworthiness capacity of a ship as prerequisites for its survivability assessment, with promising results to encourage further development.


Accident prevention Collision Crashworthiness 


  1. Cahill, R. A. (2002). “Collisions and their causes”, The Nautical Institute, 3rd EditionGoogle Scholar
  2. Filipowicz, W. (2004). Vessel traffic control problems”, The Journal of Navigation, 57, pp. 15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fujii, Y., Oshima, R., Yamanouchi, H., Mizuki, N. (1974). “Some factors affecting the frequency of accidents in marine traffic: I-The diameter of evasion for crossing encounters, II-The probability of stranding, III-The effect of darkness on the probability of collision and stranding, IV-Visual range and the degree of risk”, The Journal of Navigation, 27, 234–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goodwin, E.M. (1979). “Determination of ship domain size”, Published in “Mathematical aspects of marine traffic” based on the Proceedings of the “Conference on Mathematical Aspects of Marine Traffic” held at Chelsea College London in September, 1977, organized by the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications edited by S.H. Hollingdale, London Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Hansen, P. F., Ravn, E. S., Hartman, J. P. and Sorensen, A. (2004) “FSA of the navigational safety in Baltic west”, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships (ICCGS), Izu, JapanGoogle Scholar
  6. HARDER, (2003). “Final Technical Report”, Det Norske Veritas, Harmonisation of Rules and Design Rationale (HARDER), GRD1-1999-10721Google Scholar
  7. IMO, (2009). “Adoption of amendments to the international convention of Safety Of Life At Sea, 1974, as amended”, Resolution 216(82), Annex 2Google Scholar
  8. Jones, N. and Birch, R. S. (2006), “Low velocity perforation design of metal plates”, Structures Under Shock and Impact IX, WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, Vol. 87, pp. 179–186Google Scholar
  9. Kriastiansen, S. (2005). “Maritime Transportation: Safety Management and Risk Analysis”, Elsevier Butterworth-HeinmannGoogle Scholar
  10. MAIB, (2005). “Report of the investigation of the collision between Cepheus J and Ileksa in the Kattegat, 22 November 2004”, Marine Accident Investigation Branch, Report Number 12/2005Google Scholar
  11. Øresund, (2006). “Navigational safety in the sound between Denmark and Sweden (Øresund): Risk and Cost-benefit analysis”, The Royal Danish Administration of Navigation and Hydrography, The Danish Maritime Authority, The Swedish Maritime AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  12. Pedersen, P. T. and Zhang, S. (1999). Collision analysis for MS Dextra. SAFEREURORO Spring Meeting, Paper No.2, Nantes, FranceGoogle Scholar
  13. Timoshenko, S. P. & Woinowski-Kreiger, S. (1964). “Theory of plates and shells”, McGraw-Hill Publishing CoGoogle Scholar
  14. Vassalos, D. (2004). “A Risk-based Approach to Probabilistic Damage Stability”, Proceedings of the 7th International Ship Stability Workshop, Shanghai, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  15. Vredeveldt, A. (2005). “Crashworthiness”, Training Course on Risk-Based Ship Design, Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK, 7–8 June, 2005Google Scholar
  16. Wendel, K. (1960), “Die Wahrscheinlichkeit des Uberstehens von Verletzungen”, Schiffstechnik, Vol. 7, No. 36, pp. 47–61Google Scholar
  17. Williams, G. P. (1997). “Chaos Theory Tamed”, Joseph Henry PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Ship Stability Research Centre, Department of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Marine EngineeringUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations