Advertisement

Developing a Shared Vision for Naval Stability Assessment

  • Douglas PerraultEmail author
  • Steve Marshall
Chapter
Part of the Fluid Mechanics and Its Applications book series (FMIA, volume 119)

Abstract

The design and operating philosophy for naval vessels is driven by necessity of strategic capability, including the capability to deploy at any time to any location. A key enabler for this capability is the hydrodynamic stability of the vessel. The Naval Stability Standards Working Group, in conjunction with the Co-operative Research Navies Dynamic Stability Project, have been working to develop a clear understanding of the limitations and range of applicability of stability criteria and methods of assessing dynamic stability. They have investigated the relationship between GZ and form parameters and the probability of capsize, and have performed studies into the nature of the control variables used and the collinearity of the ship specific assessment parameters. This work will lead to a set of rational criteria for the stability of naval frigates, with a future expansion of the methods to other types of naval platforms.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work on modernizing and rationalizing naval stability standards has progressed through the dedicated efforts of many naval officers, naval stability authorities, scientists, and technical experts who have participated in or contributed to the work of the Co-operative Research Navies Dynamic Stability Project and the Naval Stability Standards Working Group. These men and women have often performed the work on their own time while keeping up a demanding regular workload. Though they are too many to name, the authors gratefully acknowledge the influence of their work and energy on this chapter.

References

  1. Alman, P.R., Minnick, P.V., Shienburg, R., Thomas, W.L. III, 1999: Dynamic Capsize Vulnerability: Reducing the Hidden Operational Risk, SNAME Transactions, Vol. 107.Google Scholar
  2. ANEP-77, 2014: Naval Ship Code, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Ed. F. Maintained by International Naval Safety Association (INSA).Google Scholar
  3. Arndt, B., Brandl, H., Vogt, K., 1982: 20 Years of Experience: Stability Regulations of the West-German Navy, Second International Conference on Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles, STAB ’82, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  4. Bales, S.L., Lee, W.T., and Voelker, J.M., 1981: Standardized Wave and Wind Environments for NATO Operational Areas, David Taylor Naval Ships Research and Development Center, (Report DTNSRDC/SPD-0919-01).Google Scholar
  5. Buckley, William H., 1988: Extreme and Climatic Wave Spectra for Use in Structural Design of Ships, Naval Engineers Journal, Vol 100, No 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Kat, J. O., Brouwer, R., McTaggart, K.A., and Thomas, W.L., 1994: Intact Ship Survivability in Extreme Waves: New Criteria From a Research and Naval Perspective, Fifth International Conference on Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles, STAB ’94 Conference, Melbourne, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Deutsche Marine (DM), 2001: BV1030-1, Construction Regulations for German Naval Vessels: Stability of Surface Combatants, Federal Office of Defence Technology and Procurement, Koblenz.Google Scholar
  8. Frank, W., and Salvesen, N., 1970: The Frank Close-Fit Ship-Motion Computer Program, Report 3289, Naval Ship Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
  9. IMCO 1968: Resolution A.167(ES.IV), Recommendation on Intact Stability for Passenger and Cargo Ships Under 100 Metres in Length, Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organization. Superseded by A.749(18), Amended by A.206(VII).Google Scholar
  10. IMO 2009: International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Consolidated Edition 2009, International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
  11. Marine National (MN), 1999: Instruction Generale N° 6018 A, Stabilité Des Batiments de Surface de la Marine Nationale.Google Scholar
  12. McTaggart, K.A., de Kat, J. O., 2000: Capsize Risk of Intact Frigates in Irregular Seas, SNAME Transactions, Vol 108.Google Scholar
  13. Perrault, D. E., Hughes, T., Marshall, S., 2010: Naval Ship Stability Guidelines: Developing a Shared Vision for Naval Stability Assessment, International Journal of Maritime Engineering, Trans RINA, Vol 152, Part A3.Google Scholar
  14. Perrault, D. E., 2015: Exploration of the Probabilities of Extreme Roll of Naval Vessels, Twelfth International Conference on Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles, STAB ’15, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.Google Scholar
  15. Perrault, D. E., 2016: Correlations of GZ Curve Parameters, 15th International Ship Stability Workshop, ISSW 2016, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  16. Rahola, J., 1939: The Judging of the Stability of Ships and the Determination of the Minimum Amount of Stability Especially Considering the Vessel Navigating Finish Waters, PhD Thesis, Technical University of Finland, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  17. Royal Australian Navy (RAN), 2003: DEF (AUST) 5000, ADF Maritime Material Requirements Set, Volume 3: Hull System Requirements, Part 2: Stability of Surface Ships and Boats.Google Scholar
  18. Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), 2012: C-03-001-024/MS-002, Canadian Forces Technical Order: Stability and Buoyancy Requirements Surface Ships.Google Scholar
  19. Royal Navy (RN), 2011: DEFSTAN 02-109 Part 1, Issue 2, Stability Criteria for Surface Ships, Part 1 Conventional Ships, U.K. Ministry of Defence.Google Scholar
  20. Sarchin, T. H., and Goldberg, L. L., 1962: Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U.S. Naval Surface Ships, SNAME Transactions, New York, Vol. 70.Google Scholar
  21. STANAG 4194, 1994: Standardized Wave and Wind Environments and Shipboard Reporting of Sea Conditions, Edition 2, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).Google Scholar
  22. United States Navy (USN), 1975: Naval Ship Engineering Center, Design Data Sheet - Stability and Buoyancy of U.S. Naval Surface Ships, DDS 079-1, U.S. Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  23. van Harpen, N.T., 1970: Eisen te stellen aan de stabiliteit en het reserve drijfvermogen van bovenwaterschepen der Koninklijke Marine en het Loodswezen, Ministrie van Defensie, Marin, Hoofdafdeling Materieel, Bureau Scheepsbouw, Den Haag, Nederland, Rapport 21183/21021/SB.Google Scholar
  24. Ypma, E., Harmsen, E., 2012: Development of a New Methodology to Predict the Capsize Risk of Ships, 11th International Conference on the Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles, Athens, Greece.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Defence Research & Development Canada Atlantic Research CentreDartmouthCanada
  2. 2.Naval Authority GroupBristolUK

Personalised recommendations