Thoughts on Integrating Stability into Risk Based Methods for Naval Ship Design

  • Philip R. AlmanEmail author
Part of the Fluid Mechanics and Its Applications book series (FMIA, volume 119)


Design for Safety (DFS), Goal Based Standards (GBS) and Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) are powerful tools which establish a framework for integrating stability into a risk based design process. They provide a foundation for the development of novel designs which can provide insight that is not attainable through any other means. Naval ships are complex systems, sometimes operating in an environment defined by risk acceptance and risk taking beyond those of their commercial counterparts. The hazards seen by a naval ship in its service life may not be foreseen during design. The development of a design for safety process for naval ships should be capable of reflecting the nature of the military mission. Concurrently, there is certain fidelity inherent in the process that should be carefully defined. Three cases to categorize the risk assessment ‘fidelity’ are defined and discussed. These highlight the dangers of overstating and understating risk. Lastly the challenges of defining intact and damage stability risk in light of the sensitivity to the state of knowledge for naval ships are discussed.


Dynamic stability Risk management Formal safety assessment Design for safety Goal based standards Dynamic stability Static stability Probabilistic methodology 



Several people were instrumental in helping guide the direction of this paper; Prof. D. Vassalos for his guidance in discussing risk based ship design, Mr. D. Tellet, Dr. V. Belenky, Prof. B. Ayyub and Captain J. McTigue.


  1. Alman, P.R., Minnick, P.V., Sheinberg, R., Thomas, W. L. III, (1999). “Dynamic Capsize Vulnerability: Reducing the Hidden Operational Risk,” SNAME Transactions, Vol. 107.Google Scholar
  2. Alman, P. (2010). Approaches for Evaluating Dynamic Stability in Design. Proc. 11th Intl. Ship Stability Workshop. Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Ayyub B. (2003). Risk Analysis in Engineering and Economics. Chapmann and Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Belenky V., DeKat J, and N. Umeda. (2008). Toward Performance-Based Criteria for Intact Stability. Marine Technology, Vol 45, No 2 pp. 101–123.Google Scholar
  5. Orville, H. T. (1945). Weather is a Weapon. All Hands, March, pp. 5–9.Google Scholar
  6. Cavas. (2011). Past Imperfect - Like Fast Carriers, Littoral Combat Ship enters age of experimentation. Armed Forces J. April.Google Scholar
  7. Shaw, E. (2001). Practical Experience and Operational Requirements for Onboard Risk Management Under Marginal Stability Conditions. Proc. of 5th Intl Ship Stability Workshop. Trieste, Italy.Google Scholar
  8. Horodysky, T. (2007). American Merchant Marine in WWII. Retrieved April 20, 2011, American Merchant Marine at War: January 31
  9. IMO. (2002). MSC/Circ.1023 Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA). London.Google Scholar
  10. McMahan, (1884). The Death of General John Sedgewick. In Johnson, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War Vol 4 (p. 175). Century War Books.Google Scholar
  11. Morison. (1959). John Paul Jones: A Sailor’s Biography. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
  12. NATO. (2010). Naval Ship Code.Google Scholar
  13. Papanikolaou. (2009). Risk Based Ship Design, Springer-Verlag. Berlin.Google Scholar
  14. Tellet, D., (2011). Incorporating Risk into Naval Ship Weight Control. Proc 12th Intl. Ship Stability Workshop. Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Whiteman, M. (1970). Digest of International Law, p. 485.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations