An Approach to the Validation of Ship Flooding Simulation Models
A methodology has been developed to validate a Ship Flooding simulation tool. The approach is to initially validate the flooding model and the vessel model separately and then couple the two models together for the final step in the validation process. A series of model tests have been undertaken and data obtained has been utilised as part of the validation process. Uncertainty in the model test measurements and the geometry of the physical model play a crucial role in the validation process. Therefore, an important element is an assessment of the uncertainties that play a role in this process together with how they propagate and eventually influence the end result. The aim was to develop a practical engineering approach trying to use the data that was available and making educated guesses where it could not be avoided. It is by no means intended to be a full-fledged theoretical elaboration on uncertainty propagation. This paper provides an overview of the methodology adopted for the validation of the ship flooding simulation tool and presents some of the preliminary results from this study.
KeywordsTime domain Flooding Simulation Damaged stability Validation Uncertainty determination Chaotic Non-linear
- 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”. Proc. of 5th International Conference on Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles, STAB 94, Melbourne, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
- Khaddaj-Mallat, C, Roussetm J.-M., Alessandrini, B., Delhommeau, B., Ferran, P., (2010) “An Application of the DOE Methodology in Damage Survivability”, Proc. of 10th International Ship Stability Workshop, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 255–261.Google Scholar
- Lebigot, E.O. (2015) Uncertainties: a Python package for calculations with uncertainties, http://pythonhosted.org/uncertainties/.
- McTaggart, K.A. (1999) Capsize Risk Assessment Using Fredyn Ship Motion Predictions”, (DREA TM 99/149), Defence Research Establishment Atlantic.Google Scholar
- MARIN (2014) FREDYN v14.1.1, Getting Started guide, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Ruponen, P. (2007) Progressive Flooding of a Damaged Passenger Ship. Doctoral Dissertation, Helsinki University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
- Ypma, E. (2010) “Model tests in atmospheric and vacuum conditions”, FLOODSTAND report D2.5b, Revision 1.01Google Scholar
- GRC (2009) PARAMARINE v6.1, User Manual, GRC Ltd, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
- de Kat, J.O. (1996) “Dynamics of a ship with partially flooded compartment”, The Second Workshop on Stability and Operational Safety of Ships, Osaka, Japan.Google Scholar
- van Walree, F. and Papanikolaou, A. (2007), “Benchmark study of numerical codes for the prediction of time to flood of ships, Phase 1”, Proc. of the 9th International Ship Stability Workshop ISSW, Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
- Turner, T., Ypma, E., Macfarlane G. and Renilson, M. R. (2010) “The Development and Application of a Damage Dynamic Stability modelling capability for Naval Vessels”, Proc. International Maritime Conference, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
- van’t Veer, R. and de Kat, J.O., 2000, “Experimental and Numerical Investigation on Progressive Flooding and Sloshing in Complex Compartment Geometries”, Proc. of the 7th International Conference on Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles, STAB2000, Launceston, Australia, Vol. 1, pp. 363–384.Google Scholar