Defining Rational Damage Stability Requirements

  • Nikolaos Tsakalakis
  • Dimitris Konovessis
  • Dracos VassalosEmail author
Part of the Fluid Mechanics and Its Applications book series (FMIA, volume 119)


The major benefit of switching from the deterministic frameworks for damage stability of the past to the current performance-based state of the art is the ability to have a measurement of the level of survivability of any given design. The required level of survivability is probably the key parameter in any probabilistic framework, in essence answering the question “how safe is safe enough?”. To this end, survivability analysis results on representative cruise and Ro-Pax ships can be related to design and operational parameters with a view to define and quantify the relationships between damage survivability characteristics following a collision and time available for evacuation with potential outcomes in terms of people potentially at risk. For this paper, established numerical methods for the measurement of performance-based survivability have been utilised and used as benchmark against available analytical methods in an attempt to define a rational requirement for the level of survivability.


Damage stability Survivability assessment SOLAS 2009 Safety level Passenger ships Evacuation Risk Index A 



The authors would like to express their gratitude to their colleagues within the Ship Stability Research Centre (SSRC) of the University of Strathclyde as well as all those involved in project GOALDS for their valuable contribution.


  1. HARDER (1999–2003): “Harmonisation of Rules and Design Rationale”. EC funded project, DG XII-BRITE, 2000–2003Google Scholar
  2. Jasionowski et al.: “Ship Vulnerability to Flooding”, 3rd International Conference for Maritime Safety, Berkeley, California, 2007Google Scholar
  3. Jasionowski et al.: “Investigation Into The Safety Of Ro-Ro Passenger Ships Fitted With Long Lower Hold Phase 2”, UK MCA RP592, Report MCRP05-RE-001-AJPB.16, Safety at Sea Ltd, 2008Google Scholar
  4. SAFEDOR, “Design, Operation and Regulation for Safety”. Integrated Project,, 2006
  5. Skjong et al.: “Risk Evaluation Criteria”, SAFEDOR Deliverable 4.5.2, 2007Google Scholar
  6. Spyrou, K.J. & Roupas, I.: “Damaged ship survivability: a step beyond Wendel”, International Shipbuilding Progress, 54, 285–303, 2007Google Scholar
  7. Tsakalakis, N., Puisa, R., Chen, Q.: “A critical look At SOALS Ch. II-1 with respect to floodable length of compartments in passenger ships”, Work Package 2 report, UK MCA Research Project 625, 2011Google Scholar
  8. Vassalos, D., Kim, H., Christiansen, G. and Majumder, J.: “A mesoscopic model for passenger evacuation in a virtual ship-sea environment and performance-based evaluation”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics, 2001Google Scholar
  9. Vassalos, D., Jasionowski, A.: “Conceptualising Risk”, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles, 2006Google Scholar
  10. Vassalos, D.: “Safe Return to Port—A Framework for Passenger Ship Safety”, 10th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures, Houston, USA, 2007Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolaos Tsakalakis
    • 1
  • Dimitris Konovessis
    • 2
  • Dracos Vassalos
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Alpha Marine ConsultingPiraeusGreece
  2. 2.Singapore Institute of TechnologySingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.The Ship Stability Research Centre, Department of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Marine EngineeringUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations