INTEGRATION OF DAMAGE

STABILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN

THE DESIGN OF RO-RO

Ro-Ro PASSENGER VESSELS HAVE COMMERCIALLY PROVEN TO BE A VERY SUCCESSFUL TYPE OF DESIGN, NOT IN THE LEAST BECAUSE THE CAR DECKS STRETCH FROM BOARD TO BOARD AND FROM STEM TO STERN, THUS DIMINISHING THE TIME REQUIRED FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING PASSENGER CARS AND LORRIES. THAT THIS LEADS TO POOR DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF Ro-Ro VESSELS WAS ALREADY LONG RECOGNIZED IN THE MARINE COMMUNITY, BUT IT W AS ONLY AFTER THE DISASTER WITH THE

'HERALD OF FREE ENTERPRISE' THAT SERIOUS RESEARCH PROGRAMMES WERE INITIATED TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY. THIS ACCIDENT AND THE RESEARCH HAVE ALSO LED TO CONSIDERABLE AMENDMENTS IN THE DAMAGE STABILITY RULES (SOLAS '90) FOR Ro-Ro VESSELS. THIS PAPER REVIEWS VARIOUS WAYS WHICH HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW CRITERIA. IT HIGHLIGHTS A SOLUTION IN WHICH PERMANENTRESERVE BUOYANCY IS CREATED IN THE SIDES OF

THE SHIP, DIRECTLY BELOW AND IF POSSIBLE, ALSO ABOVE, THE BULKHEAD DECK. THIS OPTION PROVIDES FOR PERMAl':lENT BUOYANCY IN THE SIDES IN CASE OF A COLLISION AND ALSO DECREASES THE PENETRATION DEPTH. FURTHERMORE THE INRUSH OF WATER AFTER A DAMAGE IS RETARDED BY THE PRESENCE OF BUOYANT MATERIAL, WHICH DIMINISHES HEELING ANGLES IN INTERMEDIATE STAGES. INVESTIGATIONS AND RESEARCH REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THIS SOLUTION ARE DISCUSSED.

GENERAL STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF

RO-RO PASSENGER VESSELS During the past decades Ro-Ro passenger vessels have evolved to very wide and flat ships with almost barge-like midship sections. Typical BIT ratio's vary between 4 and 5 and the freeboard of the lowermost car deck (bulkhead deck) is often only 2.0 m or even less, say 7 or 8 percent of the width of the ship. This low freeboard is allowed according to ILLC regulations because of the large superstructure, which extends in most designs over _70 or 90 percent of the ship length

and results in an enormous reserve buoyancy in intact condition. A typical cross section is shown in Fig. 1. Because of operational requirements and flexibility (fast loading and unloading oflorries and passenger cars, and consequently short port times) the car decks directly above the bulkhead deck stretch from board to board and from stem to stern without any bulkhead or obstruction. Consequently, when for one reason or another the hull is damaged (or when a bow door is not closed, as in case of the 'Herald of Free Enterprise') the reserve buoyancy above the bulkhead deck has completely

;WZ10-92

VESSELS*

ir. E. Vossnack, TU Delft ir. H. Boonstra, TU Delft

pass.

pass.

cars

cars

Fig. 1 Cross section of a Ro-Ro Passengercar vessel.

457

vanished. The low freeboard results in an immersion of the bulkhead deck at an angle of heel of say 8 or 10 degrees when the ship is in intact, even-keel condition. With flooded compartments andlor trim the angle of immersion of the bulkhead deck may become considerably smaller. Once this deck is immersed sea water can enter into the ship on the bulkhead deck. The lever arm of stability very soon will become negative and the vessel is likely to capsize, as is proven in model tests (Pucill [1]) as well as in reality (Spouge [2],[3]).

SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS

Several comprehensive surveys on safety aspects ofRo-Ro vessels have been published in the recent past, see for instance Spouge [3] and Lloyd [4], to mentionjust two of them. The general conclusion is that the risk of individual passengers travelling on ferries in the western world is extremely small and certainly acceptable when compared to other forms of public transport. However, the large numbers of casualties which can occur in one single occasion is not accepted by society. In case of the 'Herald of Free Enterprise' disaster at least 193 people died and in a worst case scenario the number of casualties may exceed 2000.

Designers and owners of Ro-Ro vessels have been criticized by the way they treat safety aspects. One point of criticism is that only a few obvious potential hazards are considered in the design and operation of the vessel and that these hazards are treated separately and are often only checked against regulations.

In other sectors of the industry, notably in the design of nuclear power plants and petrochemical installations, an integrated systematic risk-analysis is applied from which often unexpected interactions between causes and events can be found and a balance between various types of risks can be established. Also in offshore engineering (Thompson [5]) this type of risk analysis has proven its value and will, certainly for the more complex installations as floating production facilities, become mandatory in the near future.

Another point of criticism .is that engineers tend to forget to include human behaviour in the safety analysis. This omission results in an underestimation of the risks involved and does not lead to the heart of the matter when it comes to measures to improve the safety in the future (Wagenaar [6]). Both points of criticism should be taken seriously by naval architects and may well result in a change

Fig. 2 Passengership damage stability requirements.

Critical angle is where:

- progressive flooding starts;

- cargo starts moving, trailers toppling;

- panic starts among passengers: 7'-1 O";

- life saving appliances are failing.

M

e.so ; c;;;: :RIGHllNC I.EVEI<

0.10

0.20_

o

,

in regulations, tools and attitude towards safety in the industry in the near future. However it may be, still purely technical improvements in the design, the structure and the lay-out of the ship can help to improve the safety in case of a serious collision. Such an improvement more or less automatically will effect the outcome of a risk-analysis as the consequence of an event tree will be less detrimental.

DAMAGE STABILITY REGULATIONS, PRESENT SITUATION

Until recently the damage stability requirements for Ro-Ro passenger vessels were in principle based on the 1960 SaLAS convention for passenger vessels, which stipulated that in the final damaged condition the bulkhead deck should remain 76 mm clear of the still waterline, the angle of heel should be smaller than 7 degrees and that the metacentric height in that situation should be at least 50 mm. In later years it was realized that also asymmetrical flooding and intermediate stages of flooding should be investigated. Minimum requirements regarding the maximum angle of heel in intermediate stages were formulated in the 1974 SaLAS convention. It was also realized that . the 50 mm meta centric height in damaged condition did not give sufficient safety, which resulted for instance in the 1984 UK Passenger Ship Regulation and the requirements by the Dutch Shipping Directorate of 1983 in which a minimum positive range of stability of7 degrees was specified in combination

with a minimum area of 0.004 m rad. under the GZ curve.

Soon after the 'Herald of Free Enterprise' disaster an international agreement on higher standards of residual stability was reached. These so called 1990 SaLAS requirements stipulate for the final condition after damage (Fig 2):

- A minimum range of15 degrees, starting from a maximum angle of 7 degrees for one compartment flooding or a maximum of 12 degrees for a two compartment flooding.

- The area under the GZ curve shall be at least 0.015 m rad.

- The maximum GZ shall not be less thanO.l0m.

zoO

The majority of present day Ro-Ro vessels do not meet these higher standards as was shown by White [7]. This also implies that new designs should have considerably better damage stability characteristics than existing vessels. Model tests with. a damaged vessel in waves performed by Pucill [1] indicates that a significant wave height between 1.0 and 1.5 m can be survived when the 1990 SaLAS requirements are met. Such wave conditions are quite often exceeded at open sea, so if these tests are representative for RoRo passenger vessels it can be questioned whether the new regulations are sufficient to provide an acceptable margin of safety.

However, of greater importance than the final condition is the large heel which may occur during the first 20 or 30 seconds after a side collision due to transient asymmetric flooding, sluggish cross flooding and in the worst case toppling of trailers (Fig.3). The size of the hole (or holes) punched in the hull by the bow andlor bulb of the colliding ship is of decisive importance for the transient behaviour after the collision.

PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS

In order to comply with the new SaLAS '90 stability rules several modifications in the layout andlor compartimentation of Ro-Ro vessels have been proposed in the recent past. A paper by Lloyd [4] gives an almost complete overview of some 15 alternatives and the paper also reviews their effectivity in meeting new stability regulations and consequences for costs and operations. Of these proposals some are of interest for existing ships, others are only applicable in new designs. The most notable suggestions are:

SWZ10-92

FIRST MINUTE:

The rapidly increasing list. caused by water rushing into the ship after a hull· penetration requires close atlention

Crossfiooding may be slugghish and is effective only in case the. ship has a positive righting moment

The cardeck will be immersed if listing continues and water. entering via a hole in the topside of the ship. will spread-out over this continuous deck

This sequence of events may lead to capsizing if downfiooding of entered water is too sluggish

HEELCURVE DEPENDS ON:

LARC;t. Hf.EL IN 8 -20 SEC.

Jl.S SOOIi "'5 THE A.TTACKING BOW 15 RETR~CTING

;;-,-,-"...-,......,.,..,._-"'1;...".,;... '2 " ••

SIZE OF HOLES Co M DAMA<;fP CROSSno 'DUCT POWNFL .scuPP.

..

CROSSfLOOJ)INC UPHlLl.

IS RATHEFt SL.IJGGiISH

_ T. u· r\OOf\.t\ASI~

,__ '- M3/

'-J'J,.OWRAT~-"7M~.3,%.c:_~21 ~f<.

JWlURST. AfTER.20 SEC = 400 M3 60 .. =\0001'13

_~= _\J~9!:'-

WL_ -

" 0,,7 ","

IS A 5TAI(o.t.RP HOLf

PROPOSED

Fig. 3 Flooding after a collision.

Retractable transverse barriers above the car deck.

The idea is to arrange a watertight subdivision of the vessel above the bulkhead deck with a number of movable barriers which are subsequently closed after part of the deck is loaded. The effectivity of the system is uncertain and it is difficult to make it fool-proof, but even if it is possible to design sufficiently robust and reliable barriers, operational problems and a loss in time and effective stowage area are foreseen.

Longitudinal watertight bulkheads above the car deck.

Longitudinal watertight bulkheads above the car deck will only be effective when the wing space between the bulkhead and the outer hull is subdivided by narrowly spaced transverse bulkheads or

SWZ10-92

B.'LEIAREILfOREI30DY

BY 3M¢8ULS

.. cc TO EUROPEA'" CATEWAY J: ,sPo WC; £ .. RIKA KR 86

water tight doors (see Brown [8]). This means that the space can not be used effectively for cars. It has been proposed to use the wing space for trailers which are brought in place by a tugmaster. Watertight. doors are provided fore and aft of each two 40 ft trailers. Although the system increases the survivability of the ship, it does not result in a very attractive and flexible layout of the car deck.

High stability hull form.

By applying 'V' rather than 'U' shaped sections in the lines plan of the ship the KM value is increased and hence, with an unchanged VCoG, the initial stability is increased as well as the GZ curve. The improvement in stability can then be used to increase the freeboard of the bulkhead deck (with; of course a consequential increase in KG due to the fact

that all weight items of the ship and cargo above the bulkhead deck are moving upwards). However, in practice the improvement in damage stability characteristics will be limited, in particular when a reasonably conventional lines plan is desired.

The most simple solution is to increase the freeboard by decreasing the draught, which means a reduction of payload. Another way is to increase the width of the ship, thus creating a large metacentric height, resulting in a stiff ship and high accelerations.

Sponsons.

By adding sponsons to an existing hull the damage stability characteristics of the vessel can be improved considerably.

In order to avoid asymmetrical flooding after a side damage it is required to subdivide the sponsons by a large number of transverse bulkheads or alternatively provide for permanent buoyant material in the sponsons. Major disadvantages of sponsons are the adverse effect on rolling motions due to increased GM, the increased resistance and, depending on the port, dearance with quay walls or locks of the ferry terminals. Also the lowering of lifeboats may be hampered by the sponsons.

The authors believe that with only conventional adaptations to the design of Ro-Ro vessels improvements in the safety will remain marginal. The safety can, however, be improved considerably when the outside part of the ship over a reasonable range of height near the waterline virtually cannot be flooded, even after a high impact collision. Such a solution wil be elaborated in the next section.

BUOYANCY IN THE WINGS

The idea of application of permanent buoyancy in the sides of a Ro-Ro vessel is suggested by Vossnack [9,10].

One possibility is shown in Fig. 4. The vessel is provided with longitudinal bulkheads at approximately 0,2 B from the sides. When the wing tanks are left empty large cross-over ducts are required to avoid asymmetric flooding in case of a side collision. Recent research into the transient behaviour of damaged ships with longitudinal bulkheads and cross-over ducts between the wing tanks has improved the possibility to predict the dynamics and judge the stability in the first minutes after a collision, see V redeveldt [11]. However, this research has

459

Pig. 4 Permanent buoyancy under car deck.

also shown that the dynamic effect may cause considerable angles of heel even when large cross-over ducts are installed. The safety in case of a collision would therefore be improved if the wing tanks were provided with buoyant material like foam or empty steel drums, thus achieving a permeability of the wing tanks of between 10 and 30 percent. Another positive effect of the presence of the material is that the ingress of water is slowed down (Fig. 5, top.)

The pros and cons of different types of material are discussed in the next section. The foregoing proposals are valid for passenger Ro-Ro vessels where side compartments below the bulkhead deck are not used for water ballast or fuel oil and must remain empty in order to fulfill damage stability requirements. However, for Ro-Ro cargo vessels the wing tanks below the bulkhead deck may be needed for ballasting purposes or storage of fresh water or fuel, and cannot be filled up with buoyant material. Therefore instead of a configuration as shown in Fig. 4, the buoyant material could be provided inside wing tanks above the bulkhead deck (see Fig 6) or both above and below the bulkhead deck (Fig. 7). In most cases a width of 0.10 B of the wing tanks will be sufficient to maintain a positive metacentric height in the final condition with the complete car deck flooded. Although in the first instance after the collision the metacentric height may be negative, an improvement of the metacentric height is achieved when the water accumulated. on the car deck is dumped onto the tanktop of the lower hold or, if possible, into void tanks in the double bottom through large diameter scuppers. (fig 5: top right and bottom). The compartments with buoyant mate-

4t?O

SIDE COLLISION

R.R".DECK IMMER5ED

\

NO FOAt1

NORSUN

WITH C;M.I.'1 M

fNTA<r

• ~.~. 4

;2fJ~··.;· .:,:'.; . ..

t"~AR-D~~M ~C~_L_

·200 TON 20 SE.C

- RE.DUC.TIOK OF PEN.ETR.ATION

- REOUCilON OF INFLOW OF WATEIZ.

- 6UOYAN.CY

.Ii T

INBUR5T 400 TON WITHIN 205E(

Pig. 5 Effect of hardfoam blocks if'l the wings (top); downjlooding and crosiflooding arrangements (bottom).

[oass.

f pass·..·t

pass.

Pig. 6 Permanent buoyancy above cardeck.

Pig. 7 Permanent buoyancy above and below car deck.

rial above the bulkhead deck obviously reduce the space at the car deck. This disadvantage is relative only, because the new damage stability regulations require changes in the design (like a raising of the bulkhead deck) which cause a decrease in cargo capacity anyhow. Furthermore the wing tanks do not hamper the operational flexibility of the vessel. Another advantage of buoyant material in the wing tanks is that in case of a side collision the depth of penetration is decreased. In a next section some preliminary-results of a pilot test to investigate the energy absorption of these materials are discussed. For existing vessels a retrofit by means of structural sponsons filled with buoyant material may; in most cases, be an acceptable solution (seePig 8).

BUOYANT MATERIAL

If buoyant material is to be applied in the wing tanks of a ship, the following requirements have to be fulfilled:

- the material must have a low specific weight;

- the material shall be noninflammable and shall not produce toxic gasses when it is exposed to heat;

- the material must have sufficient compression resistance to withstand the maximum water pressure in case of damage;

- installation and removal of the material must be simple;

- inspection and access to appendages inside the tank must remain possible.

The following materials are considered to be more or less suitable for the purpose:

Fig. 9 Arrangement of energy absorption tests.

1'1
1 J
Jpass. ~ 1;
, pass. I I
pass. I
pass. I
cars
I
cars
I
'v I Y Fig. 8 Existing Ro-Ro vessel fitted with sponsons and permanent buoyancy.

Blocks of phenol formaldehyde foam

The specific weight is approximately 50 kg/rrr'. The material is thermo-hardening, fire proof and does not produce poisonous gas when heated. It can be covered by perlite, an inert, volcanics material consisting of micro balloons of glass.

Blocks of polystyrene hard-foam

The specific weight is approximately 20 to 30 kg/nr', The material is thermoplastic, melts when exposed to heat above 90° C, therefore it probably has to be shielded by means of e. g. rockwool blankets or by phenol/perlite blocks. Polystyrene hard-foam blocks are used for various civil engineering works on shore.

-{;i. _ _.>.

SWZ10-92

Empty metal drums

The specific weight is approximately 60 kg/rrr'. The stowage is less efficient than the stowage of synthetic blocks. The material is fire resistant but the thin steel wall is sensitive for corrosion.

PENETRATION TESTS

One of the positive effects of filling side compartments with buoyant material is the absorption of kinetic energy in case of a collision. The presence of the material will result in a substantial smaller penetration depth of the bow of the colliding ship. It is, however, extremely difficult to quantify the effects. Only recently investigations were undertaken to correlate strength calculations based on non-linear finite element time domain analysis of ship collisions with full scale tests, see e.g. Vredeve1dt [12]. In due time this type of analysis. will provide engineers with the tools to predict damage due to collisions and to design more robust structures. These calculations and tests of course only include the steel structure of the ships. In order to obtain an estimate of the energy absorption of permanent buoyancy fitted in side tanks, a number of simple pilot tests have been carried out in the Netherlands recently, sponsored by a consortium of companies and the Dutch Foundation for the Co-ordination of Maritime Research CMO. In the tests aschematized hull section consisting of7 mm plate with stiffeners (HP 120*7) is placed horizontally on a stiff closed box. The plate is hit by a hammer of3.5 ton, falling from 10 m height, which simulates the impact of a collision. The space enclosed by the plate and the box is in one case empty and in other cases filled by various types of buoyant material. After each test the stiffened plate is renewed. See also Fig. 9.

The penetration of the falling object as well as the load at the bottom plate are measured. The penetration is a measure for the energy absorbed by the filling material and the load on the bottom plate indicates whether the inner hull would have been damaged; The preliminary results of the tests are encouraging. In particular polystyrene foam appears to limit the penetration to a great extent. Detailed results will be reported by TNO Centre for Mechanical Engineering in the near future [13].

* Paper presented at the First Joint Conference on Marine Safety and Environment/Ship Production, Delft, June 1992.

FUTURE RESEARCH REQUIRED Based on its properties and the capability to absorb kinematic energy in case of a collision polystyrene foam is considered to be the preferred material for the creation of permanent buoyancy in the wings of the ship. However, if fire resistance is required phenol formaldehyde is a good alternative.

Further investigations are required about the following aspects:

- improvement of heat resistance of polystyrene foam e.g. by shielding of the material by rockwool sheets or phenol formaldehyde covered by perlite;

- development of computational model to predict the energy absorption of hull sections filled with buoyant material.

CONCLUSIONS

• Ro-Ro vessels are, due to the low freeboard of the bulkhead deck and unobstructed cargo deck, prone to rapid capsize after a side-collision.

• The size of the hole (or holes) in the side of the vessel is of great importance for the transient behaviour of the vessel in the first tens of seconds after the collision.

• Permanent buoyant material in the wings of a Ro-Ro vessel has positive effects on the safety of the vessel in case of a collision:

- it limits the prenetration of the bow of the colliding ship;

- it hampers the inrush of floodwater and consequently improves the

transient behaviour immediately after the accident and reduces the heel of the vessel;

- it ensures a considerable moment of inertia of the water line area and thus reduces the danger of capsizing.

• Foam material like blocks of polystyrene or phenol formaldehyde seems the best solution to create permanent buoyancy.

• Permanent buoyancy can be used in other types of vessels as well to improve the safety in case of damage. Examples are: catamaran, swath, semi-submersibles, etc. 0

REFERENCES

1. F. Pucill and S. Velschou, 'Ro-Ro passenger ferry safety studies - Model tests of a typical ferry'. The International Symposium on the Safety ofRo-Ro Passenger Ships, (RINA), London, Apri11990.

2. J. R. Spouge, 'The Technical Investigation of the Sinking of the Ro-Ro ferry 'European Gateway'. Transactions RINA, vol 128, 1986.

3. J. R. Spouge, 'The Safety of Ro-Ro Passenger Vessels'. Transactions RINA, 1988.

4. C. G. Lloyd, 'UK DoT - Research into enhancing the stability and survivability of Ro-Ro passenger ferries - Overview study'. March 1990.

5. I. Thompson and D. Prentice, 'Safety Assessment Considerations for Offshore Floating Production and Storage Units'. RINA 1990.

6. W. A. Wagenaar andJ. Groeneweg, 'Accidents at sea. Multiple causes and im-

4()2

possible consequences'. International Journal of Man-Machine studies, 1987.

7. N. J. White and A. J. Rogan, 'A study to compare the residual standards of stability after damage of existing Ro-Ro passenger vessels'. The International Symposium on the Safety of Ro-Ro Passenger Ships, (RINA), London, April 1990.

8. J. G. Brown, 'Buoyant wing spaces - Economic compliance with Solas-90'. The second Henry Kummerman Foundation International conference on Ro-Ro safety and vulnerability - The way ahead, London, Apri11991.

9. E. Vossnack, 'Buoyancy in the wings'.

The Kummerman International conference on Ro-Ro safety and vulnerability - The way ahead, London, December 1987.

10. E. Vossnack, 'A lifebelt around the ship', Conference on safety of Ro-Ro vessels, Delft, June 1990.

11. A. W. Vredeveldt and J. M. J. journee, 'Roll motions of ships due to sudden water ingress, calculations and experiments'. The second Henry Kummerman Foundation International conference on Ro-Ro safety and vulnerability - The way ahead, April 1991.

12. A. W. Vredeveldt and L. J. Wevers, 'Full scale collision experiments'. Conference on Marine Safety and Environment, Delft, June 1992.

13. TNO Centre of Mechanical Engineering, Report on double hull penetration tests. To be published 1992.