Trans RINA, Vol 152, Part A4, Intl J Maritime Eng, Oct-Dec 2010
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0 0 3.0 measured
calculated, rough calculated, detailed
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 300 600 900 1200 Time [s]
Figure 19: Flow velocity in the damage opening for one- compartment flooding
3.0 measured 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0
calculated, rough calculated, detailed
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 300 600 900 1200 Time [s]
Figure 21: Water level in the pump room for one- compartment flooding
The flow velocity in the “damage hole” valve is presented in Figure. 19. Very small velocities (V < 0.3 m/s) could not be measured properly. Furthermore, there is quite a lot of noise in the signal. However, the general correspondence
between the measurement and the calculation with detailed input data is good.
Water levels in the equipment room, pump room and PS side tank are presented in Figure. 20, 21 and 22, respectively. The final calculated values for equipment and pump rooms are slightly lower
measurements. This may be caused by an inaccuracy in the modelled locations of the water level sensors. This explanation is supported by the notice that the water levels are lower in the
calculations than in the
measurements at periods, where the increase of water level has momentarily stopped when floodwater has progressed to the next room. The water level in the PS tank is predicted very well by the simulation with the detailed input data.
1500 1800 2100 2400 0 1500 1800 2100 2400 0 measured
calculated, rough calculated, detailed
0
300
600
900
1200 Time [s]
Figure 20: Water level in the equipment room for one- compartment flooding
3.0 measured
calculated, rough calculated, detailed
1500
1800
2100
2400
0
300
600
900
1200 Time [s]
Figure 22: Water level in the PS side tank for one- compartment flooding
4.3 TWO-COMPARTMENT FLOODING than in the
An additional opening was installed in the bottom of the transverse watertight bulkhead between the equipment room and the store (Figure. 5c). In this test the opening was left open to allow flooding of the store. Similarly to the previous cases, the empty SB side tank was flooded first. Then water progressed to the equipment room through the open valve (Figure. 5a), and further to the store and later also to the pump room through the open door (Figure. 5b). The port side tank was empty and closed during this test, thus causing a notable heeling also at the end.
The openings from the equipment room to the store and to the pump room were large, when compared to the size of the damage hole. Consequently the water levels in these three rooms increased practically simultaneously. The calculated final floating position is illustrated in Figure. 23 and captures from a stationary camera are presented in Figure. 24, showing the initial and final conditions.
A-204 ©2010: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
1500
1800
2100
2400
Water level B3 [m]
Water velocity V1 [m/s]
Water level C1 [m]
Water level B10 [m]
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74