Trans RINA, Vol 153, Part A1, Intl J Maritime Eng, Jan-Mar 2011


passenger ships operating in the EU would no longer be required as this phenomenon is considered to a certain degree as implicitly included within the ‘s’ or survivability function covered by the SOLAS 2009 requirements. In view of disasters such as the Herald of Free Enterprise,(Figure 7), this phenomenon remains an issue under review.


current formulations can be improved. The participants include


the major European shipyards, administrations, universities, tank testing flag research


establishments and classification societies. The project addresses some of the new challenges related to ‘design for safety’ and risk-based design and will involve research and development studies with the aim of improving the probabilistic damage stability formulations for large passenger vessels. The research programme will discuss technical issues related to improvement of ship survivability formulations and aims to develop a risk- based subdivision requirement


for passenger vessels.


Upon completion, GOALDS will submit key results to the IMO for consideration in the Rule making process.


The GOALDS key objectives are:


 To develop an enhanced formulation for the survival factor ‘s’ introduced by MSC 216 (82) for


the Figure 7. Herald of Free Enterprise


During the course of the development of the regulations at IMO,


the SEM or


proposed as an additional measure for (Indeed at the early stages of


difficult


proposed as a full methodology for evaluating both passenger and cargo application proved


ships alike.) This


static equivalent method was this purpose.


development it was additional


in providing consistent


results and therefore was abandoned as a solution. A simple restriction to the minimum freeboard was also proposed.


Recent investigations have considered increasing the required GZ height for calculating the ‘s’ values in line with original formulations considering these ship types, but it has been shown that this, in itself, has a negligible affect on the attained index.


The Stockholm Agreement provides a satisfactory solution, in conjunction with SOLAS 90 deterministic standards, but proves difficult to mesh


with the


probabilistic regime. On the basis of numerous studies, the EU member states are split on this complex issue of the effects of water on large open deck spaces and have agreed that it is best resolved via a wider exposure under the


IMO agenda for the SLF sub committee. The


excellent studies recently published in Europe show differences in assumptions and approach which make it difficult to determine the best way forward. Meanwhile, ships are being built in confidence by applying both the Stockholm and SOLAS 2009 regulations.


5.3 GOALDS


Project GOALDS (Goal based damage stability) started this year. It is an EU funded project under the FP7 framework program for research. It provides the ideal forum to be able to collectively investigate items, such as water on deck, with a uniform approach to see if the


©2011: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects Figure 8: Assessing collision data.


Our participation in this project not only leads to a more integrated and consistent knowledge set


with our


European colleagues, but it also enables us to maintain our ability to critically deal with state of the art solutions that may not be directly covered by our Rules and the regulations.


It also means that we have a clear


understanding of the implications when presented with the situation where what seems like a small amendment to a parameter in the regulation itself could have a


A-7


assessment of the probability of survival of large ROPAX and mega cruise


ships in a damaged


condition, based on extensive use of numerical simulation accounting for key design parameters of passenger ships and for the time flooding scenarios.


evolution of


 To develop a new survivability formulation for flooding following grounding accidents.


 To integrate collision and grounding survivability formulations into a single framework.


 To validate the new formulation through experimental and numerical analyses.


 To develop a new damage survivability requirement in a risk-based context.


 To evaluate the practicability of the new formulation through a series of ship concept design studies.


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