In-depth | DAMAGE STABILITY Aims of the FLOODSTAND project were:
1) establish new experimental and computational data and guidelines for modeling leakage through closed doors and the critical pressure head for collapsing under the pressure of floodwater,
2) simplified modelling of pressure losses (discharge coefficients) in flows through typical openings.
3) feasible and realistic modelling of compartments with complex layout, such as cabin areas, for flooding simulation tools
4) the use of flooding monitoring systems and time domain simulation for assessing the damage and flooding extent onboard the damaged ship. 5) stochastic ship response modeling: establish requirements and uncertainty bounds for methods for prediction of the time it takes a ship to capsize or sink after damage.
6) rescue process modellling: establish requirements and uncertainty bounds for models of mustering, abandonment and rescue operations. 7) standard for decision making in crises: (short:) establish a loss function for the integrated standard. The function will reflect the above requirements on the methods to be used for generating basis information on stability, evacuation and rescue process as well as the associated uncertainty, 8) demonstration: develop implementation system and test effectiveness of the standard in rating different decisions for various casualty cases as well as test the approach in design environment.
Thoughts on Costa Concordia In the aftermath of the Costa Concordia disaster, the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) supported by the European Cruise Council, and the Passenger Ship Association in the UK recently announced a policy that all their cruise ships will now conduct the emergency muster drill for passengers before they put out to sea. Earlier, ships were allowed to do this within 24 hours of departure. Tis expected decision reflects the requirement by the general public to swiſtly address the disaster with some actions. It though still needs to be announced which changes in daily routines, both onboard and onshore, will result from the actions promised to be initiated by the big cruise operators. Before this takes place the passengers cannot, and should not, feel confident that their safety is assured. You still do not have to wear your life jacket during the emergency muster drill, at least on some of the bigger vessels. Tis should be changed, preferrably before public pressure. At least one cruise ship operator, Star
very rapidly over a very short timeframe. This was an important finding helping also in the studies aiming at establishing recommendations to support decision- making for the captain, a project headed by the University of Strathclyde (SSRC). Based on the extensive analysis of uncertainties, in particular relating to the assessment of the extent of flooding, the order of actions proposed was that mustering should always commence immediately aſter the first signs of distress, aſter which the decision to stay onboard should be taken only if the extent of flooding is known exactly (and the proposed simple risk criterion permits). Otherwise the vessel should be abandoned. Te main logic behind this proposal was to provide as much time as possible for an orderly evacuation. Te order of actions proposed obviously raised much discussion. One observation was that when a call for mustering is made, this may in practise be interpreted as ‘abandon ship’, hence very careful consideration should be taken. The limited time span for an orderly
evacuation was also evident from the findings of FLOODSTAND on crisis management and flooding control in real cases, with work headed by the National Technical University of Athens. The ro-ro-passenger vessel, as
22
well as the modern cruise ship designs, were used for this purpose. Te earlier EU-project ‘HARDER’ provided the collision statistics for the damage cases. Enhanced sub-division requirements and faster abandonment operations were proposed to achieve an orderly evacuation, as well as the need for including groundings in the studies. The project was co-ordinated by Risto
Jalonen,
Lic.Sc. (Tech.) of the Aalto University in Espoo, Finland.
GOALDS project underway The EU-funded FP7 project GOALD is another related project looking at damage issues of ships. GOALDS, Goal Based Damage Stability Objectives and Overview of Results, aims at responding to the concerns of the adopted formulations of the probabilistic damage stability regulations, SOLAS 2009, for the calculation of the survival probability of passenger ships, particularily for ro-pax vessels and large cruise vessels. Te goal has been set to formulating a rational regulatory framework properly accounting for the damage stability properties of passenger ships, achieved through dedicated research studies. Te project, which has 18 participants, many the same as in FLOODSTAND, is to be finalised this autumn.
Cruises, applies a routine to report on any potential ‘near accident’, in order to foster an open attitude both onboard and ashore. Star also arranges a compulsory debriefing with each individual officer aſter every working period of eight weeks. Research studies like FLOODSTAND
could benefit from having a completely neutral body, with no relationship to shipping, on their Advisory Board, to address potential matters not necessarily seen by those which are too near the industry. Legal and financial consequences shall never prevent complete investigations of ‘what actually took place’ in any shipping accident. Also this implements neutral members in the accident investigating authority bodies. There is also an evident need for more ‘experts’ (psychologists) in the research projects, and, as it seems, in the operations departments of the shipping companies. With just ‘technology experts’ and ‘operators’ involved, the human element is not covered to a sufficient extent, as proven also by the Costa Concordia disaster.
Footnotes 1. As addressed in the IMO reports SLF47/ INF.6 on Survivability investigation of large passenger ships. 2. Details of the project results are presented at http: //
floodstand.aalto.fi/. NA
The Naval Architect March 2012
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