Report 27 - 5 - 17

NUMERICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON DAMAGE STABILITY
ANALYSIS OF VLCC
A THESIS
Submitted by
NITHIN N KUTTY
In partial fulfillment for the award of the Degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
(Offshore Structures)
Under the guidance of

Dr A. P. SHASHIKALA
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT
NIT CAMPUS PO, CALICUT
KERALA, INDIA 673 601
June 2017
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I bow my head in all humbleness to God almighty for giving me the
strength and confidence to believe in myself for completing this project work
successfully. The blessings and encouragement from my parents are the one of the
major factors for the successful completion of my thesis. I also extend my warm
regard to all my well-wishers who hold an indispensable part in this project.
With great pleasure and gratitude, I thank to Prof. Dr. A. P. SHASHIKALA,

Dept. of Civil Engineering for her invaluable guidance and supervision. which
helped me to complete this project successfully within the stipulated time. I am
ever indebted to her in depth discussions and suggestions which helped me a lot to
improve my work.
I express my deepest thanks to Prof. Dr. V. MUSTAFA, Dept. of Civil

Engineering, our coordinator for providing me the opportunity to embark on this
project.
I express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. T. ZACHARIA VARGHESE, Head of the

Civil Engineering Department NITC for providing me with the necessary facilities
required to complete this project.
My love and gratitude go once again to all those who supported me for the
preparation of this project.
Nithin N Kutty
i
DECLARATION
“I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by
another person and no material which has been accepted for the award of any
other degree or diploma of the university or other institute of higher learning,
except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text”
Place: NIT Calicut NITHIN N KUTTY
Date: M150108CE
ii
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that this report entitled “NUMERICAL INVESTIGATIONS

ON DAMAGE STABILITY ANALYSIS OF VLCC” submitted by Mr. NITHIN
N KUTTY, Roll No.: M150108CE, to the National Institute of Technology Calicut
during June 2017 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of
degree of Master Of Technology In Civil Engineering (Offshore Structures) is a
bona fide record of the work carried out by him under my supervision and
guidance.
Dr. A. P. SHASHIKALA Dr. V. MUSTAFA

Supervisor and guide Program Coordinator and professor
Professor Department of Civil Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering N.I.T. Calicut
N.I.T. Calicut
Dr. T. ZACHARIA VARGHESE

Professor and Head
Department of Civil Engineering
N.I.T. Calicut
NIT CALICUT
JUNE 2017
iii
iv
ABSTRACT
As of January 2016, there were 51,405 ships in the world's merchant fleets, in that
about 17,000 are bulk carriers, the total number cargo carriers stood at around
11,000 and the number of crude oil tankers rounded up to more than 7,000 units. It
is necessary that the ship’s master is provided with such information as it is as per
the regulations to enable him to assess the stability of the ship under varying
conditions of service of the ship. The information regarding loading and stability
with details of typical service and ballast conditions is usually provided in the
form of a booklet thereby enabling the master to evaluate the condition of loading
to ensure compliance with the relevant intact and damage stability requirements.
In the present condition, we are highly inclined to the protection of marine

environment and made regulations for the prevention of pollutions from ships,
hence it is so relevant and necessary that the ship’s master is provided with oil
outflow charts based on the probable damages that can occur, so that he will be
able to analyze a damage situation in the basis of ship’s stability as well as
maximum damage it can cause to the marine environment through oil outflow.
In this paper, a realistic model of a VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) is

made for analyzing damage stability under different damage scenarios. The
damage scenarios were chosen after doing probabilistic damage calculations on
the tanks and compartments. The probability that a compartment or compartment
group is flooded has found for all probable combinations of tanks and
compartments and damage cases were ordered and categorized into four sets
according to their probability distribution in flooding. The stability charts were
prepared for all probable damage scenarios and oil outflow charts were also made
using MARPOL accidental oil outflow calculation method. The thesis also aims to
give naval architects a better insight to how probabilistic damage stability, or
v
more precisely the attained subdivision index, is influenced by certain changes in
the loading case in an oil tanker according the given arrangement of tanks and
compartments.
vi
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................................................i
DECLARATION.....................................................................................................ii
CERTIFICATE.......................................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................iv
CONTENTS............................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................ix
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................xii
CHAPTER 1............................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1
1.1 General...........................................................................................................1
1.2 Introduction to Probabilistic Damage Stability..............................................2
1.3 Oil Tankers.....................................................................................................3
1.3.1 Oil Tanker Categories........................................................................3
1.4 Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC)................................................................5
1.5 Crude oil types...............................................................................................6
1.5.1 ANS Crude.........................................................................................7
CHAPTER 2............................................................................................................9
LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................9
2.1 General...........................................................................................................9
2.2 Review of Literature......................................................................................9
vii
2.3 Critical Review of the Literature.................................................................12
2.4 Objectives.....................................................................................................13
2.5 Scope of Work.............................................................................................13
CHAPTER 3..........................................................................................................14
THEORETICAL FORMULATION......................................................................14
3.1 General.........................................................................................................14
3.2 Statical Stability at Large Angles of Heel....................................................14
3.3 The Probabilistic Approach to Ship Stability Analysis...............................16
3.3.1 Attained Subdivision Index ‘A’.......................................................16
3.3.2 Calculation of factor Pi....................................................................16
3.3.3 Calculation of the factor Si..............................................................22
3.3.4 Required Subdivision Index ’R’......................................................24
3.4 Methods for finding the ship condition after flooding.................................25
3.4.1 Method of Lost Buoyancy................................................................25
3.4.2 Method of Added Weight................................................................25
3.5 MARPOL Accidental Oil Outflow..............................................................26
RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF FERRY BOAT.......................................................29
4.1 General.........................................................................................................29
4.2 Particulars of the Ferry Boat........................................................................29
4.3 Hydrostatic details........................................................................................30
4.4 Ferry boat modelled in Maxsurf Modeller...................................................30
4.5 Validation:....................................................................................................31
CHAPTER 5..........................................................................................................33
DAMAGED STABILITY OF OIL CARRIER.....................................................33
5.1 General.........................................................................................................33
5.2 Properties of the hull....................................................................................33
viii
5.3 Cases of Study..............................................................................................35
5.4 Validation.....................................................................................................35
CHAPTER 6..........................................................................................................37
STABILITY INVESTIGATIONS ON VLCC......................................................37
6.1 General.........................................................................................................37
6.2 Modelling of VLCC.....................................................................................38
6.3 Load cases....................................................................................................44
6.4 Probabilistic Damage Calculations..............................................................45
CHAPTER 7..........................................................................................................48
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................................48
7.1 Stability Charts.............................................................................................48
7.2 Variation of Attained Index.........................................................................57
7.3 Marpol Oil Outflow Analysis......................................................................63
CHAPTER 8..........................................................................................................66
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS....................................................................66
8.1 Summary......................................................................................................66
8.2 Conclusions..................................................................................................67
8.3 Scope of Future Work..................................................................................68
APPENDIX I......................................................................................................69
DEFINITIONS...................................................................................................69
Reference...............................................................................................................71
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure No Title
No
Fig 1.1 Oil tanker ‘Eagle Otome’ collided with barge 1
Fig 1.2 VLCC Sirius Star 5
Fig 3.1 Definition of righting arm 13
Fig 3.2 Statical-stability curve 14
Fig 3.3 Illustration of P- factor 16
Fig 3.4 Single zone damage 17
Fig 3.5 Two adjacent zones damage 17
Fig 3.6 Three adjacent zones damage 18
Fig 4.1 Passenger ferry boat modelled in Maxsurf Modeller 28
Fig 4.2 Intact roll decay test 29
Fig 4.3 RAO for roll in beam waves, intact condition 29
Fig 4.4 RAO for heave in beam waves, intact condition 30
Fig 5.1 Cross sectional details of the model 32
Fig 5.2 MAXSURF model of oil carrier 32

Comparison of the list angle obtained by MAXSURF and
Fig 5.3 34
by MPS
x
Fig 5.4 Oil leakage obtained by MAXSURF and by MPS 34
Fig 6.1 VLCC Amphitrite 35
Fig 6.2 VLCC modelled in MAXSURF 36
Fig 6.3 Cargo tanks arrangement 37
Fig 6.4 General arrangement of tanks, Top view 39
Fig 6.5 General arrangement of tanks, Side view 39
Fig 6.6 Arrangement of zones in the vessel. 40
Fig 6.7 Damage tanks in damage case D16 43
Fig 6.8 Final equilibrium position for D16 - Loadcase 6 44
Fig 6.9 GZ curve for D16 - Loadcase 6 44
Fig 7.1 Heel vs Loadcase (P>0.04) 45
Fig 7.2 Heel vs Loadcase (0.04>P>0.02) 45
Fig 7.3 Heel vs Loadcase (0.02>P>0.01) 46
Fig 7.4 Heel vs Loadcase (P<0.01) 46
Fig 7.5 Trim vs Loadcase (P>0.04) 46
Fig 7.6 Trim vs Loadcase (0.04>P>0.02) 47
Fig 7.7 Trim vs Loadcase (0.02>P>0.01) 47
Fig 7.8 Trim vs Loadcase (P<0.01) 47
Fig 7.9 GZmax vs Loadcase (P>0.04) 48
Fig 7.10 GZmax vs Loadcase (0.04>P>0.02) 48
Fig 7.11 GZmax vs Loadcase (0.02>P>0.01) 49
Fig 7.12 GZmax vs Loadcase (P<0.01) 49
Fig 7.13 Stability chart for ‘Departure’ 50
xi
Fig 7.14 Stability chart for ‘Load case 3’ 50
Fig 7.21 Partial subdivision index vs Load case 53
Fig 7.22 Oil outflow volume chart 60
Fig 7.23 Oil outflow status chart 60
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Title
No No
1.1 Oil tanker size categories 3
3.1 Comparison of Lost buoyancy and Added weight methods 24
4.1 Principal particulars of the passenger ferry hull 27
4.2 Weight and inertia characteristics 27
4.3 Hydrostatic details of Ferry boat 28
4.4 Comparison of roll response 30
4.5 Comparison of heave response 30
5.1 Hull particulars 31
5.2 The cases of study 33
5.3 The properties of the water and oil 33
5.4 Comparison of final list angles 33
6.1 Characteristics of the VLCC model 36
6.2 Transverse bulkhead location 37
6.3 Tank and Compartment definition 38
6.4 Zone arrangements in VLCC 40
6.5 Deck arrangements in the VLCC model 41
6.6 Load case definitions 41
6.7 Damage cases arrangement in order of P factor 42
7.1 V-factor for load case: departure 54
7.2 V-factor for load case: LC3 54
xiii
7.9 Oil outflow results 58
xiv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Despite the many efforts done in the recent years to avoid ship from sinking after
damage, accidents are keep happening. When severe damage occurs, the ship
could capsize in the worst case because the static balance of buoyancy and gravity
is rapidly lost due to the water flooding. Therefore, securing the survivability
under flooding condition is one of the most important subjects in ship design.
Although the current SOLAS agreement guarantees the ship safety under damaged
condition for passenger ships and dry cargo ships, there is no final and
international rules or regulations for determining damage stability on oil tankers,
and so to evaluate the survivability under flooding for a crude oil tanker, there is
no much better way rather than to take regulations for dry cargo ships given by
IMO, for damage stability investigations.
Fig 1.1 Oil tanker ‘Eagle Otome’ collided with barge
1
In case of damage of a crude oil carrier the stability of the vessel and oil
leakage is of great concerns due to the safety and the environmental issues.
Depending on the position of the hull damage, draught and filling height of the
liquid cargo, the leakage of the oil or water flooding into the tank may occur. An
important part of protecting the environment is to ensure that there are as few
spills as possible. Accidental oil leakages sometimes occur and require a quick
and adequate response in order to reduce the environmental consequences. Most
tankers are loaded such that the internal pressure at the tank is larger than the
external sea pressure. Thus, if the tank is damaged, cargo flows out. If the tanker
carries substantially less cargo such that the hydrostatic balance is established at –
or several meters above the tank bottom, water tends to enter the ship through the
hole in the hull as long as the highest point of damage is below the hydrostatic
balance level. To provide adequate protection against oil pollution in the event of
collision or stranding, Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 has given some regulations,
also explained a method to calculate accidental oil outflow in a probabilistic frame
work.
In crude oil tanker types VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) comes under
supertanker category, which having DWT up to 320,000 tonnes. The damage
stability as well as oil outflow investigations under damage condition is of big
concern and this study aims to present with damage stability and oil outflow
charts for a particular model of VLCC modelled with principal particulars from a
real VLCC.
1.2 INTRODUCTION TO PROBABILISTIC DAMAGE STABILITY
A probabilistic approach involves some degree of uncertainty. Thus, ‘random

variables’ are required to develop prediction models, which for example can be
used to describe the behavior of a system. There is no universal definition of
‘randomness’, but in the context of damage stability it means that accidents and
the damage extent of accidents are unpredictable. To map the unpredictable, the
only available analytical tool is probability theory. Past knowledge, e.g. damage
statistics, can be used to predict random factors that influence the final
consequence of damage to a ship’s hull. Such random factors may be the mass and
the velocity of the ramming ship. The influence of these random factors is
2
different for ships with different characteristics; for instance, differences in the
range of permeability and service draught.
The main concept of probabilistic damage stability regulations is the

determination of subdivision index, A (Attained subdivision index). Whether a
ship is ‘safe enough’ according to the PDS regulations is determined when
Attained subdivision index (A) becomes greater to Required subdivision index
(R). In SOLAS Chapter II-1, Part B-1 Stability, Reg. 7, A is defined as the
‘Attained Subdivision Index’ and R is defined as the ‘Required Subdivision
Index’. Two different ships are considered equally safe if they have the same
value of A. The calculation of A is based on the probability of damage, i.e.
flooding of compartments, and the survivability of the ship after flooding. The
expression for A consists of 2 parts; One describing the probability of damaging a
particular section of the vessel, the other accounting for the probability of survival
after flooding the section.
1.3 OIL TANKERS
An oil tanker, also known as a petroleum tanker, is a merchant ship designed for
the bulk transport of oil. There are two basic types of oil tankers: the crude tanker
and the product tanker. Crude tankers move large quantities of unrefined crude oil
from its point of extraction to refineries. Product tankers, generally much smaller,
are designed to move petrochemicals from refineries to points near consuming
markets.
Oil tankers are often classified by their size as well as their occupation. The size
classes range from inland or coastal tankers of a few thousand metric tons of
deadweight (DWT) to the mammoth ultra large crude carriers (ULCCs) of
550,000 DWT.
1.3.1 Oil Tanker Categories
Merchant oil tankers carry a wide range of hydrocarbon liquids ranging from
crude oil to refined petroleum products. Their size is measured in deadweight
metric tons (DWT). Crude carriers are among the largest, ranging from 55,000
DWT Panamax-sized vessels to ultra-large crude carriers (ULCCs) of over
440,000 DWT.
3
Table 1.1 Oil tanker categories
Class Size in DWT

Product tanker 10,000–60,000
Panamax 60,000–80,000
Aframax 80,000–120,000
Suezmax 120,000–200,000
VLCC 200,000–320,000
ULCC 320,000–550,000
Smaller tankers, ranging from well under 10,000 DWT to 80,000 DWT
Panamax vessels, generally carry refined petroleum products, and are known as
product tankers. The smallest tankers, with capacities under 10,000 DWT
generally work near-coastal and inland waterways. Although they were in the
past, ships of the smaller Aframax and Suezmax classes are no longer regarded as
supertankers.
1.3.1.a Panamax
Panamax and New Panamax (or Neopanamax) are terms for the size limits for
ships travelling through the Panama Canal. Formally, these limits and
requirements are published by the Panama Canal Authority (ACP), titled "Vessel
Requirements". A Panamax cargo ship would typically have a DWT of 65,000–
80,000 tonnes, but its maximum cargo would be about 52,500 tonnes during a
transit due to draft limitations in the canal. New Panamax ships can carry 120,000
DWT.
1.3.1.b Aframax
The Aframax cargo tankers are that type of tanker ships which are mainly used in
the Mediterranean, China Sea and the Black Sea. These tankers have a dead
weight tonnage (DWT) between 80,000 and 1, 20,000 tonnes.
1.3.1.c Suezmax
Suezmax is a naval architecture term for the largest ship measurements capable of
transiting the Suez Canal, and is almost exclusively used about tankers. The
typical deadweight of a suezmax ship is about 240,000 tons and typically has a
4
beam (width) of 50 m (164.0 ft). These tankers have a dead weight tonnage
(DWT) between 120,000 and 200,000 tonnes.
1.3.1.d Supertankers (VLCC and ULCC)
"Supertankers" are the largest tankers, including Very large crude carriers
(VLCC) and Ultra large crude carriers (ULCC) with capacities over 250,000
DWT. These ships can transport 2,000,000 barrels (320,000 m3) of oil. ULCCs,
commissioned in the 1970s, were the largest vessels ever built, but the longest
ones have already been scrapped. By 2013 only a few ULCCs remain in service,
none of which are more than 400 meters long.
1.4 VERY LARGE CRUDE CARRIER (VLCC)
VLCCs have the capacity to carry about two million barrels of oil. They are used
to transport oil over long distances. Hence, they usually transport oil from the
North Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and West Africa to North America, Europe, and
Asia. VLCCs normally have a crew of around two dozen and cost at least $100
million.
VLCCs are the second biggest type of oil tankers. The size of these oil
tankers ranges from 160,000 to 319,999 in deadweight tonnage using the AFRA
scale. Anything larger is called a Ultra Large Crude Carrier (ULCC).
Fig 1.2 VLCC Sirius Star
5
The biggest advantage of VLCCs is their efficiency in transporting crude
oil. They can carry huge quantities of crude oil in bulk, therefore economies of
scale can be greatly realized. There is no other transportation method that can
move so much oil at a time like an oil tanker can and because of a VLCCs
enormous size, this advantage is even greater.
Oil tankers have some drawbacks, such as oil spills, which can become a
substantial problem. A spill would pollute an area and could destroy an
ecosystem. Not to mention, there could be a sizeable lawsuit. This disadvantage
of oil tankers is extrapolated with VLCCs because of their massive size. If a
VLCC has an oil spill it would have a much more drastic effect than if a small
tanker had an oil spill and because of this VLCCs are riskier than most oil tankers.
The vast size of VLCCs magnify the consequences of an accident. A double hull
is required on every new tanker to help guard against an oil spill. A double hull
creates more space between the oil tanks and the hull. With a double hull, an oil
tanker is less susceptible to an oil spill, but an accident could still occur.
1.5 CRUDE OIL TYPES
We think of oil as being a single substance, but there actually are many different
kinds of oil. Oil types differ from each other in their viscosity, volatility, and
toxicity. Viscosity refers to an oil's resistance to flow. Volatility refers to how
quickly the oil evaporates into the air. Toxicity refers to how toxic, or poisonous,
the oil is to either people or other organisms.
When spilled, the various types of oil can affect the environment differently. They
also differ in how hard they are to clean up. Spill responders group oil into four
basic types, which you can see here, along with a general summary of how each
type can affect shorelines.
Type 1: Very Light Oils (Jet Fuels, Gasoline)

• Highly volatile (should evaporate within 1-2 days).
• High concentrations of toxic (soluble) compounds.
• Localized, severe impacts to water column and intertidal resources.
• No cleanup possible.
6
Type 2: Light Oils (Diesel, No. 2 Fuel Oil, Light Crudes)
• Moderately volatile; will leave residue (up to one-third of spill
amount) after a few days.
• Moderate concentrations of toxic (soluble) compounds.
• Will "oil" intertidal resources with long-term contamination
potential.
• Cleanup can be very effective.
Type 3: Medium Oils (Most Crude Oils)
• About one-third will evaporate within 24 hours.
• Oil contamination of intertidal areas can be severe and long-term.
• Oil impacts to waterfowl and fur-bearing mammals can be severe.
• Cleanup most effective if conducted quickly.
Type 4: Heavy Oils (Heavy Crude Oils, No. 6 Fuel Oil, Bunker C)
• Little or no evaporation or dissolution.
• Heavy contamination of intertidal areas likely.
• Severe impacts to waterfowl and fur-bearing mammals (coating
and ingestion).
• Long-term contamination of sediments possible.
• Weathers very slowly.
• Shoreline cleanup difficult under all conditions.
1.5.1 ANS Crude
Crude oil blends vary tremendously in their chemical composition, depending on

the geographical location of their origin and the particular compounds mixed with
the petroleum products. Surfactants, often added to aid transport, will affect
physical properties when oil is spilled. Hydrocarbons are by far the most abundant
compounds in crude oils, accounting for 50-98% volume. All crude blends contain
lighter "fractions" (similar to gasoline) of hydrocarbons as well as heavier tars and
wax-like hydrocarbons.
Alaskan North Slope (ANS) crude blends are Group III oil products and
considered medium grade. VLCC model has The ANS crude which is used as
infill in cargo tanks for stability investigations has a relatively high viscosity
(23.9cSt @50 F) and an API gravity of 27.79. (The American Petroleum Institute
7
gravity, or API gravity, is a measure of how heavy or light a petroleum liquid is
compared to water).
8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
The thesis deals with the numerical investigation on the damage stability of FPSO.
A brief review of the literatures pertaining to the work done on damage stability
analysis FPSO is given below.
2.2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Cheng et al (2010) investigated the dynamics of the oil leakage and the damaged
stability of a crude oil carrier. Numerical simulations based on MPS (Moving
particle Semi-Implicit) method was carried out to take into account the coupling
between the damaged hull and the multiphase flow. The numerical simulations of
the transient motion performed on the 2D small scaled model showed that the
sway motion induced by the leakage may occur in the beginning of the process
when a relatively large volume of oil is the released. Comparison of the final list
angles with that ones obtained by SSTAB, which is a static stability code, showed
that the numerical approach is very effective in cases where the filling ratio is
large and the height of the damage is low. The authors also showed that for the
cases with filling ratio of 45%, the discrepancy of final list angle from the SSTAB
calculation is quite large and the effect of the resolution on the accuracy of the
results should be investigated.
Tavakoli et al (2011) have done a study about the oil flows from damaged ships
with different tank designs during collision and grounding incidents. For this
purpose, analytic models of instantaneous oil spills are proposed, and CFD
simulations with FLUENT software were carried out. Tavakoli et al, verified the
performance of the proposed model and CFD simulations and investigated the
9
fluid dynamics of accidental oil spills caused by grounding and collision using
experimental tests. The results from the tests provide some quantitative
information on the behavior of oil spills from damaged tanks with different tank
designs that are either below or above the waterline. The model tests also show
how the space between the inner and outer hull will capture the oil that is spilled
from the main cargo tank. The effectiveness of these spaces in terms of retaining
the oil is influenced by the tank designs and opening conditions. In general, the
double-hull design has the best performance, while the double-side and the
double-bottom design help to reduce the oil spill and increase the oil spill time.
Begovic et al (2013) presented a paper having an extensive study on the

experimental prediction of motions for the well-known 5415 frigate hull in intact
and damaged conditions. The experimental campaign is conducted for two geosim
models, 1/100 and 1/51 scale, at zero speed in head, beam and quartering seas. All
experimental results for 1/51 model were presented as 1st and 2nd order RAO,
commenting on physical reasons for second order response occurrences. Begovic
et al showed the changes in motion responses when a ship hull is in damaged
condition and highlighted the model scale effects as result.
Hashimoto et al (2014) have presented a technical paper in which a numerical

simulation method for damaged ships under flooding condition was developed by
combining the moving particle semi-implicit method (MPS method) and the
ordinary strip method based on potential flow theory. In order to validate the
proposed method, model experiments were conducted for a damaged pure car and
truck carrier in calm water and regular beam waves. Then, numerical results were
compared with the model experiment. It was demonstrated that the proposed
method with the simple treatment of the entrapped air by Boyle’s law can
qualitatively predict the dynamic motions during the flooding. The proposed
method also predicts the dynamic response to the regular beam waves under
flooded condition with the practical accuracy.
Lorkowski et al (2014) developed a new numerical flooding simulation tool

which allows an evaluation of a ship’s time dependent damage stability including
all intermediate stages of flooding. The simulation model was based on a quasi-
static approach in the time domain with a hydraulic model for the fluxes to ease
10
the computation and allow for fast and efficient evaluation within the early design
stage of the vessel. That allowed studying multiple damage scenarios within a
short period. For the further validation of the numerical simulation method a
series of model tests have particularly set up to analyze the time-dependent
damage stability of a floating body. The test-body was designed specifically to
reflect the most typical internal subdivision layouts of ships affected by the effects
mentioned above. The experimental study covered a static model test series as
well a dynamic one. The static model test series was setup with the aim to analyze
the progressive flooding of selected compartments in calm water. Within the
dynamic model test series, the model was excited by a roll motion oscillator to
evaluate the influence of the ship motion on the water propagation and the
associated damage stability.
Lee et al (2015) carried out a series of model tests in regular beam waves to
establish a reliable database for the damaged ship's stability. The measured time
histories of the ship motions were organized as an experimental database for CFD
validation. The full 6 DOF motion responses of the intact and damaged ships were
measured in beam seas. A mooring system was designed to prevent the drift
motion of the ship model and the parametric roll of the intact ship was observed
for wave slope of 1/60. The same behavior was not observed when the ship was
damaged, even though the wave conditions were the same. The sway and roll
amplitudes of the damaged ship became smaller than in case for the intact ship.
The sway motion was barely affected by the wave directions. The authors stated
that the heave and roll motions varied with the wave directions due to the fact that
the damage opening was located on the starboard side and the free surface
variation was larger at sides than at the center and was strongly coupled with the
ship's roll motion.
Manderbacka et al (2015) studied coupling of the flooded water and ship

motions experimentally. Roll decay tests for one flooded compartment and
transient abrupt flooding tests were performed for the box shaped barge model.
The tests were conducted to obtain information on the flooding process for the
development of numerical tools and to provide validation data. Quantitative
values on the effect of flooded water on the roll damping were obtained. Flooded
11
water behaves in a different manner in undivided and divided compartments.
Flooded water in divided compartment increases roll damping significantly.
Manderbacka et al found that in undivided compartment roll damping was high at
low amount of flooded water and for higher amounts damping was of the same
order as for the intact model. Initial flooding is a complex process where the ship
and flooded water motions are coupled. Propagation of the flooding water inside
the compartment, at a dam-break type abrupt flooding, was studied by tracking the
surface of the flooded water. An image processing algorithm was used to obtain
the tracked surface. Flooded water volume and its center of gravity were estimated
from the tracked surface. Different internal layouts of the flooded compartment
can lead to a totally different roll response. The inflooding jet plays an important
role in the response in case of the undivided compartment. While, for a divided
compartment, asymmetric flooding due to the obstructions causes high heel angle
on the damage side.
Acanfora M and Luca F. D (2016) have presented a work aimed to improve the
knowledge of damage effects on ship motions, comparing different damage
scenarios. Experiments have been performed into the effects of the damage
opening position on the roll response in still water and beam waves. Roll decay
tests and roll, sway, heave motion in wave measurements have been carried out
showing the influence of the damage scenario on the ship responses. Results
showed that in the intact condition, a side and a bottom damage increase the free
roll damping of the ship and reduce the settling time compared to the flooded case
with no opening. Moreover, the bottom damage case was characterized by a lower
roll period. Roll RAOs in beam waves were affected by the type and the position
of the damage and the damaged compartment worked like an anti-rolling tank.
Sway motions were significantly reduced by the damage. The authors also stated
that motions responses in wave change with the wave frequency according to the
damage scenario. The study was conducted for only one initial weight
distribution. This condition showed that the filling ratio of the damaged
compartment was in the resonant sloshing region.
12
2.3 CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Past works on damage stability were reviewed, it was generally observed that
most of the works on damage stability were on passenger ships, since passenger
safety have been given the prior importance after a ship damage. Studies were
done on damage stability of warships as well (Begovic et al, 2013). Cheng et al
(2010) investigated the dynamics of the oil leakage and the damaged stability of a
crude oil carrier using a 2D analytical box type model. However, damage stability
studies on oil cargo ships were found insufficient, variation stability conditions on
damage cases is a gap in these literutures.
2.4 OBJECTIVES
The following the prime objectives of the research topic:
 To investigate the survivability and serviceability of the VLCC model in

probable damage cases.
 To prepare stability charts, showing the variation of stability parameters
such as heel, trim and GZmax values with loadcase.
 To investigate the variation of survivability parameter according to
loadcase.
 To prepare oil outflow charts.
2.5 SCOPE OF WORK
The thesis focuses on the numerical investigations on damage stability on a Very

Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) based on probabilistic damage stability concept.
Since there are no final and international approved regulations for Oil tankers, the
concept of the Attained Subdivision Index (A) from SOLAS resolution
MSC.216(82) for dry cargo ships with limiting heel angle 30 degrees will be used.
The main portion of the thesis focuses on getting stability charts for major damage
cases, which is obtained from probabilistic assessment and to produce oil outflow
chart with regards to the major probable damage cases.
13
CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL FORMULATION
3.1 GENERAL
In this chapter, the theories and mathematical formulations behind stability of a

vessel are discussed. The survivability under damage for a crude carrier is
analyzed through probabilistic damage approach. The probabilistic method as per
maritime safety committee of the International Maritime Organization (MSC-
IMO) has explained here in this chapter, also the accidental oil outflow calculation
method as per MARPOL is explained.
3.2 STATICAL STABILITY AT LARGE ANGLES OF HEEL
Fig 3.1 Definition of righting arm
We consider a ship whose waterline in upright condition is W 0L0. The

corresponding center of buoyancy is B0 and the center of gravity G. Let us assume
that the ship heels to starboard by an angle C. The new waterline is WϕLϕ and the
center of buoyancy moves towards the submerged side, to the new position B ϕ.
The weight force equal to Δ, passes through G and is vertical, that is perpendicular
to WϕLϕ. The buoyancy force, also equal to Δ, passes through B ϕ and is also
14
perpendicular to WϕLϕ. The perpendicular from G to the line of action of the
buoyancy produce a righting moment whose is
M R =∆ GZ Eqn.(3.1)
As Δ is a constant for all angles of heel, we can say that the righting
moment is characterized by the righting arm, GZ. From Figure 3.1 we write
GZ=l k −KG sin ∅ Eqn.(3.2)

The plot of the righting arm, GZ, calculated from Eq. (2), as function of the heel
angle, φ, at constant ∇ and KG values is called curve of statical stability. Such
diagrams are used to evaluate the stability of the ship in a given loading condition.
For a full appreciation, it is necessary to compare the righting arm with the
various heeling arms that can endanger stability. An example of statical-stability
curve is shown in Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2 Statical-stability curve
In this statical stability curve, One important value is the maximum GZ value and
the heel angle where it occurs. Another important point is that in which the GZ
curve crosses zero, the corresponding angle ϕ is called angle of vanishing
stability.
15
3.3 THE PROBABILISTIC APPROACH TO SHIP STABILITY ANALYSIS
The probabilistic approach to stability analysis was initially developed in 1973. To

estimate the probabilities of different damage stability related events available
accident records are used. It is the known occurrence of such damage stability
related events that governs the concept of stability in this procedure.
In the probabilistic approach, the degree of subdivision of a ship is

considered sufficient if the stability of the ship in a damaged condition meets the
requirements of the SOLAS ‘90 criteria and the attained survival probability index
(A) is not less than the required subdivision index (R).
A> R Eqn.(3.3)
3.3.1 Attained Subdivision Index ‘A’
The survival probability of a damaged ship is defined through the ‘attained

survival probability index’, A. To determine this probability, on must first
estimate the conditional survival probabilities, pi, assigned to either the ith
damaged compartment or the ith specific grouping of adjacent damaged
compartments. This, in turn, requires estimation of the probability of survival, s i,
after flooding the ith identified area or grouping of areas. Thus, A is defined as
N
Eqn.(3.4)
A=∑ Pi Si
i=1
Clearly i represents each compartment or group of compartments under
consideration and N is the total number of individual and groups of compartments
considered.
3.3.2 Calculation of factor Pi
The factor Pi for a compartment or group of compartments are calculated using

the formulations given below as explained in MSC.216(82). As the p-factor is
related to the watertight arrangement by the longitudinal limits of damage zones
and the transverse distance from the ship side to any longitudinal barrier in the
zone, the following indices are introduced:
16
Figure 3.3 Illustration of P- factor
j = the aftmost damage zone number involved in the damage

starting with No.1 at the stern
n = the number of adjacent damage zones involved in the
damage;
k = is the number of a particular longitudinal bulkhead as
barrier for transverse penetration in a damage zone counted
from shell towards the centre line. The shell has k = 0;
x1 = the distance from the aft terminal of Ls to the aft end of the
zone in question;
x2 = the distance from the aft terminal of Ls to the forward end
of the zone in question;
b = the mean transverse distance in metres measured at right
angles to the centreline at the deepest subdivision loadline
between the shell and an assumed vertical plane extended
beween the longitudinal limits used in calculating the
factor pi.
Pn,j,k = the p-factor for a damage in zone j and next (n-1) zones
forward of j damaged to the longitudinal bulkhead k.
17
 If the damage involves a single zone only:
Fig 3.4 Single zone damage
Pi = p(x1j, x2j) · [r(x1j,x2j,bk) - r(x1j,x2j,bk-1)] Eqn.(3.5)

 If the damage involves two adjacent zones:
Fig 3.5 Two adjacent zones damage
Pi = p(x1j, x2j+1) · [r(x1j,x2j+1,bk) - r(x1j,x2j+1,bk-1)]

- p(x1j, x2j) · [r(x1j,x2j,bk) - r(x1j,x2j,bk-1)] Eqn.(3.6)
- p(x1j+1, x2j+1) · [r(x1j+1,x2j+1,bk) - r(x1j+1,x2j+1,bk-1)]
 If the damage involves three or more adjacent zones:
18
Fig 3.6 Three adjacent zones damage
pi = p(x1j,x2j+n-1) · [r(x1j,x2j+n-1,bk) - r(x1j,x2j+n-1,bk-1)]

- p(x1j,x2j+n-2) · [r(x1j,x2j+n-2,bk) - r(x1j,x2j+n-2,bk-1)]
Eqn.(3.6)
- p(x1j+1,x2j+n-1) · [r(x1j+1,x2j+n-1,bk) - r(x1j+1,x2j+n-1,bk-1)]
+ p(x1j+1,x2j+n-2) · [r(x1j+1,x2j+n-2,bk) - r(x1j+1,x2j+n-2,bk-1)]
where r(x1, x2, b0) = 0
The factor p(x1, x2) is to be calculated according to the following formulae:
Overall normalized max damage length: Jmax = 10/33
Knuckle point in the distribution: Jkn = 5/33
Cumulative probability at Jkn: pk = 11/12
Maximum absolute damage length: lmax = 60 m
Length where normalized distribution ends: L* = 260 m
Probability density at J = 0:
pk 1−p k Eqn.(3.7)
b 0=2 ( −
J kn J max −J kn )
When Ls ≤ L*
l max Eqn.(3.8)
{
J m =min J max ,
Ls }
1 2 2 Eqn.(3.9)
Jk = +
2
√
J m 1− 1+ ( 1− pk ) b 0 J m + 4 b 0 J m
b0
19
b 12=b0 Eqn.(3.10)
When Ls ¿ L*
l max Eqn.(3.11)
{
J ¿m =min J max ,
L¿ }
1 Eqn.(3.12)
J
J ¿k = +
2
¿
m √
1− 1+ ( 1− pk ) b 0 J ¿m + b 20 J ¿m2
b0
4
J ¿ . L¿ Eqn.(3.13)
Jm= m
Ls
J . L¿
¿
Eqn.(3.14)
Jk = k
Ls
p k 1− pk Eqn.(3.15)
b 12=2 ( −
J k J m −J k )
1− pk pk Eqn.(3.16)
b 11=4 −2 2
(J m−J k ) J k Jk
1− pk Eqn.(3.17)
b 21=−2
( J m−J k )2
b 22=−b21 J m Eqn.(3.18)
The non-dimensional damage length:
( x 2−x 1 ) Eqn.(3.19)
J=
Ls
The normalized length of a compartment or group of compartments: Jn is
to be taken as the lesser of J and Jm
 Where neither limits of the compartment or group of compartments under

consideration coincides with the aft or forward terminals:
J ≤Jk:
1 Eqn.(3.20)
p ( x 1 , x 2 )= p1= J 2 ( b 11 J + 3 b12 )
6
J > Jk :
p ( x 1 , x 2 )= p2 Eqn.(3.21)
1 1
¿− b11 J 3k + ( b 11 J −b12 ) J 2k +b12 JJ k
3 2
−1 1
b ( J 3−J 3 ) + ( b J −b 22) ( J 2n−J 2k ) +b 22 J ( J n−J k )
3 21 n k 2 21
 Where the aft limit of the compartment or group of compartments under
consideration coincides with the aft terminal or the forward limit of the
20
compartment or group of compartments under consideration coincides with the
forward terminal:
J ≤Jk:
1 Eqn.(3.22)
p ( x 1 , x 2 )= ( p1 +J )
2
J > Jk :
1 Eqn.(3.23)
p ( x 1 , x 2 ) = ( p2 + J )
2
 Where the compartment or groups of compartments considered extends
over the entire subdivision length (Ls):
p(x 1, x 2)=1 Eqn.(3.24)
3.3.2.a Calculation of factor ‘r’
The factor r(x1, x2, b) shall be determined by the following formulae:
G Eqn.(3.25)
r ( x 1 , x 2, b)=1−(1−C) 1−
[ P (x 1 , x 2) ]
Where,
C=12. J b ( −45. J b +4 ) Eqn.(3.26)

where,
b Eqn.(3.27)
Jb=
15. B
 Where the compartment or groups of compartments considered extends
over the entire subdivision length (Ls):
1 Eqn.(3.28)
G=G 1 = b11 J 2b +b12 J b
2
 Where neither limits of the compartment or group of compartments under
consideration coincides with the aft or forward terminals:
−1 1 Eqn.(3.29)
G=G 2 = b J 3+ ¿ ¿
2 11 0 2
where,
J 0=min ⁡( J , J b ) Eqn.(3.30)
 Where the aft limit of the compartment or group of compartments under
consideration coincides with the aft terminal or the forward limit of the
21
compartment or group of compartments under consideration coincides with the
forward terminal:
1 Eqn.(3.31)
G= ( G 2 +G 1 . J )
2
3.3.3 Calculation of the factor Si
The factor si shall be determined for each case of assumed flooding, involving a
compartment or group of compartments, in accordance with the following
notations.
θe = Equilibrium heel angle in any stage of flooding, in degrees
θv = Angle at any stage of flooding, where the righting lever becomes

negative.
The factor si, for any damage case at any initial loading condition shall be
obtained as per MSC.216(82) from the formula.
1/ 4
GZ max Range Eqn.(3.32)
si=K . [0.12
.
16 ]
Where, In case of cargo ships;
K=1 if θe ≤ 250
K=0 if θe ≥ 300
30−θ e
K=
√ 5
otherwise.
Where horizontal watertight boundaries are fitted above the waterline

under consideration the s-value calculated for the lower compartment or group of
compartments shall be obtained by multiplying the value as determined in
equation 3.31 by the reduction factor vm according to regulation 7-2.6 of
MSC.216(82), which represents the probability that the spaces above the
horizontal subdivision will not be flooded.
3.3.3.a Calculation of reduction factor vm
The factor vm shall be obtained from the formula
vm=v ( H j ,n , m , d )– v (H j ,n , m−1 , d ) Eqn.(3.33)

Where,
22
Hj, n, m
= Least height above the baseline, in metres, within the
longitudinal range of x1(j)...x2(j+n-1) of the mth horizontal
boundary which is assumed to limit the vertical extent of
flooding for the damaged compartments under
consideration;
Hj, n, m-1 = Least height above the baseline, in metres, within the
longitudinal range of x1(j)...x2(j+n-1) of the mth horizontal
boundary which is assumed to limit the vertical extent of
flooding for the damaged compartments under
consideration;
j = Aft terminal of the damaged compartments under
consideration;
m = Horizontal boundary counted upwards from the waterline
under consideration;
d = The vertical distance from the keel line at mid-length to
the waterline in question.
The factors v (Hj, n, m, d) and v(Hj, n, m-1, d) shall be obtained from the
formulae:
 if (Hm-d) is less than, or equal to, 7.8 m;
H −d Eqn.(3.34)
v ( H , d )=0.8
7.8
 In all other cases,
[ ( H −d )−7.8 ] Eqn.(3.35)
v ( H , d )=0.8+ 0.2
4.7
(Hj, n, m, d) is to be taken as 1, if Hm coincides with the uppermost watertight
boundary of the ship within the range (x1(j)...x2(j+n-1)), and v(Hj, n, 0, d) is to be
taken as 0.
3.3.4 Required Subdivision Index ’R’
The subdivision of a ship is considered sufficient if the attained subdivision index

A, determined in accordance with regulation 7 of MEPC.216.(82), is not less than
the required subdivision index R calculated in accordance with regulation 6 of
MEPC.216.(82), and if, in addition, the partial indices As, Ap and Al are not less
than 0.9R for passenger ships and 0.5R for cargo ships.
For all cargo ships to which the damage stability requirements of shall apply, the
degree of subdivision to be provided shall be determined by the required
subdivision index R, as follows:
 In the case of cargo ships greater than 100 m in length (Ls):
23
128 Eqn.(3.35)
R=1−
L s +152
 In the case of cargo ships not less than 80 m in length (Ls) and not greater
than 100 m in length (Ls):
LS R0 Eqn.(3.35)
[(
R=1− 1/ 1+ ×
100 1−R0 )]
where Ro is the value R as calculated in accordance with the formula 3.35.
3.4 METHODS FOR FINDING THE SHIP CONDITION AFTER

FLOODING
For studying the stability after a damage case or a flooding condition and to
calculate the effect of flooding can be determined using 2 methods.
 Method of lost buoyancy

CHAPTER 1Method of added weight.
3.4.1 Method of Lost Buoyancy
The method of lost buoyancy assumes that a flooded compartment does not supply
buoyancy. In the method, the volume of the flooded compartment does not belong
anymore to the vessel, while the weight of its structures is still part of the
displacement. The ‘remaining’ vessel must change position until force and
moment equilibrium are reestablished. During the process not only the
displacement, but also the position of the center of gravity remains constant. The
method is also known as method of constant displacement. As the flooding water
does not belong to the ship, it causes no free-surface effect. For the stability
calculations in flooded condition, MAXSURF uses lost buoyancy method.
3.4.2 Method of Added Weight
In the method of added weight, the water entering a damaged compartment is

considered as belonging to the ship; its mass must be added to the ship
displacement. Hence the term ‘added weight.’ Following modern practice, we
actually work with masses; however, we keep the traditional name of the method
that is we use the word ‘weight.’ In the method of added weight, the displacement
of the flooded vessel is calculated as the sum of the intact displacement and the
mass of the flooding water. The position of the center of gravity of the damaged
24
vessel is obtained from the sums of the moments of the intact vessel and of the
flooding water. Becoming part of the vessel, the flooding water produces a free-
surface effect that must be calculated and considered in all equations.
Table 3.1 Comparison of Lost buoyancy and Added weight methods
Item Added Weight Lost Buoyancy

Change in displacement Yes No
Change in volume of displacement Yes No
Change in draft and trim Yes Yes
Shift of center of gravity Yes No
Shift of center of buoyancy Yes Yes
Shift of metacenter Yes Yes
3.5 MARPOL ACCIDENTAL OIL OUTFLOW
To provide adequate protection against oil pollution in the event of collision or

stranding for oil tankers of 5,000 tonnes deadweight (DWT) and above, as per
MEPC.117(52) by the marine environment protection committee of international
conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution, the mean oil
outflow parameter shall be as follows
 O M ≤ 0.021 For C ≤ 100,000 m3

 O M ≤ 0.015+( 0.006/100,000)(200,000−C) For 100,000m3¿ C ≤200,000 m3
 O M ≤ 0.012+(0.003 /200,000)(400,000−C) For 200,000m3¿ C< ¿ 400,000 m3
 O M ≤ 0.012 For C ≥400,000 m3
where:
OM = mean oil outflow parameter.
C = total volume of cargo oil, in m3, at 98% tank filling
The ship is loaded to the load line draught dS without trim or heel for the the
calculation of mean oil outflow parameter. For the purposes of these outflow
calculations, the permeability of each space within the cargo block, including
cargo tanks, ballast tanks and other non-oil spaces shall be taken as 0.99.
The mean oil outflow shall be calculated independently for side damage and for
bottom damage and then combined into the non-dimensional oil outflow
parameter OM, as follows:
O M =( 0.4 O MS +0.6 O MB )/C Eqn.(3.36)

where:
25
OMS = mean outflow for side damage, in m3.
OMB = mean outflow for bottom damage, in m3.
The mean outflow for side damage OMS shall be calculated as follows:
n
Eqn.(3.37)
O MS=C 3 ∑ P S(i) OS (i )
i
Where,
i = represents each cargo tank under consideration;

n = total number of cargo tanks;
PS(i) = the probability of penetrating cargo tank i from bottom
damage, calculated in accordance with the regulation 23,
para 8.1 of MEPC.117(52);
OS(i) = the outflow, in m3, from side damage to cargo tank i,
which is assumed equal to the total volume in cargo tank i
at 98% filling.
C3 = 0.77 for ships having two longitudinal bulkheads inside
the cargo tanks, provided these bulkheads are continuous
over the cargo block and Ps(i) is developed in accordance
with this regulation. C3 equals 1.0 for all other ships.
For bottom damage, independent calculations for mean outflow shall be done for
0 m and minus 2.5 m tide conditions, and then combined as follows:
O MB=0.7 O MB(0) +0.3 O MB(2.5 ) Eqn.(3.38)

where:
OMB(0) = mean outflow for 0 m tide condition;
OMB(2.5) = mean outflow for minus 2.5 m tide condition, in m3
The mean outflow for bottom damage shall be calculated for each tidal condition
as follows:
n
Eqn.(3.39)
O MB(0)=∑ PB (i ) O B(i) C DB(i)
i
where:
i = represents each cargo tank under consideration;
n = the total number of cargo tanks;
26
PB(i) = the probability of penetrating cargo tank i from bottom
damage, calculated in accordance with the regulation
23, para 9.1 of MEPC.117(52);
OB(i) = the outflow from cargo tank i, in m3, calculated in

regulation 23, para 7.3 of MEPC.117(52);
CDB(i) = factor to account for oil capture as defined in paragraph

7.4 of regulation 23 in MEPC.117(52);
n
Eqn.(3.40)
O MB(2.5) =∑ PB (i) O B(i) C DB (i)
i
where:
OB(i) = the outflow from cargo tank i, in m³, after tidal change
27
CHAPTER 4
RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF FERRY BOAT
4.1 GENERAL
A passenger ferry boat is modelled in Maxsurf modeler and the response was
validated with the results obtained by Acanfora et al. (2016).
4.2 PARTICULARS OF THE FERRY BOAT
Table 4.1 Principal particulars of the passenger ferry hull
Dimension Model
Length overall, LOA (m) 4.010

Length between perpendiculars, LBP (m) 3.525
Midship beam, B (m) 0.815
Midship draft, T (m) 0.180
Displacement, Δ (tons) 0.170
Metacentric radius, KM (m) 0.577
LCG measured from aft perpendicular (m) 1.589
Table 4.2 Weight and inertia characteristics
Dimension Model
Roll moment of inertia, I44 (kg m2) 10.438
Roll radius of gyration, k44 (%B) 30.40
Pitch moment of inertia, I55 (kg m2) 209.273
Pitch radius of gyration, k55 (%LOA) 27.64
Yaw moment of inertia, I66 (kg m2) 211.176
Yaw radius of gyration, k66 (%LOA) 27.77
Estimated center of gravity, VCG* (m) 0.3132
Measured center of gravity, VCG (m) 0.3127
28
4.3 HYDROSTATIC DETAILS
Table 4.3 gives the hydrostatic details of the passenger ferry boat. The actual
volume of displacement, the cut water plane area along with longitudinal
metacentric height and longitudinal metacentric radius is displayed respectively.
Table 4.3 Hydrostatic details of Ferry boat
Actual volume of displacement 0.1962 tonne

Cut water plane area 2.202 m2
Distance between center of gravity and center of buoyancy 0.186 m
(BG)
Metacentric height (GMx) 10.464 m
Metacentric radius (BMx) 10.649 m
4.4 FERRY BOAT MODELLED IN MAXSURF MODELLER
Fig 4.1 is the representation of the ferry boat which was modelled in maxsurf
modeler.
Fig 4.1 Passenger ferry boat modelled in Maxsurf Modeller
4.5 VALIDATION:
(Acanfora et al, An experimental investigation into the influence of the damage

openings on ship response, 2016)
Fig 4.2 shows the comparison of roll decay test results obtained from MAXSURF
MOTIONS and Acanfora et al.(2016).
29
INTACT ROLL DECAY TEST
1.5
PRESENT
EXPERIMENTAL
1 (2016)
0.5
φ/φ0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.5
-1
time (s)
Fig 4.2 Intact roll decay test
Fig 4.3 shows the comparison of roll response in beam sea. The peak value
obtained from MAXSURF was 6.605 m/m at a wave frequency of 5.328 rad/s.
ROLL RAO
7
Present
4
Experimental
RAO
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ω* sqrt (Lbp/g)
Fig 4.3 RAO for roll in beam waves, intact condition
Table 4.4 Comparison of roll response
Results Parameter Value

Acanfora et al. Natural roll frequency ωn (rad/s) 5.65
(2016) Peak RAO 5.78
MAXSURF Natural roll frequency ωn (rad/s) 5.328
Peak RAO 6.605
30
Fig 4.4 shows the comparison of heave response in beam sea. The peak value
obtained from MAXSURF was 1.24 m/m at a wave frequency of 4.374 rad/s.
HEAVE RAO
1.4
1.2
1
Present
0.8 0.83
Experimental
R AO
0.66
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ω* sqrt (Lbp/g)
Fig 4.4 RAO for heave in beam waves, intact condition

Table 4.5 Comparison of heave response
Results Parameter Value

Acanfora et al. Natural heave frequency ωn (rad/s) 4.395
(2016) Peak RAO 1.255
MAXSURF Natural heave frequency ωn (rad/s) 4.189
Peak RAO 1.132
CHAPTER 5
DAMAGED STABILITY OF OIL CARRIER
5.1 GENERAL
In case of damage of a crude oil carrier, both the stability of the vessel and oil
leakage is of great concerns due to the safety and the environmental issues.
Depending on the position of the hull damage, draught and filling height of the
liquid cargo, the leakage of the oil or water flooding into the tank may occur. As a
consequence, the restoring moment, which is affected by the free surface effect of
the liquid cargo, may be further changed by the leakage of the oil.
31
Cheng et al. (2010) investigated the damage stability on 2D crude oil
carrier model with different cases of damage location and cargo filling using MPS
method. Same model has modelled in MAXSURF and the results are validated.
5.2 PROPERTIES OF THE HULL
The table 5.1 shows the particulars of the 2D oil carrier model used for the
damage stability analysis. In MAXSURF the model has to be made in 3D,
Therefore, the length of the model was taken as 41.5 m.
Table 5.1 Hull particulars
Beam (m) 0.415

Depth (m) 0.325
Mass (kg/m) 20.30
Inertia (Kgm2/m) 0.657
TCG (m) 0.0
VCG (m) 0.1097
Fig. 5.1 shows the scaled model with two internal tanks. The thickness of the
walls is 0.02m except in center, where the thickness is 0.025 m, and in the bottom,
where the thickness of 0.055m is used to model the double bottom. The opening
for the oil leakage is 0.05 m. In the case shown in Fig. 6, the opening height is
0.10 m from the keel, and the filling ratio of the internal tank is 75%.
Fig 5.1 Cross sectional details of the model
32
Fig 5.2 shows the cross sectional view of oil carrier model modelled in
MAXSURF, the opening height is 0.10 m from the keel, and the filling ratio of the
internal tank is 75%.
Fig 5.2 MAXSURF model of oil carrier
5.3 CASES OF STUDY
Table 5.2 shows the cases analyzed in the present validation study. Three different
location of damage and two levels of filling inside the tanks were considered. The
properties of the water and the oil are given in Table 5.3
Table 5.2 The cases of study
Case denomination Filling ratio Damage height above

(%) the keel (m)
BO_75%_020 75 0.20
BO_75%_014 75 0.14
BO_75%_010 75 0.10
BO_45%_014 45 0.14
BO_45%_010 45 0.10
Table 5.3 The properties of the water and oil
Property Water Oil

Density (kg/m3) 1000 900
Surface Tension Coefficient 0.072 0.026
(N/m)
33
5.4 VALIDATION
The results obtained from the equilibrium analysis in MAXSURF stability module
has compared with Cheng et al. (2010) in table 5.4.
Table 5.4 Comparison of final list angles
Case denomination Cheng et al. Present % Error

(2010) (degree)
(degree)
BO_75%_020 33 30.9 6.36
BO_75%_014 29.7 25.7 13.46
BO_75%_010 18 12 33.33
BO_45%_014 20.5 15.6 23.9
BO_45%_010 11.1 6.1 45.04
The comparison shows that, comparing to MPS results, the discrepancy of final
list angle obtained by MAXSURF increases when the height of the opening
increases. On the other hand, the discrepancy also increases when the filling ratio
decreases.
Fig. 5.3 gives the comparisons of the list angle obtained by MAXSURF
and by MPS for 45% and 75% filling and damage height of 0.10 m, 0.14 m and
0.20 m. No leakage occurs in the case of 45% filling and 0.20 m height, so that it
was not considered.
Heel angle Vs Height of opening

35
30
25
list (degree)
20 MPS 75%
filling
15 MAXSURF 75%
filling
10 MPS 45%
filling
5 MAXSURF 45%
filling
0
0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22
height of opening (m)
Fig 5.3 Comparison of the list angle obtained by MAXSURF and by MPS
34
Fig. 5.4 gives the volume of the oil leakage calculated by MAXSURF,
together with the leakage estimate by using MPS. The vertical axis of Fig. 5.4 is
the volume of the leaked oil in relation to the total volume of an internal tank.
Oil leakage vs Height of opening

45
40
35
30
leakage (%)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22
Height of opening (m)
MPS 75% filling MAXSURF 75% filling

MPS 45% filling MAXSURF 45% filling
Fig 5.4 Oil leakage obtained by MAXSURF and by MPS
CHAPTER 6
STABILITY INVESTIGATIONS ON VLCC
6.1 GENERAL
For modelling a VLCC for damage stability investigations, it is necessary to study

the shape, dimensions and stability parameters from a real vessel. The shape and
dimensions of the model has adapted from Amphitrite, a VLCC about 330-meter-
long running under Malta flag. Amphitrite was built in 2010 and have a dead
weight tonnage of 320,170 tonnes. The lightship weight of Amphitrite as well as
the intact stability parameters of lightship has applied to model. The VLCC model
has modelled in MAXSURF modeller tool and tanks and compartments were
designed using MAXSURF stability tool. The figure 6.1 is an image of the
Amphititre VLCC in its voyage.
35
Fig 6.1 VLCC Amphitrite
The importance of this work is to present with the damage stability charts,
having these in hand of a ship’s master it will be very much predictable how
critical a damage can be with regards to the probability of occurring that damage.
Also, to get an idea about how much damage to the environment through oil
spillage can occur because of a damage condition. The oil outflow charts will be
as helpful as understanding the survivability after a damage, since oil tankers
should take responsibility for the pollution they make on sea environment.
6.2 MODELLING OF VLCC
The particulars of the modelled VLCC are as given in the table below:
Table 6.1 Characteristics of the VLCC model
Particulars Value
Length overall, LOA 332 m
Moulded beam, B 60 m
Moulded draught, T 32 m
Lightship displacement, Δ 43938 tonnes
Lightship LCG measured from aft perpendicular 126.75 m
Lightship VCG measured from baseline 22.06 m
Full laden displacement, Δ 326624 tonnes
Total Cubic Capacity 330946.707 m3
The VLCC modelled according to the above principal particulars using
MAXSURF modeler is shown in the figure 6.2
36
Fig 6.2 VLCC modelled in MAXSURF
The VLCC was modelled according to the regulations given by marine

environment protection committee of International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships (Regulation 19, MEPC.117.(52)). The VLCC model has
considered to be under category of oil tankers delivered on or after 6 July 1996,
and hence the model to have double hull in bottom as well as on sides.
The wing tanks are arranged such that the cargo tanks are located inboard
of the moulded line of the side shell plating at a distance 3 meters. At every cross-
section, the depth of each double bottom tank or space has considered such that
the distance h between the bottom of the cargo tanks and the moulded line of the
bottom shell plating measured at right angles to the bottom shell plating is also 3
metres. The cross-sectional view of the tank arrangement is shown in the figure
6.3.
37
Fig 6.3 Cargo tanks arrangement
The VLCC model hull is separated longitudinally with 6 watertight

bulkheads. The cargo tanks are arranged in the hull such that tanks on either side
of the vessel are symmetrical along the central longitudinal bulkheads separated
transversely by 3 longitudinal bulkheads. The vessel contains 24 cargo tanks,
arranged in between 5 transverse bulkheads. The forward most transverse
bulkhead is located at 310 meters from transom location of the VLCC. The table
below shows the transverse bulkheads provided in the VLCC model.
Table 6.2 Transverse bulkhead location

Name Location (m)
B1 310
B2 250
B3 190
B4 130
B5 70
B6 40
It is rather uncommon but still effective for a vessel to have a central

longitudinal bulkhead, most of the real oil tankers have central cargo tanks
without any separating longitudinal bulkhead through the middle. This
arrangement helps with survivability study in damage cases, which are assumed to
have occurred only on starboard side of the VLCC. The tank and compartment
definition in this VLCC model has shown in the table 6.1
Table 6.3 Tank and Compartment definition

Type
Aft Fore Port Stbd Top Bottom
No Name Tank/
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
Cmprmt
1 Bow head C 311 330 -30 30 31 16
2 Bow bottom T 311 330 -30 30 14 2
3 T1 T 251 309 0.5 14 31 3
4 T2 T 251 309 -14 -0.5 31 3
5 T3 T 251 309 15 27 31 16
6 T4 T 251 309 15 27 14 3
7 T5 T 251 309 -27 -15 31 16
8 T6 T 251 309 -27 -15 14 3
38
9 T7 T 191 249 0.5 14 31 3
10 T8 T 191 249 -14 -0.5 31 3
11 T9 T 191 249 15 27 31 16
12 T10 T 191 249 15 27 14 3
13 T11 T 191 249 -27 -15 31 16
14 T12 T 191 249 -27 -15 14 3
15 T13 T 131 189 0.5 14 31 3
16 T14 T 131 189 -14 -0.5 31 3
17 T15 T 131 189 15 27 31 16
18 T16 T 131 189 15 27 14 3
19 T17 T 131 189 -27 -15 31 16
20 T18 T 131 189 -27 -15 14 3
21 T19 T 71 129 0.5 14 31 3
22 T20 T 71 129 -14 -0.5 31 3
23 T21 T 71 129 15 27 31 16
24 T22 T 71 129 15 27 14 3
25 T23 T 71 129 -27 -15 31 16
26 T24 T 71 129 -27 -15 14 3
27 Storage C 40 69 15 28 31 16
28 Storage C 40 69 -28 -15 31 16
29 Engine room C 40 69 -14 14 14 2
30 Fuel tank T 40 69 -14 14 25 16
All the cargo tanks are assumed to have carrying ANS Crude, a very
common crude oil type. ANS crude of specific gravity 0.8883 kg/m 3 and API
gravity 27.79. The figure below shows the rendered view of the VLCC with tank
arrangements.
Fig 6.4 General arrangement of tanks, Top view
39
Fig 6.5 General arrangement of tanks, Side view
In order to prepare for the calculation of index A, the ship Ls subdivision

length Ls is divided into a fixed discrete number of damage zones. These damage
zones will determine the damage stability investigation in the way of specific
damages to be calculated. There are no rules for the subdividing, except that the
length Ls defines the extremes for the actual hull. Zone boundaries need not
coincide with physical watertight boundaries. However, it is important to consider
a strategy carefully to obtain a good result (that is a large attained index A). All
zones and combination of adjacent zones may contribute to the index A. In
general, it is expected that the more zone boundaries the ship is divided into the
higher will be the attained index, but this benefit should be balanced against extra
computing time. In the present study, the VLCC model have provided with 6
transverse bulkheads, each represents the extent of each zones as well, thereby
dividing the subdivision length into 7 zones. Zone 1 located at the bow of the
vessel. The extent of each zones have defined as shown in table 6.4. The figure
6.6 shows longitudinal zone divisions applied in the length Ls.
Table 6.4 Zone arrangements in VLCC
Name Aft (m) Fore (m) Length (m) Centre(m)

Zone 1 310 330 20 320
Zone 2 250 310 60 280
Zone 3 190 250 60 220
Zone 4 130 190 60 160
Zone 5 70 130 60 100
Zone 6 40 70 30 55
Zone 7 0 40 40 20
40
Fig 6.6 Arrangement of zones in the vessel.
The arrangement of horizontal subdivisions have important role in ship’s

stability as well. In the probabilistic damage stability concept, the survivability
index ’s’ is accompanied with the reduction factor ‘v’ which is representing
probability of spaces above a horizontal subdivision not getting flooded under a
damage case. The ‘v’ factor is depended on the draft of the ship, it varies for each
horizontal deck in each load case, and it explains the variation of attained index
‘A’ with respect to the load cases.
The decks in the VLCC model has designed as given in the table. 6.2
Table 6.5 Deck arrangements in the VLCC model
Position Position Position

No of of Deck of Deck of Deck
Zone
decks from base from base from base
(m) (m) (m)
Zone 1 1 15 n/a n/a
Zone 2 2 15 31 n/a
Zone 3 2 15 31 n/a
Zone 4 2 15 31 n/a
41
Zone 5 2 15 31 n/a
Zone 6 3 15 25 31
Zone 7 1 15 n/a n/a
6.3 LOAD CASES
It is necessary to know the serviceability of the vessel after a damage condition

and this is depended on the draught as well as the dead weight loads on the ship.
To study the variation of effect of damage and flooding through various drafts and
loading conditions, 9 load cases has created including the lightship case.
Regulations of IMO (Reg 18 of MEPC.117(52)) won’t permit a tanker ship to set
its voyage without attaining the desired draft, therefore for attaining the desired
draft on departure, the vessel has to carry ballast in the ballast tanks or in some
cases, ballast is carried in cargo tanks also. The loading condition in departure
also included in study with water ballast filled in 4 cargo tanks in order to attain
the required draft. The load cases defined in the study are as given in table 6.2.
Table 6.6 Load case definitions
Load case Percentage filling Displacement Draft (m)

of ANS crude (%) (tonnes)
Lightship 43,938 3.365
Departure 126,454 8.293
Loadcase 3 40 165,073 10.930
Loadcase 4 50 191,016 12.493
Loadcase 5 60 219,249 14.139
Loadcase 6 70 247,514 15.776
Loadcase 7 80 275,763 17.403
Loadcase 8 90 304,012 19.020
Loadcase 9 98 326,624 20.311
6.4 PROBABILISTIC DAMAGE CALCULATIONS
The probability of flooding a compartment or a group of compartments

due to a damage is expressed as factor P, and it has found for all combinations of
tanks and compartments defined in the VLCC model, using the formulations
explained paragraph 3.1 of chapter 3. The probabilities of flooding which are
lesser than 0.0001 has neglected and a total of 24 major damage configurations
42
has obtained through probability calculations. These 24 damage cases are again
classified into 4 sets as shown in the table below.
Table 6.7 Damage cases arrangement in order of P factor
Damage case damage tanks P

D1 5,6 0.088126
D2 11,12 0.088126
D3 17,18 0.088126 HIGH PROBABILITY
D4 23,24 0.088126 DAMAGES
D5 5,6,11,12 0.046538 (P>0.04)
D6 11,12,17,18 0.046538
D7 17,18,23,24 0.046538
D8 1,2 0.039191
D9 1,2,5,6 0.038993
D10 23,24,27 0.038307 MEDIUM
PROBABILITY
D11 3,5,6 0.028506
DAMAGES
D12 9,11,12 0.028506 (0.04>P>0.02)
D13 15,17,18 0.028506
D14 21,23,24 0.028506
D15 27 0.019042
D16 3,5,6,9,11,12 0.016492
D17 9,11,12,15,17,18 0.016492 LOW PROABABILITY
D18 15,17,18,21,23,24 0.016492 DAMAGES
D19 1,2,3,5,6 0.01407 (0.02>P>0.01)
D20 27,29,30 0.013278
D21 21,23,24,27,29,30 0.013208
D22 5,6,11,12,17,18 0.001581
D23 11,12,17,18,23,24 0.001581
D24 1,2,5,6,11,12 0.00156 VERY LOW
D25 17,18,23,24,27 0.001477 PROABABILITY
D26 3,5,6,9,11,12,15,17,18 0.000574 DAMAGES
9,11,12,15,17,18,21,23, (P<0.01)
D27 24 0.000574
D28 1,2,3,5,6,9,11,12 0.000544
The numbers represent corresponding tank or compartment defined in the

VLCC. The tanks and compartments are numbered as given in the table 6.1. It is
seen that the wings tanks arranged near to side shell in zones 2,3,4 and 5 have the
high probability of getting flooded under a damage.
43
The above damage cases have applied in each load case, and final
equilibrium stage after flooding and variation of GZ curve has studied. The figure
below shows the VLCC in load case 6 under damage case D16. In D16 damage
case, 6 tanks are assumed to have damaged (tanks shown in bright red in the
figure 6.5).
Fig 6.7 Damage tanks in damage case D16
The final equilibrium position after flooding as resulted from equilibrium

analysis for damage combination D16 – load case 6 is shown in figures 6.8.
Fig 6.8 Final equilibrium position for D16 - Loadcase 6
The GZ curve obtained from the large angle stability analysis on damage
combination D16 - loadcase 6 is shown in figure 6.9.
44
Fig 6.9 GZ curve for D16 - Loadcase 6
For a certain damage-load case combination, the final equilibrium angle

after flooding obtained from equilibrium analysis, GZmax value and angle of
vanishing stability obtained from stability graph resulted from large angle stability
analysis are key factors for finding the ‘s’ factor, for PDS study.
CHAPTER 7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
7.1 STABILITY CHARTS
The most probable 24 damage cases found using PDS method have applied in
each load cases, other than lightship case. A total of 192 damage-load case
combinations have analysed for large angle stability analysis and equilibrium
analysis were conducted in the VLCC model and final angle of heel, trim and
GZmax were taken as results for each combination. The variation of heel angle
with respect to loading condition for all 24 damage cases are shown in graphs
below, the graphs are separated according to the probability of damage
occurrence.
45
High Probability Damages (>0.04)
Heel vs Loadcase
18
16 D1
14 D2
12
D3
10
HEEL ANGLE
D4
8
D5
6
D6
4
D7
2
0
LOADCASE
Fig 7.1 Heel vs Loadcase (P>0.04)
Medium Probability Damages (0.04>P>0.02)

Heel vs Loadcase
12
10 D8
D9
8
D10
HEEL ANGLE
6 D11
D12
4
D13
2
D14
LOADCASE
Fig 7.2 Heel vs Loadcase (0.04>P>0.02)
Low Probability Damages (0.02>P>0.01)

Heel vs Loadcase
35
30 D15
25 D16
HEEL ANGLE(deg)
20 D17
15 D18
10 D19
5 D20
D21
0
LOADCASE
Fig 7.3 Heel vs Loadcase (0.02>P>0.01)
46
Very Low Probability Damages (P<0.01)
Heel vs Loadcase
35
30 D22
25 D23
HEEL ANGLE (deg)

D24
20
D25
15
D26
10
D27
5 D28
0
LOADCASE
Fig 7.4 Heel vs Loadcase (P<0.01)
The variation of trim with respect to loading condition for all 24 damage cases are
shown in graphs below, the graphs are separated according to the probability of
damage occurance.
High probability Damages

Trim Vs Loadcase
10
8 D1
6 D2
4
D3
2
D4
TRIM
0
-2 D5
-4
D6
-6
-8 D7
-10
Dept LC3 LC4 LC5 LC6 LC7 LC8 LC9
LOAD CASE
Fig 7.5 Trim vs Loadcase (P>0.04)
47
Medium Probability Damages
Trim Vs Loadcase
15
D8
10 D9
5 D10
D11
0
TRIM
D12
-5
D13
-10 D14
-15
LOAD CASE
Fig 7.6 Trim vs Loadcase (0.04>P>0.02)
Low Probability Damages

Trim Vs Loadcase
20
10 D15
D16
0
D17
-10
TRIM
D18
-20 D19
D20
-30
D21
-40
LOAD CASE
Fig 7.7 Trim vs Loadcase (0.02>P>0.01)
Very Low Probability Damages

Trim Vs Loadcase
20
10
0 D22
-10 D23
-20
D24
-30
TRIM
-40 D25
-50 D26
-60 D27
-70
D28
-80
LOAD CASE
48
Fig 7.8 Trim vs Loadcase (P<0.01)
The variation of GMmax with respect to loading condition for all 24 damage cases
are shown in graphs below, the graphs are separated according to the probability
of damage occurance.
High Probability damages (P>0.04)

GZmax Vs Loadcase
12
INTACT
10 D1
8 D2
GZmax (m)
D3
6
D4
4
D5
2
D6
0 D7
Loadcase
Fig 7.9 GZmaz vs Loadcase (P>0.04)
Medium Probability damages (0.04>P>0.02)

GZmax Vs Loadcase
12
D8
10
D9
8
D10
GZmax (m)
6 D11
4 D12
D13
2
D14
0
Loadcase
Fig 7.10 GZmaz vs Loadcase (0.04>P>0.02)
49
Low Probability damages (0.02>P>0.01)
GZmax Vs Loadcase
12
10 D15
8 D16
GZmax (m) D17

6
D18
4
D19
2 D20
D21
0
Loadcase
Fig 7.11 GZmaz vs Loadcase (0.02>P>0.01)
Very Low Probability damages (P<0.01)

GZmax Vs Loadcase
9
7 D22
6 D23
GZmax (m)
5 D24
4 D25
3
D26
2
D27
1
D28
0
Loadcase
Fig 7.12 GZmaz vs Loadcase (P<0.01)
The whole set of results can be shown other format also, because the serviceability
of the vessel at a particular loading under a damage case can be analysed by
studying heel angle, trim and GZmax at the same time, hence it will much better
to incorporate heel, trim and GZmax in one graph itself.
The graphs below shows the variation of heel, trim and GZmax according
to the damage case for each loadcases.
50
G Z m ax ,TR IM (m ),H EEL(d eg) G Zm ax ,TR IM (m ),H EEL(d eG ) GZm ax ,TRIM (m ),H EEL(d eg)
10
15
20
0
5
-5
-10
10
15
20
10
15
20
25
-5
-15
-10
0
5
0
5
-5
-20
-15
-10
IN T A CT IN T A C T IN T A CT
D1 D1 D1
D2 D2 D2
D3 D3 D3
D4 D4 D4
D5 D5 D5
D6 D6 D6
D7 D7 D7
D8 D8 D8
D9 D9 D9
D10 D10 D10
D11 D11 D11
D12 D12
51
D12
D13 D13 D13
D14 D14 D14
D15 D15 D15
DAMAGE CASES
DAMAGE CASES
DAMAGE CASES
D16 D16 D16

LOADCASE: LC3
LOADCASE: LC4
D17 D17 D17
D18 D18 D18
LOADCASE: DEPARTURE
D19
Fig 7.13 Stability chart for ‘Departure’
D19 D19
Fig 7.14 Stability chart for ‘Loadcase 3’

D20 D20 D20
D21 D21 D21
D22 D22 D22
D23 D23 D23
D24 D24 D24
D25 D25 D25
D26 D26 D26
D27 D27 D27
D28 D28 D28
HEEL
HEEL
HEEL
TRIM
TRIM
TRIM
GZmax
GZmax
GZmax
LOADCASE: LC5
30
25
G Zm ax ,TR IM (m ),H EEL(d eg)
20
15
10 GZmax
5 HEEL
0 TRIM
-5
-10
-15
-20
IN T A CT
D11
D12
D15
D16
D19
D22
D23
D27
D28
D10
D13
D14
D17
D18
D20
D21
D24
D25
D26
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
DAMAGE CASES
LOADCASE: LC6
40
G Zm ax ,TR IM (m ),H EEL(d eg)
30
20
GZmax
10
HEEL
0 TRIM
-10
-20
-30
IN T A CT
D11
D12
D15
D18
D21
D24
D26
D27
D28
D10
D13
D14
D16
D17
D19
D20
D22
D23
D25
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
DAMAGE CASES
52
G Zm ax ,TR IM (m ),H EEL(d eg) G Zm ax ,TR IM (m ),H EEL(d eg) G Zm ax ,TR IM (m ),H EEL(d eg)
-5
15
25
35
0
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
40
50
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
5
-35
-25
-15
IN T A C T IN T A CT IN T A CT
D1 D1 D1
D2 D2 D2
D3 D3 D3
D4 D4 D4
D5 D5 D5
D6 D6 D6
D7 D7 D7
D8 D8 D8
D9 D9 D9
D10 D10 D10
D11 D11 D11
D12 D12 D12
53
D13 D13 D13
D14 D14 D14
D15 D15 D15
DAMAGE CASES
DAMAGE CASES
D16
DAMAGE CASES
D16 D16
LOADCASE: LC8
LOADCASE: LC7
D17 D17
LOADCASE: LC9
D17
D18 D18 D18
D19 D19 D19

D20 D20 D20

D21 D21 D21
D22 D22 D22
D23 D23
D23
D24 D24
D24
D25 D25
D25
D26 D26
D26
D27 D27
D27
D28 D28
D28
HEEL
HEEL
TRIM
TRIM
HEEL
TRIM
GZmax
GZmax
GZmax
7.2 VARIATION OF ATTAINED INDEX
Probabilistic damage stability concept gives an approximate idea about the ship’s
survivability under damage, with the condition that the Attained subdivision index
‘A’ should be greater than the Required subdivision index ‘R’. The attained index
A consists of two parts, one describing the probability of damaging a particular
section of the vessel, the other accounting for the probability of survival after
flooding the section. The Attained index ‘A’ is the cumulative sum of the products
of probability of getting damaged and probability of surviving that damage of all
damage combinations possible in a load case. Hence the variation of attained
index ‘A’ along with the load case need to be studied and discussed. For a certain
loadcase, attained index ‘A’ is calculated for every damage combinations, those
combinations with probability of flooding less than 0.0001 has neglected, the
cumulative sum of all those products give the Attained subdivision index for that
certain load case.
The graph below represents the variation of Attained subdivision index with
loadcase.
Partial subdivision index vs Loadcase

1.2
0.8
A
0.6
A,R
R
0.4
0.2
0
Departure LC3 LC4 LC5 LC6 LC7 LC8 LC9
LOADCASE
Fig 7.21 Partial subdivision index vs Load case
54
Where the required subdivision index ‘R’ is depended on the vessel’s length,
calculated using the formula as given in section 3.4 of chapter 3. For cargo ships
factor of R for required subdivision index for each loadcase is given as 0.5.
Since the VLCC have length more than 80m,
128 128
R=1− =1− =0.7355
L s +152 332+152
Applying reduction factor
R=0.5 R 0=0.7355 ×0.5=0.3677
The probability of flooding in a compartment or a group of compartments

depends on size and arrangements of tanks and compartments as well as the
position of longitudinal and transverse bulkheads, thus the P factor or all damage
cases will be irrespective of the draft of the vessel. In the other hand probability of
survival of the vessel is very much depended on draft of the vessel, the reduction
factor vm for the factor S represents the probability of spaces or rooms above a
horizontal subdivision not getting flooded. Hence for each load case, which
having different draughts the vm is varying or each horizontal subdivision. For
better understanding the variation of vm factor for each load case, considering 1
adjacent zone is shown in the table below.
Table 7.1 V-factor for load case: departure
1 adjacent Total
V1 V2 V3 V4
zone V
Zone 1, 1 1 0.687899 0.312101 n/a n/a

deck above
Zone 2, 1 1 0.687899 Hmax: 20.793 m 1 n/a
deck above
Zone 3, 1 1 0.687899 Hmax: 20.793 m 1 n/a
deck above
Zone 4, 1 1 0.687899 Hmax: 20.793 m 1 n/a
deck above
Zone 5, 1 1 0.687899 Hmax: 20.793 m 1 n/a
deck above deck above
Zone 6, 1 1 0.687899 Hmax: 20.793 m Hmax: 20.793 m 1
Zone 7, 1 1 0.687899 0.312101 n/a n/a
55
Table 7.2 V-factor for load case: LC3
1 adjacent Total
V1 V2 V3 V4
zone V
0.418227 0.581773 n/a n/a
Zone 1, 1 1
deck above
1 0.418227 1 n/a
Zone 2, 1 Hmax: 23.422 m
deck above
1 0.418227 1 n/a
Zone 3, 1 Hmax: 23.422 m
deck above
1 0.418227 1 n/a
Zone 4, 1 Hmax: 23.422 m
deck above
1 0.418227 1 n/a
Zone 5, 1 Hmax: 23.422 m
1 0.418227 1
Zone 6, 1 Hmax: 23.422 m Hmax: 23.422 m
1 0.418227 0.581773 n/a n/a
Zone 7, 1
56
1 adjacent Total
V1 V2 V3 V4
zone V
0.257909 0.742091 n/a n/a
Zone 1, 1 1
deck above
1 0.257909 1 n/a
Zone 2, 1 Hmax: 24.985 m
deck above
1 0.257909 1 n/a
Zone 3, 1 Hmax: 24.985 m
deck above
1 0.257909 1 n/a
Zone 4, 1 Hmax: 24.985 m
deck above
1 0.257909 1 n/a
Zone 5, 1 Hmax: 24.985 m
1 0.257909 1
Zone 6, 1 Hmax: 24.985 m Hmax: 24.985 m
1 0.257909 0.742091 n/a n/a
Zone 7, 1

1 adjacent Total
V1 V2 V3 V4
zone V
1 0.088729 0.911271 n/a n/a
Zone 1, 1
1 0.088729 deck above 1 n/a
Zone 2, 1 Hmax: 26.635 m
Zone 3, 1 Hmax: 26.635 m
Zone 4, 1 Hmax: 26.635 m
Zone 5, 1 Hmax: 26.635 m
1 0.088729 0.841701 deck above 1
Zone 6, 1 Hmax: 26.635 m
1 0.088729 0.911271 n/a n/a
Zone 7, 1
57
1 adjacent Total
V1 V2 V3 V4
zone V
deck below
1 n/a n/a
Zone 1, 1 1 WL: 13.773 m
deck below deck above Hmax:
1 1 n/a
Zone 2, 1 WL: 13.773 m 28.273 m
1 1 n/a
Zone 3, 1 WL: 13.773 m 28.273 m
1 1 n/a
Zone 4, 1 WL: 13.773 m 28.273 m
1 1 n/a
Zone 5, 1 WL: 13.773 m 28.273 m
1 0.860732 1
Zone 6, 1 WL: 13.773 m 28.273 m
deck below
1 1 n/a n/a
Zone 7, 1 WL: 13.773 m

1 adjacent Total
V1 V2 V3 V4
zone V
deck below
1 n/a n/a
Zone 1, 1 1 WL: 15.401 m
1 1 n/a
Zone 2, 1 WL: 15.401 m 29.901 m
1 1 n/a
Zone 3, 1 WL: 15.401 m 29.901 m
1 1 n/a
Zone 4, 1 WL: 15.401 m 29.901 m
1 1 n/a
Zone 5, 1 WL: 15.401 m 29.901 m
1 0.779394 1
Zone 6, 1 WL: 15.401 m 29.901 m
deck below
1 1 n/a n/a
Zone 7, 1 WL: 15.401 m
58
1 adjacent Total
V1 V2 V3 V4
zone V
deck below
1 n/a n/a
Zone 1, 1 1 WL: 17.02 m
deck below
1 0.977853 0.022147 n/a
Zone 2, 1 WL: 17.02 m
deck below
1 0.977853 0.022147 n/a
Zone 3, 1 WL: 17.02 m
deck below
1 0.977853 0.022147 n/a
Zone 4, 1 WL: 17.02 m
deck below
1 0.977853 0.022147 n/a
Zone 5, 1 WL: 17.02 m
deck below
1 0.613286 0.364567 0.022147
Zone 6, 1 WL: 17.02 m
deck below
1 1 n/a n/a
Zone 7, 1 WL: 17.02 m

1 adjacent Total
V1 V2 V3 V4
zone V
deck below
1 n/a n/a
Zone 1, 1 1 WL: 18.311 m
deck below
1 0.922942 0.077058 n/a
Zone 2, 1 WL: 18.311 m
deck below
1 0.922942 0.077058 n/a
Zone 3, 1 WL: 18.311 m
deck below
1 0.922942 0.077058 n/a
Zone 4, 1 WL: 18.311 m
deck below
1 0.922942 0.077058 n/a
Zone 5, 1 WL: 18.311 m
deck below
1 0.480937 0.442005 0.077058
Zone 6, 1 WL: 18.311 m
deck below
1 1 n/a n/a
Zone 7, 1 WL: 18.311 m
With reference of this tables, it is quiet understanding how the attained

index hyped at loadcase 8. As the draft increases, the v1 factor, probability of
spaces or rooms above a horizontal bulkhead not getting flooded is gradually
59
reducing till LC7, saying that survivability is getting reduced till LC7. Since the
water level at LC6 and LC7 almost near to intermediate horizontal bulkhead
located at 15 m from baseline, probability of spaces above and below intermediate
deck getting flooded is high, makes the survivability of vessel harder at these
loadcases, if any critical damage is assumed to have occur. At load cases LC8 and
LC9, the rooms under the intermediate bulkhead are intact based on the
probability study. Hence the survivability at LC8 is resulted more, and since LC9
having more load and less supporting buoyancy under the intermediate bulkhead,
attained index value slightly reduced comparing to the attained index value at
LC8.
It is also necessary to understand that not only horizontal subdivision, but

the final equilibrium position after flooding and GZmax value for the damage-
load case combination are accounted on getting the S factor, in PDS study.
7.3 MARPOL OIL OUTFLOW ANALYSIS
As per MARPOL regulations for finding accidental oil outflow as explained in

reg. 23 of MEPC.117(52), all cargo oil tanks shall be assumed loaded to 98% of
their volumetric capacity. Hence, the oil outflow analysis has done for all 24
damage cases, for load case 9, which have all cargo tanks filled to 98% of its
capacity.
The mean oil outflow for side damage and bottom damage for each
damage cases, with oil outflow parameter calculated using formulations given in
section 3.5 of chapter 3, given in below table.
Table 7.9 Oil outflow results
damage Oms Omb

Damaged Tanks Om Limit Status
case (m3) (m3)
0.05
D1 T3,T4 2010.861 206.681 6 0.021 FAIL
0.01
D2 T9,T10 557.526 183.155 9 0.021 PASS
0.01
D3 T15,T16 549.282 115.594 6 0.021 PASS
0.02
D4 T21,T22 1047.108 69.917 6 0.021 FAIL
D5 T3,T4,T9,T10 2568.388 351.051 0.03 0.021 FAIL
60
6
0.01
D6 T9,T10,T15,T16 1106.808 266.883 7 0.021 PASS
0.02
D7 T15,T16,T21,T22 1596.391 165.724 1 0.021 FAIL
D8 NO DAMAGED TANK
0.05
D9 T3,T4 2010.861 206.681 6 0.021 FAIL
0.02
D10 T21,T22 1047.108 69.917 6 0.021 FAIL
0.05
D11 T1,T3,T4 3448.044 1008.18 3 0.021 FAIL
0.01
D12 T7,T9,T10 640.901 831.976 9 0.021 PASS
0.01
D13 T13,T15,T16 627.262 525.083 5 0.021 PASS
0.01
D14 T19,T21,T22 1243.69 317.598 8 0.021 PASS
D15 NO DAMAGED TANK
1615.72 0.03
D16 T1,T3,T4,T7,T9,T10 4088.945 1 4 0.021 FAIL
1186.33 0.01
D17 T7,T9,T10,T13,T15,T16 1268.163 8 6 0.021 PASS
0.01
D18 T13,T15,T16,T19,T21,T22 1870.952 736.67 5 0.021 PASS
0.05
D19 T1,T3,T4 3448.044 1008.18 3 0.021 FAIL
0.00
D20 T30 81.941 0 5 0.021 PASS
0.01
D21 T19,T21,T22,T30 1325.631 310.302 6 0.021 PASS
0.02
D22 T3,T4,T9,T10,T15,T16 3117.67 402.158 9 0.021 FAIL
D23 T9,T10,T15,T16,T21,T22 2153.917 290.02 0.02 0.021 PASS
0.03
D24 T3,T4,T9,T10 2568.388 351.051 6 0.021 FAIL
0.02
D25 T15,T16,T21,T22 1596.391 165.724 1 0.021 FAIL
0.02
D26 T1,T3,T4,T7,T9,T10,T13,T15,T16 4716.206 1781.74 6 0.02 FAIL
1253.30 0.01
D27 T7,T9,T10,T13,T15,T16,T19,T21,T22 2511.853 7 5 0.02 PASS
1615.72 0.03
D28 T1,T3,T4,T7,T9,T10 4088.945 1 4 0.021 FAIL
The oil outflow from a damaged tank or a group of damaged tanks shall be
under the oil outflow parameter limit, found using the formulations given in
section 5 of chapter 3. As per the regulation by MARPOL, mean outflow
61
parameter for damage cases crossing the limit is considered a fail, where oil
outflow to the sea environment is more than permissible outflow limit.
The oil outflow charts obtained using the results from the above table are shown
below.
OIL OUTFLOW VOLUME CHART

5000
4500
4000
3500
OIL OUTFLOW (m3)
3000
2500 Oms
2000 Omb
1500
1000
500
0
DAMAGE CASES
Fig 7.22 Oil outflow volume chart
The chart above shows the oil outflow volume in cubic meters, for all
probable damage cases arranged in the order from highest to lowest probability of
flooding in tanks under considered damage. Where, Oms is the oil outflow due to
side damage and Omb is the Oil outflow due to bottom damage. Since no cargo
tanks are getting damaged in damage case D8 and D15, no oil outflow is there for
these damages.
The chart below represents the damage cases which are not safe with
regards to oil outflow from each damage case.
62
OIL OUTFLOW STATUS CHART
0.06
0.05
OIL OUTFLOW PARAMETER(Om)
0.04
Om
0.03 Safe Limit
0.02
0.01
0
D1
D3
D5
D7
D9
7
D1
D1
D1
D1
D1
D2
D2
D2
D2
DAMAGE CASES
Fig 7.23 Oil outflow status chart
CHAPTER 8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1 SUMMARY
Damage stability deal with the most crucial aspect of stability of any floating body
and is so necessary to understand the survivability of any merchant ships at the
design stage itself. Resolution MSC.216(52) by Maritime Safety Committee as an
amendment to The International Convention for The Safety of Life at Sea, 1974,
insists on studying damage stability of ships using probabilistic damage method
for ships greater than 80 meters. The probabilistic approach to stability analysis
was initially developed in 1973. To estimate the probabilities of different damage
stability related events, available accident records are used. It is the known
occurrence of such damage stability related events that governs the concept of
stability in this procedure. To study the damage stability and to analyze the
serviceability under any damage condition, a VLCC with real scale dimensions,
have modelled in MAXSURF modeler. Tanks and bulkhead arrangements
designed in the VLCC model where rather uncommon but satisfying the rules
regarding construction of an oil tanker as given in chapter 4, ‘Requirements for
63
The Cargo Area of Oil Tankers’, of MEPC.117(52). Using probabilistic damage
method, 24 damage cases has resulted as the most probable damage cases. To
study the serviceability and final equilibrium position after flooding, equilibrium
and large angle stability analyses have conducted for all the 24 damage cases with
8 load case variations. The survivability of the vessel is referred from the attained
subdivision index ‘A’, for which the variation has found for the load cases defined
in this study. The oil outflow analyses have also done for the 24 damage cases, but
for only fully laden load case, as mentioned in regulation by MARPOL. All the
stability analyses have done using the MAXSURF stability tool.
To investigate the reliability of this modelling and analysis tools, 2

validation works have conducted before starting the damage stability
investigations on VLCC. First validation work, ‘Response analysis on a ferry
boat’ gives an idea of how much accuracy an analytical model, modelled using the
same MAXSURF modeler tool, can obtain with reference to an experimental
work. The response results obtained for the passenger ferry boat in beam sea and
still water conditions have compared with the results from ‘Acanfora et al’.
(2016). Second validation work, ‘Damaged stability of oil carrier’ was intended to
show the comparison of equilibrium analysis results of damaged box type barge,
obtained from MAXSURF stability tool with the results from MPS simulation,
which is another analytical method used by ‘Cheng et al. (2010)’.
8.2 CONCLUSIONS
The idea of conducting this project was to introduce a solution to analyse the
behavior of an oil tanker under a damaged condition at the time of designing stage
itself. The investigation results from damage stability and oil outflow analyses on
the VLCC model should be considered as unique, since every oil tanker will have
their difference with other, when comparing the principal parameters such as hull
dimensions, bulkhead subdivisions and tank arrangements. Hence this study is a
mere attempt to provide with damage stability charts so that the stability and
survivability of a VLCC under damage can be evaluated easily. The conclusions
of this study are given below
64
 The most probable damage cases have found using PDS concept and the
damage cases are classified into 4 sets, which are high probability
damages, medium probability damages, low probability damages and very
low probability damages.
 The variation of heel, trim and GZ max with respect load case under each
set of damage cases have found for the VLCC model. These charts can
help in evaluating the vessels behavior to damage cases in each loading
condition.
 The variation of heel, trim and GZ max with respect to damage cases
arranged from highest to lowest probability of flooding, for each load
cases have also portraited. These charts will be more helpful to assess the
stability and survivability of the VLCC at any particular loading condition
for all probable damage cases which are expected to occur in its voyage.
 Attained index ‘A’ represents the survivability of the vessel if any damage
has considered to occur. The variation of the attained index ‘A’ with each
load case have found and plotted.
 Oil outflow analysis have done for all 24 probable damage cases, the oil
out flow volume that can occur for side damage as well as bottom damage
in all damage cases have found and charted. Oil out flow parameters have
found for all damage cases and checked with the limit. Those damages
which resulted in higher oil flow parameter than the limit, can cause
greater pollution to marine environment.
8.3 SCOPE OF FUTURE WORK
This study can be extended for different tank and compartment definitions, also
for unsymmetrical loading in each zone. It rather unconventional, but requires a
study to evaluate how these results will vary for unsymmetrical cargo tank
definitions about the center line of the vessel.
65
APPENDIX I
DEFINITIONS
 Subdivision length (Ls) of the ship is the greatest projected moulded length of
that part of the ship at or below deck or decks limiting the vertical extent of
flooding with the ship at the deepest subdivision draught.
 Mid-length is the mid-point of the subdivision length of the ship.
 Aft terminal is the aft limit of the subdivision length.
 Forward terminal is the forward limit of the subdivision length.
 Length (L) is the length as defined in the International Convention on Load
Lines in force.
 Freeboard deck is the deck as defined in the International Convention on Load
Lines in force.
 Forward perpendicular is the forward perpendicular as defined in the
International Convention on Load Lines in force.
 Breadth (B) is the greatest moulded breadth of the ship at or below the deepest
subdivision draught.
 Draught (d) is the vertical distance from the keel line at mid-length to the
waterline in question.
 Trim is the difference between the draught forward and the draught aft, where
the draughts are measured at the forward and aft terminals respectively,
disregarding any rake of keel.
 Deadweight is the difference in tonnes between the displacement of a ship in
water of a specific gravity of 1.025 at the draught corresponding to the
assigned summer freeboard and the lightweight of the ship.
 Lightweight is the displacement of a ship in tonnes without cargo, fuel,
lubricating oil, ballast water, fresh water and feedwater in tanks, consumable
stores, and passengers and crew and their effects.
 Dead Weight Tonnage (DWT) is the measure how much mass a ship can carry
safely, it is the sum of weight of cargo, fuel, fresh water, ballast water,
passengers and crew etc.
 GZmax is the maximum positive righting lever, in metres, up to the angle θ v
66
 Range is the range of positive righting levers, in degrees, measured from the
angle θe . The positive range is to be taken up to the angle θ v
67
Reference
1. Acanfora M., Luca F. D., “An experimental investigation into the influence of
the damage openings on ship response”, 2015, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Espoo, Finland.
2. Begovic E., Mortola G., Incecik A., Day A. H., “Experimental assessment of
intact and damaged ship motions in head, beam and quartering seas”, 2013,
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Naples Federico II,
Naples, Italy.
3. Cheng L. Y., Gomes D. V., Nishimoto K., “A Numerical Study on Oil
Leakage and Damaged Stability of Oil Carrier”, 2010, Proceedings of the
ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, Shangai, China.
4. Hashimoto H., Kawamura K., Sueyoshi M., “Numerical Simulation Method
for Damaged Ships Under Flooding Condition”, 2013, Proceedings of the
ASME 2010 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, Nantes, France.
5. Ho lee H., Seo J., Rhee S. H., Rhee K. P., “Experimental Study on the Six
Degree-of-Freedom Motions of a Damaged Ship Floating in Regular Waves”,
2015, IEEE Journal of Ocean Engineering.
6. Lorkowski O., Dankowski H., Kluwe F., “An Experimental Study on
Progressive and Dynamic Damage Stability Scenarios”, 2014, Proceedings of
the ASME 2010 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, California, USA.
7. Manderbacka T., Ruponen P., Kulovesi J., Matusiak J., “Model experiments of
the transient response to flooding of the box shaped barge”, 2015, School of
Engineering, Department of Applied Mechanics, Helsinki, Finland.
8. Mallat C. K., Rousset J. M., Ferrant P., “The Transient and Progressive
Flooding Stages of Damaged Ro-Ro Vessels: A Systematic Review of
Entailed Factors”, 2011, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering.
68
9. Tavakoli M. T., Amdahl J., Leira B. J., “Experimental investigation of oil
leakage from damaged ships due to collision and grounding”, 2011,
Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Norway.
69

Report 27 - 5 - 17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report 27 - 5 - 17

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report 27 - 5 - 17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NUMERICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON DAMAGE STABILITY

In partial fulfillment for the award of the Degree of

Under the guidance of

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

With great pleasure and gratitude, I thank to Prof. Dr. A. P. SHASHIKALA,

I express my deepest thanks to Prof. Dr. V. MUSTAFA, Dept. of Civil

I express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. T. ZACHARIA VARGHESE, Head of the

knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by

other degree or diploma of the university or other institute of higher learning,

except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text”

Place: NIT Calicut NITHIN N KUTTY

This is to certify that this report entitled “NUMERICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Dr. A. P. SHASHIKALA Dr. V. MUSTAFA

Dr. T. ZACHARIA VARGHESE

In the present condition, we are highly inclined to the protection of marine

In this paper, a realistic model of a VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) is

1.2 Introduction to Probabilistic Damage Stability..............................................2

1.3 Oil Tankers.....................................................................................................3

1.3.1 Oil Tanker Categories........................................................................3

1.4 Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC)................................................................5

1.5 Crude oil types...............................................................................................6

1.5.1 ANS Crude.........................................................................................7

2.2 Review of Literature......................................................................................9

2.5 Scope of Work.............................................................................................13

3.2 Statical Stability at Large Angles of Heel....................................................14

3.3 The Probabilistic Approach to Ship Stability Analysis...............................16

3.3.1 Attained Subdivision Index ‘A’.......................................................16

3.3.2 Calculation of factor Pi....................................................................16

3.3.3 Calculation of the factor Si..............................................................22

3.3.4 Required Subdivision Index ’R’......................................................24

3.4 Methods for finding the ship condition after flooding.................................25

3.4.1 Method of Lost Buoyancy................................................................25

3.4.2 Method of Added Weight................................................................25

3.5 MARPOL Accidental Oil Outflow..............................................................26

RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF FERRY BOAT.......................................................29

4.2 Particulars of the Ferry Boat........................................................................29

4.3 Hydrostatic details........................................................................................30

4.4 Ferry boat modelled in Maxsurf Modeller...................................................30

DAMAGED STABILITY OF OIL CARRIER.....................................................33

5.2 Properties of the hull....................................................................................33

STABILITY INVESTIGATIONS ON VLCC......................................................37

6.2 Modelling of VLCC.....................................................................................38

6.3 Load cases....................................................................................................44

6.4 Probabilistic Damage Calculations..............................................................45

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................................48

7.1 Stability Charts.............................................................................................48

7.2 Variation of Attained Index.........................................................................57

7.3 Marpol Oil Outflow Analysis......................................................................63

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS....................................................................66

8.3 Scope of Future Work..................................................................................68

Fig 1.2 VLCC Sirius Star 5

Fig 3.1 Definition of righting arm 13

Fig 3.2 Statical-stability curve 14

Fig 3.3 Illustration of P- factor 16

Fig 3.4 Single zone damage 17

Fig 3.5 Two adjacent zones damage 17

Fig 3.6 Three adjacent zones damage 18

Fig 4.1 Passenger ferry boat modelled in Maxsurf Modeller 28