Anda di halaman 1dari 9

Marine Technology, Vol. 36, No. 4, Winter 1999, pp.

194-202

Subdivision of RO/RO Ships for Enhanced Safety in the


Damaged Condition*
Maciej Pawlowski 1

The paper shows that RO/RO ships can be as safe in the damaged condition as other ship types without
restricting their design features, i.e., with no transverse and/or horizontal subdivision within the cargo
space liable to damage, if there are provisions for reserve buoyancy above the vehicle deck--the first deck
above the deepest waterline. For this purpose, these ships should embody a double hull over the entire
length of the cargo part of the ship, terminated at the second deck above the waterline and, in addition,
double decks at least the first deck above the waterline, preferably inclined upwards in the longitudinal
direction. The double hull and double decks should be sufficiently densely subdivided by watertight bulk-
heads into watertight compartments, the former preferably cross-connected and of a breadth less than B/5.
Cargo spaces below the double decks should be provided with efficient air escapes for removing air
cushions from the undersides of the decks. A deck (or decks) if any, below the first deck above the
waterline, along with this deck should be designed as opened to the passage of flooding water, incorpo-
rating efficient down-flooding arrangements.

Introduction safety standards without incurring the obvious operational


penalties that subdivision of the open deck would impose, but
Roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) ships are considered by the mari- there have been few studies in this area to provide any firm
time profession and traveling public as the most unsafe ships guidance.
in operation. This is not surprising when one considers their This paper aims to show how significant improvements
very low indices of subdivision, usually far below the re- could be achieved in the survivability of existing and future
quired values. This comes from the fact that these ships were RO/RO vessels, without impairing their present successful
often poorly designed with little or no concern for damaged operational features. There are feasible solutions to the as-
stability. The large open vehicle decks of RO/RO vessels sociated design problems, the principles of which may be ap-
make them particularly sensitive to the presence of water on plied to car and cargo RO/RO ferries and vessels of every
such decks which may appear there due to collision damage shape, size and description. These solutions are considerably
or other accidental operational reasons, such as fire-fighting, more tangible t h a n warning lights of video cameras focused
intake of water due to the bow door being left open (as in the on bow and stern doors in a bid to ensure that they are firmly
case of the Herald of Free Entelprise), or leakage of water closed! They are entirely based on new design configurations,
through the aft door deprived of weathertightness, as was providing RO/RO ships with a high level of passive (built-in)
most likely in the case of the Jan Heweliusz, a Polish ferry safety, easily meeting the new requirements concerning ship
which capsized in J a n u a r y 1993 during extremely heavy survivability, based on the probabilistic concept.
weather, causing the death of 55 passengers and crew mem-
bers, with only nine persons rescued.
These two disasters clearly illustrate the potentially dev-
Current s u b d i v i s i o n a r r a n g e m e n t of
astating influence of an open deck on the damaged stability RO/RO ships
of a RO/RO vessel. In the absence of transverse subdivision, For some 40 years there have been cargo ships and pas-
even a very small amount of water on such a deck can lead to senger ferries having no transverse watertight bulkheads
rapid heeling and loss of stability, usually associated with a within cargo space, intended primarily for the carriage of
large loss of life. roll-on/roll-off cargo. They have usually the following water-
Here arises the question as to w h e th e r we are faced then tight compartments: double bottom, forepeak, afterpeak, en-
with the necessity of abandoning such an operationally effi- gine room and wing tanks. The fore and aft collision bulk-
cient concept of sea transport in the pursuit of higher safety heads, wing t a n k s and o t h er t r a n s v e r s e b u l k h e a d s are
standards. Fortunately, there are alternative design configu- terminated as a rule at the bulkhead d e c k - - t h e first deck
rations which may provide the necessary improvements in above the deepest load line, called also the vehicle (car) deck.
Until 1 February 1992 there were no subdivision require-
ments for cargo RO/RO ships. That is why wing tanks on
* The paper has been edited at The Ship Design and Research such ships were applied with ballasting in view and fre-
Center in Gdafisk as Technical Bulletin (Zeszvty Problemowe) No. quently due to psychological reasons r a t h e r t h a n due to sub-
B-066, September 1995. Progress papers were presented at: Proceed- division considerations. They could save the ship only in
ings, 12th International Conference and Exhibition on Marine cases of shallow damage in one of those tanks.
Transport using Roll-on/Roll-off Methods--RO/RO '94, G~teborg, There are known car-passenger ferries (of RO/RO type)
April 1994, Vol. 2, 13 pp.; Polish Maritime Research No. 1, September
t h a t are subject to subdivision and damage stability require-
1994, Vol. 1, p. 7-12; Proceedings, 5th International Conference on
Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles--STAB '94, Florida Institute merits contained in the 1974 SOLAS Convention. Space be-
of Technology, November 1994, Melbourne, Florida Vol. 6 (Discus- low the bulkhead deck on such ferries is usually densely sub-
sions); The Naval Architect, April 1995, pp. E198, and E201-203. divided by transverse bulkheads, extending from side to side.
1 Technical University of Gdafisk, Poland. In such a case, wing tanks are not applied and many of the

194 WINTER 1999 0025-3316/99/3604-0194500.43/0 MARINE TECHNOLOGY


compartments below the bulkhead deck are neither used for freeboard or by the application of removable transverse bulk-
the carriage of cargo nor for other purposes. On the remain- heads in holds intended for RO/RO cargo. Such solutions are
ing RO/RO passenger ships, compartments of breadth B/5 clearly contradictory to the basic operational features of RO/
are applied below the bulkhead deck, which are relatively RO ships and should be applied only in the last resort.
short and cross-connected to avoid asymmetrical flooding.
This type of subdivision a r r a n g e m e n t is shown in Fig. 1.
The above solutions do not provide sufficient safety for pas- Provision of double hull and deep sinkage
senger RO/RO ships in case of collision. On the contrary, after flooding
these solutions appear to be extremely dangerous as they do
not secure a ferry against a rapid capsize in the case of sea A feasible and efficient remedy for the poor safety of RO/
water accidentally entering the bulkhead deck. A good evi- RO ships is application of the idea of deep sinkage after flood-
dence for this was the tragic capsizing of the European Gate- ing, presented in detail in [3], and briefly summarized here.
way in 1982, the Herald of Free Enterprise in 1987, and the It stems simply from the fact that the damaged stability of a
Estonia in 1995, to mention only three renowned recent di- RO/RO ship with its bulkhead deck immersed, which is a
sasters. typical case, increases the deeper the ship sinks. This star-
The three ships had the same type of subdivision, derived tling observation is not difficult to explain. An increase in
from the SOLAS Convention, where the ship due to low free- damaged draft for any constant damaged displacement al-
board, is densely subdivided with transverse bulkheads be- lows the center of buoyancy to move closer to the center of
low the bulkhead deck in order to get one compartment stan- gravity, thereby improving stability. Moreover, experiments
dard and with no reserve of buoyancy above it. As the have shown that in ships with the much deeper draft asso-
compartments are then very short, probability of flooding ciated with the final stage of flooding, any roll motion in
more than one compartment is therefore high, resulting in waves ahnost completely disappears so that only heave mo-
very low probabilities of surviving for such ships and thus tion remains. It is therefore very unlikely that such a vessel
objectively confirming their bad performance in ease of colli- would be capsized by wave action when it is floating deeply
sion. In addition, the dense subdivision causes the machinery immersed in a near upright position.
space to be divided into smaller watertight compartments In the light of the above remarks an increase in the n u m b e r
and this in t u r n opens up an area for h u m a n error. of bulkheads below the vehicle deck is found to reduce dam-
A good example of this illusory subdivision was demon- aged stability dramatically. This situation is opposite to that
strated by the sinking of the European Gateway [1]. The ship for conventional ships and is confirmed by model tests [4]. It
received a small damage below the bulkhead deck but be- is evident from the foregoing that the primary safety feature
tween the bulkheads of the machinery part of the ship. In- for a RO/RO vessel should be a mandatory double skin ex-
stead of surviving this potentially safe standard case of dam- tending from the i n n e r bottom to the second deck above the
age, she sank very quickly (within some twenty minutes) as w a t e r l i n e (the upper deck). The wing c o m p a r t m e n t s so
all watertight doors within that part of the ship were left formed should be transversely subdivided throughout and
open, leading to the flooding of four compartments instead of incorporate modest flare, if possible.
one. The crew undertook desperate action to close the doors Apart from this the n u m b e r of t r a n s v e r s e b u l k h e a d s
but tragically failed to do so. should be limited to the forward and aft peak bulkheads and
The new probabilistic rules [2] which entered into force in those required to adequately subdivide the non-vehicular
February 1992, require the same level of safety for all dry spaces such as the machinery spaces. The strength of these
cargo ships irrespective of their type. Thus new RO/RO ships bulkheads should, of course, be adequate for the pressure
will have to be equally safe (have the same indices of subdi- loads imposed by the deep draft in a damaged condition. No
visions) as the remaining dry cargo ships. The indices of sub- further transverse bulkheads should be provided, as their
division for existing RO/RO) ships are very low, if not mar- function is replaced by the wing compartments.
ginal, frequently not exceeding a value of 0.1 while for other This type of subdivision a r r a n g e m e n t is shown in Fig. 2.
dry cargo ships this index value is above 0.5. There is no The breadth of the wing tanks equals preferably B/IO, half as
possibility whatsoever of increasing the indices of subdivision large as in the previous case. As such RO/RO vessels are
so markedly within the currently applied concept of RO/RO capable, as a rule, of surviving a major flooding, at least in a
ship subdivision, except through a considerable increase in partial loading condition. In such a case, there is no need to
increase the height of the double bottom. On the contrary,

DECK4 I
DECK4 I
DECK3 i 'I
.l DECK3
DECK2 Ji 1 ) DECK2
",/1 .... ! ["v !

J~ DECK1 i
>-<

Fig. 1 A typical but extremely dangerous subdivision found on large RO/RO Fig.2 A typical subdivision arrangement for RO/RO ships based on the concept
ships, influenced by the SOLAS Convention of deep-sinkage-after-flooding

WINTER1999 MARINETECHNOLOGY 195


from the standpoint of damage stability, the m i n i m u m height comes i m m e r s e d a n d the ship has l a r g e l o n g i t u d i n a l
is preferable. asymmetry. However, in the case of horizontal subdivision
To limit the effects of flooding, the wing compartments without efficient downflooding arrangements, it should be
should be relatively short, identically subdivided on both assumed that after the immersion of the edge of the water-
sides and cross-connected to prevent asymmetric flooding, tight deck, the level of water above such a deck coincides with
which is always detrimental to a ship in a damaged condi- the level of water outside. This covers the case of a small hole
tion. In the case of passenger RO/RO vessels, the current below and a very large one above the horizontal subdivision,
SOLAS regulations require that lower wing compartments a typical damage when the striking ship has a bulbous bow
should have a breadth of not less t h a n B/5 and no wing tanks associated with a large flare--see the case of the European
above the bulkhead deck, as shown in Fig. 1. Gateway [1].
If one assumes that major flooding of inboard spaces rep- The current regulations [2] overlook totally this problem.
resents the loss of a RO/RO ship then it would be necessary This is one reason why naval architects consider horizontal
to require, for ship safety, the wing compartments below the subdivision, especially on RO/RO ships, as beneficial to their
car deck to be as wide as possible to minimize the risk of such safety. Unfortunately, this is not the case and it is now high
a possibility. However, that is not the case and, therefore, time to tell this loudly and clearly in an attempt to divert the
there is no need to impose such broad wing compartments in way things are developing.
this position.
To withstand major flooding, it is most important for a Perforated vehicle decks
RO/RO ship to ensure positive stability at the final stage of
the event when the bulkhead deck is immersed. It has been An important point on all RO/RO vessels concerns the wa-
shown that this is quite practicable and requires only that tertight integrity of the main and other vehicle deck, that is,
narrow wing compartments be fitted below and above the the presence of horizontal subdivision. From the previous
vehicle deck, as shown in Fig. 2, to ensure both stability and discussion, it should be clear that any deck, including the
sufficient reserve of buoyancy. Such is the purpose of provid- vehicle deck, which may suffer flooding from w h a t e v e r
ing these wing compartments. source, should be non-watertight. Furthermore, such decks
should be designed to allow both water and air to pass freely
Merit of a double skin through them.
How this should be accomplished in practice is an inter-
Wing compartments on RO/RO ships can fulfill many other
esting challenge for the designer. The drainage systems must
important functions:
- - T h e y greatly enhance the ability of the ship's sides to be capable of allowing very large quantities of water to drain
directly into the lower cargo spaces without access to machin-
absorb the energy of a collision, thereby decreasing the
ery or other critical spaces, which must be effectively sealed
extent of damage, while also increasing the resistance to
from the cargo spaces at all times. This has the effect of
breaching during minor collisions.
- - T h e y provide a positive contribution to the vessel's over- maximizing the damaged metacentric height by both elimi-
n a t i n g isolated free water surfaces and lowering the center of
all strength.
gravity.
- - T h e y provide essential t r i m m i n g ballast capacity in the
Watertight vehicle or tweendecks cannot be recommended
lower hull.
for the following reasons:
- - T h e y contribute directly to improved damaged stability.
--Decks below the vehicle deck are not usually designed to
- - T h e i r smooth sides make cargo handling easier in the
holds. withstand the pressure forces that would be imposed by
serious flooding either above or below them.
- - T h e y effectively protect the ship against the effects of
~ W h e n flooding occurs above such a deck, a large free
leakage due to cracks or small breaches of the shell.
water surface is formed which immediately reduces the
Intermediate stages of flooding vessel's metacentric height, u s u a l l y causing a large
angle of heel or capsizing.
Thus far stability during the intermediate stages of flood- - - T h e s e decks can trap large quantities of air beneath
ing has not attracted the attention it deserves. Work done to them during sinkage, m a i n t a i n i n g an additional free
date supports the intuitive notion that the intermediate con- surface effect, which would be eliminated if the compart-
ditions are not usually a problem if the final condition is ment were free to fill completely. In addition, these air
acceptable, provided that the angle of heel is not so large as cushions contribute to the creation of an additional heel-
to cause cargo shift and the flooded water can freely spread ing moment of significant value as they are formed usu-
over the entire compartment. The deck edge then remains ally at the outmost areas beneath the decks close to the
above the water all the time during t r a n s i e n t flooding [5]. side opposite to damage. As a result, these air cushions
The same applies also for RO/RO vessels with double skin are extremely dangerous and lead to the capsizing of the
a r r a n g e m e n t provided that the decks are made opened to the ship, otherwise safe, before reaching the final stage of
flooded water which is crucial for the safety of these ships. flooding.
Thus if there are efficient down- or cross-flooding arrange- - - W a t e r t i g h t ramps and decks are more expensive t h a n
ments, it is entirely sufficient as far as damaged stability is their non-watertight counterparts.
concerned to check only the m a x i m u m angle of equilibrium In view of these points, there seems no good reason to
during flooding, and focus attention on the safety of the ship retain the concepts of either horizontal or vertical watertight
in the final stage of flooding. Hence, the above theoretical subdivision applied to internal vehicle spaces. In particular,
development has a considerable impact on the simplification retaining the vehicle deck as a bulkhead deck is particularly
in damaged stability assessments. dangerous and should be abandoned as a design objective.
Owing to physical reasons, stability during the intermedi- There are two further reasons why the bulkhead deck
ate stages of flooding should be analyzed for the freely float- within the cargo space should be made t r a n s p a r e n t to the
ing ship longitudinally balanced at each angle of heel, using flooded water. Such a deck virtually eliminates the accumu-
the added mass method. There are usually marked differ- lation of the flooded water above this deck due to the action
ences between the GZ-curves calculated for the free trim con- of waves which is found to be dangerous and it leads even-
dition and for fixed trim, particularly if the deck edge be- tually to capsize [6-8]. Due to a very similar reason, the

196 WINTER 1999 MARINE TECHNOLOGY


watertight deck is also detrimental to stability during the tion, height and extent, be of some advantage in terms of
intermediate stages of flooding which is rarely analyzed dur- damage survivability.
ing designing and overlooked by the current regulations. The problem of locating this buoyant deck is a fairly in-
The idea of deep sinkage was implemented at Gdafisk volved exercise. However, it can be shown that for such a
Shipyard, Poland, by designing a passenger/freight RO/RO buoyant deck with a displacement of v the stability coefficient
vessel of 12 000 dwt, with the overall length of 183 m, based will be increased, if the buoyant deck is located at a height
on the double hull arrangement, as shown in Fig. 2. The H~,,~.t. satisfying the relation
bulkhead deck was designed, however, as watertight thus
only partly fulfilling the necessary requirements for a really AJ Ai
safe RO/RO vessel. To make this deck open to the passage of Hue('k > TJ"m ~ AV AV
water appeared to be too challenging for the designers.
where T~a,, is draft in the damaged condition without the
buoyant deck, whereas AJ and Ai are change in the moments
Provision of buoyant decks of inertia of the undamaged waterplane and the free surface
of the water due to change in displacement of AV = v caused
It is difficult to achieve deep sinkage after flooding on real by fitting the buoyant deck.
RO/RO ships due to the large longitudinal unbalance be- Because Ai = 0 if the vehicle deck remains submerged and
tween the aft part containing the machinery room and the J/AV is positive then it is practically impossible to satisfy
forepeak. As a result, the ship assumes after flooding an ex- the above inequality unless there is a large reduction in the
tremely large trim by the bow which is not as beneficial to free surface moment of inertia due to partial emergence of
damaged ship safety as deep sinkage on an even keel. It is the buoyant deck. Unless this inequality can be satisfied, a
worth considering, therefore, fitting the ship additionally buoyant vehicle deck will have a nearly neutral effect on
with a buoyant deck or decks, at least the bulkhead deck, initial stability in the flooded condition and consequently on
transversely and longitudinally subdivided by watertight the ship safety. Even though effective increase in freeboard,
bulkheads--see Fig. 3. due to the provision of the buoyant deck, increases stability
As previously, cargo spaces should be provided with effi- at large angles of heel, it is rather unlikely that this will be
cient air-escapes (vents) placed at the sides, close to the top of of much practical benefit in ship survival except in situations
cargo spaces, to eliminate detrimental air cushions which when the angles of flooding are very small.
may occur during flooding. The breadth of the double sides is However, it is not difficult to design for significant reduc-
definitely less t h a n B/5; they should be subdivided into wing tions in the free surface moment of inertia. This is because in
t a n k s by t r a n s v e r s e bulkheads and be preferably cross- the majority of damage cases there will be a trim by the bow
connected. The height of the double decks is preferably not due to the comparatively large machinery space. In an ap-
greater than the depth of deck girders for relevant single propriate combination of buoyant vehicle deck and wing
decks. The double bottom should be preferably of the mini- spaces, a situation may be reached that for a large n u m b e r of
m u m height required by classification rules [9]. damage cases the next higher deck comes into contact with
The bulkhead deck and a deck below, if any, should be the flooded water.
designed as permeable (transparent) for the flooded water to If this higher deck is also made buoyant in the forward part
ensure free flooding, i.e., uniform spread of water over the of the ship, a significant gain in the index A value may be
whole compartment during t r a n s i e n t flooding. With the pro- obtained and an advantage from utilization of spaces that are
vision of buoyant decks, sinkage after flooding is obviously usually nonproductive anyway from the cargo carriage point
reduced and, in the extreme, can be as small as to keep the of view. Another possibility is to use a buoyant vehicle deck
bulkhead deck emerged. which is slightly inclined upwards in the longitudinal direc-
RO/RO ships, in general, have deep deck girders because of tion so that after damage the entire deck continues to remain
the large unsupported deck spans. In view of the problem of above water in spite of the bow trim. Moreover, active con-
cargo handling, stowage is usually restricted to spaces below sideration might be given to designing the forward upper
the flanges of these girders. There is opportunity, therefore, part of a RO/RO cargo ship as a rectangular box, like in an
to seal off the space upwards from the flanges of the deck aircraft carrier [10], to improve matters further in cases of
girders to the deck plating to form a chamber (pontoon) that deep sinkage after flooding.
can provide additional buoyancy and depending on its loca- The effect of a buoyant bulkhead deck is relatively modest
in the cases where the deck is chosen with no concern regard-
ing the reduction of free surface. It can be of the order of a 5%
increase in indexA values [11]. The improvement, obviously,
DECK4
may be considerably greater, if multiple buoyant decks are
used, as m a y be feasible in some RO/RO vessels, o r - -
particularly--when the vehicle deck is inclined and remains
/ DECK 3 above water in the majority of damage scenarios.

Benefits of novel subdivision


/ '~ DECK2 I / "\ The benefits of a subdivision a r r a n g e m e n t based on the
extended double shell concept are twofold.
From the design and operation standpoints:
--~J~.
~""/~"~D;E~C--~'~"'~"----1~"
K1 I "~:'i
~ ~-\~'."
It is possible to obtain high indices of subdivision for
RO/RO ships required by the new subdivision regula-
tions, without impairing their successful operational
Fig. 3 Subd,vision of a RO/RO ship based on the extended double-shell features, based on non-subdivided horizontal cargo
concept spaces.

WINTER 1999 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 197


From the technical standpoint: ter over the majority of its length, thus insignificantly con~
tributing to the reduction of the free surface effect.
The cargo space is not reduced. The double decks make This example provides a good lesson: not every buoyant
use of the space on the underside of single decks, con- deck can be expected to contribute significantly to ship
tained between the huge deck girders, useless for cargo safety. To do so, the whole subdivision a r r a n g e m e n t must be
anyway. Confinement of this space by relatively thin carefully chosen so that the buoyant deck could remain above
watertight shell plating, replacing the thick flames of
the water in prevailing cases of flooding.
deck girders, converts this inefficient space into a double
It is not difficult to do so. Keeping the remaining subdivi-
buoyant deck of considerable volume, reducing bow trim
sion unchanged, there are two i m m ed i at e possibilities: a
after flooding.
slight increase of the height of Deck 2 m ai n t ai n i n g the un-
The weight of the ship is only marginally increased thus
derside structure of the deck with the original depth which is
nearly the same dead-weight is maintained.
equivalent to an increase of the pontoon depth by the same
Overall ship and deck strength is improved.
Smooth sides make cargo handling and insulation works value; and/or a slight inclination upwards in the longitudinal
easier. direction of the topside of the deck. The application of me-
dium-speed engines for ship propulsion provides another pos-
It can be expected, therefore, that overall building time sibility if such engines are located in the wing compartments,
and thus the cost of ship production may be eventually some- then the lower cargo hold can be significantly extended aft
what reduced for such ships. thus largely reducing bow trim after flooding.
EXAMPLE 5: The ship as in Example 4 but with the ship's
depth to Deck 2 increased by 0.2 m from 8.9 to 9.1 m. The
Numerical examples depth of the pontoon is simultaneously increased from 1600
To see how this concept works, a RO/RO ship designed at to 1800 ram, keeping the underside structure of the deck at
the Gdaflsk Shipyard was examined, whose main particulars the previous height. The attained index is now A = 0.556,
were as follows: which is higher than the required value R - 0.545.
It is worth noting the incredible increase of the index due
Subdivision/overall length ............................. 177,50/183.00 m to the increase of the depth to Deck 2 by only 0.2 m. This
Length between perpendiculars ................................ 171.30 m example shows how sensitive ship safety is to some param-
Breadth, molded ........................................................... 28.70 m eters of subdivision ar r an g em en t containing a buoyant deck
Depth, to main/upper deck .................................. 8.90/15.23 m and that is why it is so easy to be disappointed with it, if it is
Depth, to weat h er deck ...................................... 21.20/23.10 m not properly chosen. Most important of all is to keep, as far as
Draft T, design/scantling ....................................... 6.80/7.40 m practicable, the buoyant deck dry (to remain above waterl in
Supply/water ballast tanks ................................ 1880/9500 m :3 the majority of damage cases.
Dead-weight at scantling draft ................................... 12 400 t EXAMPLE 6: The ship as in Example 5 but with Deck 2
Breadth of wing tanks ................................................... 2.80 m inclined upwards in the longitudinal direction by 1 m in the
KG for full load condition at T - 7.40 m .................. 13.65 m foremost end of this deck, as shown in Fig. 4. The attained
KG for partial load condition at T = 6.11 m ............. 13.67 m index value is now A = 0.621 and it is thus drastically higher
Permeability tx .................................................................... 0.80
than in the previous case. Such a result should obviously be
Required subdivision index R value ................................ 0.545
expected in light of the previous remarks.
EXAMPLE 1: The ship with a subdivision a r r a n g e m e n t as in From the examination of some of the most representative
Fig. 2, with no cross-flooding, deck No. 3 (upper deck) water- cases of flooding for the previous case study, it followed that
tight which is not realistic in this case. For such a ship the the depth of the flooded w at er at the forward end of Deck 2
attained subdivision index is much below the required one did not exceed a value of 1 m. This is why the free-surface
and equals A = 0.513. 2 effect could be reduced now in the case of the 1 m sheer of
EXAMPLE 2: The ship as above but with cross-flooding. The Deck 2 to nearly nothing in most cases of damage, thus mark-
index is t h e n A = 0.581. As can be seen, cross-flooding caused edly increasing the index value.
a significant increase in the index value here. It should be The rise of Deck 2 by 1 m at its foremost end is not much.
assumed as a rule that cross-flooding is always beneficial for Looking at Fig. 4, one can hardly believe that this deck is
ship safety and, therefore, it should be applied whenever pos- inclined at all. All other decks above Deck 2 must have, ob-
sible. viously, the same sheer, to keep them parallel to one another.
EXAMPLE 3: The ship as in Example 2 but with Deck 3 In all the examples, Deck 2 was treated as opened for the
treated as non-watertight which is in compliance with the passage of water and air, to eliminate the many adverse el-
actual desig~a. The attained index value is now much lower fects, discussed above, and not accounted for in the current
and equals A = 0.512, which should obviously be expected. It regulations. Owing to that reason, horizontal subdivision due
is then quite sensible to make the upper deck watertight, if to Deck 2 was simply ignored, and this was for the benefit of
possible. Moreover, as the ship has typically a large bow trim the ship.
after flooding and thus small angles of flooding, active con- EXAMPLE 7: The ship as in Fig. 5 with narrow double sides
sideration might be given to a deck or decks made buoyant at of B/10 at the lower hold and with an increased width of the
the forward end, to increase the height of openings above the side compartments orB/5 between the main and upper decks.
damage waterline, thereby improving stability. Such an ar r an g em en t was eventually adopted by the Gdafisk
EXAMPLE 4: The ship as in Example 3 but with Deck 2 as a Shipyard on the F i n n h a n s a - - t h e first of four luxurious RO/
pontoon, creating a buoyant double deck of 1600 mm depth as RO vessels, sister ships ordered by Finncarriers. The at-
shown in Fig. 3. The attained index value is now A = 0.519, tained index value is now A = 0.668, as obtained by the
which is only marginally higher than in the previous case. shipyard according to the regulations for passenger ships,
This is because the buoyant deck as it is, due to the bow trim, contained in resolution A.265 (VIII). This value of the index,
in the majority of damage scenarios, still remains under wa- however, cannot be directly compared with the indices given
in the previous examples, as they were calculated according
to the regulations for dry cargo ships and the two methods
2 The indices of subdivision are calculated according to Ref [2}. are not identical. Nevertheless, the value is high and greater

198 WINTER 1999 MARINE TECHNOLOGY


,, (

Fig. 4 An example of subdivision on a large RO/RO ship based on the extended double-shell concept. Note the 1 m rise at the forward end of the main deck

DECK 4 height should apply instead, thereby improving stabil-


ity.
Consequently the deadweight of the ship is reduced by
1700 tons. Moreover, despite the apparently high value of the
index, the ship is far from what can be realistically achieved,
whose safety is based on wishful thinking rather than on
rational principles. Such an arrangement is therefore not
.. f I recommended.
General arrangement of the above ship and its brief tech-
nical description is given in Appendix 1, taken from a com-
mercial leaflet issued by the shipyard.
.- Dec, 1 I ,A, /
Conclusions
Fig. 5 A subdivision arrangement found on B501/I type cornbi RO/RO built in The probabilistic subdivision regulations for dry cargo
Stocznia Gdaiflska ships [2] provide a framework for the rational assessment of
competing RO/RO ship designs from the damage survivabil-
ity point of view. It is clear from the results reported above
that it is possible to achieve a satisfactory subdivision index
t h a n the required value R = 0.578, and the shipyard and value for such ships without transverse or horizontal subdi-
shipowner are very proud of it [12-15]. vision below the upper deck. Their intended function is re-
Such a design, however, should not be recommended for placed by narrow wing compartments extending from the
the following reasons: inner bottom to the upper deck, cross-connected, and by a
buoyant deck or decks below the upper deck, opened for the
The side compartments at Deck 2, intended for the car- passage of water and air, leaving this deck area clear for
riage of passenger cars, are subdivided by a n u m b e r of through transport.
transverse bulkheads fitted with watertight doors, au- The judicious distribution of reserve buoyancy in the lon-
tomatically operated. E n t r a n c e and exit from these gitudinal, transverse and vertical directions is particularly
spaces is through side gates, closed by large watertight important in the design of these ships and since there are
doors. Apart from being very costly, unreliable and in- m a n y ways of doing this satisfactorily, there is obvious scope
effective in terms of stowage, such an arrangement is for optimization in the arrangement of such vessels. The per-
illusive regarding watertight integrity of these spaces, formance of these ships in the damaged condition is very
bearing in mind the large distortions the ship can sus- sensitive to some particulars of the subdivision a r r a n g e m e n t
tain at the moment of collision. containing a buoyant deck, depending on presence (or ab-
Ventilation ducts r u n vertically along the outer side, sence) of water on the deck in a flooded condition.
starting 0.800 m below Deck 2, leaving room for progres- Continuous and, if possible, uniform distribution of reserve
sive flooding of the lower hold in case of damage in way buoyancy in the vertical direction is necessary for minimizing
of Deck 2 or above. the adverse effects during t r a n s i e n t flooding, while in the
Deck 2 is not made as open for the passage of water and longitudinal direction--due to the uniformity of survivability
air so the actual stability in case of water entering the along the ship's length. The latter is best measured in the
hull is much poorer t h a n that which is routinely calcu- form of local indices of subdivision, not yet used in the regu-
lated. lations. The local indices are measures of minor damage sur-
Insulation of the underside structure of Deck 2 requires vivability, currently covered by deterministic requirements,
a large labor consumption. inadequate and unfitted to the probabilistic framework.
Despite the requirement, the increased height of the It is important to note that the current survivability regu-
double bottom should not apply in this case as the design lations merely set standards, though imperfectly, and are not
is capable of withstanding a major flooding. A normal prescriptive in regard to an actual arrangement. The de-

WINTER 1999 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 199


signer, t h e r e f o r e , r e t a i n s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to m e e t t h e r a n g e of Design dead weight 8500 t
d e s i g n objectives. S u b d i v i s i o n a r r a n g e m e n t b a s e d on d o u b l e C a r l a n e s ( w i d t h 2.85 m) 3200 m
h u l l a n d d o u b l e deck s e e m s to be p a r t i c u l a r l y efficient a n d Trial speed 21.3 k n
b e n e f i c i a l for t h e s e ships. T h e r e f o r e , it m a y be e x p e c t e d to be Crew berths 23
c o m m o n a m o n g f u t u r e RO/RO ships. Passenger berths 112

Tank capacities
References
H e a v y fuel oil 1450 m3
1. Spouge, J. R., '~The Technical Investigation of the Sinking of the
RO/RO Ferry European Gateway," RINA Transactions, Vol. 128, 1986, Diesel oil 350 m3
pp. 49-72: also in: The Naval Architect, March 1986, ibid. L u b r i c a t i n g oil 60 ma
2. Resolution MSC 19(58) on the adoption of amendments to the 1974 Fresh water 250 ma
SOLAS Convention regarding subdivision and damage stability of dry Water ballast 10 000 ma
cargo ships, London, 1990, 13 pp.
3. Pawlowski, M. and Winkle, I.E., "Capsize Resistance Through Antiheeling, stabilizing tanks 1050 ma
Flooding--A New Approach to RO/RO Safety," Proceedings, 9th Int. Conf.
on through Transport using Roll-on/Roll-off Methods, RO-RO '88, Gothen- Type of vessel
burg, June 1988, BML, pp. 250-261.
4. Grochowalski, S. and Pawlowski, M., "The Safety of RO/RO Vessels Innovative, highly automated, multipurpose, double-
in the Light of the Probabilistic Concept for Standardizing Unsinkabil- s k i n n e d , i c e - s t r e n g t h e n e d B a l t i c combi RO/RO c a r r i e r (Fig.
ity," International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 28, No. 319, March 1981,
pp. 63-72. 6) d e s i g n e d for c a r r i a g e of p a s s e n g e r s a n d cargoes s u c h as
5. Pawlowski, M., Bezpieezefistwo niezatapialnogciowe statkow p a p e r , t i m b e r p r o d u c t s , roll t r a i l e r s , t r a n s f l a t s , c o n t a i n e r s ,
ISafety of ships in the damaged condition), Journal of Tech. Univ. of cars, lorries, chilled f r u i t i n t h e l o w e s t hold; 93 T E U c a n b e
Gdafisk Budownictwo Okr~towe, No. 42/392. Gdatisk 1985, 132 pp. c a r r i e d on t h e f o u r t h deck; t h e v e s s e l is d e s i g n e d for f u t u r e
6. Vassalos, D.. "Capsizal Resistance Prediction of a Damaged Ship in
a Random Sea," Proceedings, RINA Syrup. on RO/RO Ship's Survivability: i n s t a l l a t i o n of a b o u t 510 m of r a i l w a y t r a c k s on t h e s e c o n d
Phase 2, RINA, London, Nov. 1994, paper No. 2, 15 pp., also in: RINA deck; t w i n - p r o p e l l e r v e s s e l w i t h t w i n - s k e g t r a n s o m s t e r n ,
Transactions, Vol. 138, 1995, 20 pp. r a k e d s t e r n , b u l b o u s bow, two bow a n d two s t e r n t h r u s t e r s ,
7. Vassalos, D., Pawlowski. M., and Turan, O., "A Theoretical Inves- four cargo decks, all cargo decks free of a n y pillars, five-tier
tigation on the Capsizal Resistance of Passenger/RO/RO Vessels and Pro-
posal of Survival Criteria," Final Report, Task 5, The North West Euro- s u p e r s t r u c t u r e , two h i g h - l i f t J a s t r a m - t y p e r u d d e r s ; f i t t e d
pean R&D Project, March 1996. with antiheeling and stabilizing system.
8. Vassalos, D., Pawlowski, M., and Turan, O., "Criteria for Survival
in Damaged Condition," Proceedings, RINA Int. Sere. on the Safety of Class of vessel
Passenger RO-RO Vessels, RINA, London, June 1996, 15 pp. + 11 figures:
also in: "Dynamic Stability Assessment of Damaged Passenger RO/RO D e t N o r s k e V e r i t a s class n o t a t i o n
Ships and Proposal of Rational Survival Criteria," MARINETECHNOLOGY,
Vol. 34, No. 4, Oct. 1997, pp. 241-266. 1A1 CAR F E R R Y A E0, Ice 1A, corr, T M O N
9. Pawlowski. M. and Habina, Cz., "A RO-RO Vessel IStatek Typu C o n v e n t i o n s a n d r u l e s m e t b y t h e design:
ROFROI," Polish patent No. 167022 B1, published on 31.07.1995 at WUP SOLAS-74/89, I M O r e s o l u t i o n A265 (VIII) c o n c e r n i n g d a m -
07/95, Warsaw, 1995. The patent is ceased. age s t a b i l i t y , TON-69, C O L R E G - 7 2 , M A R P O L - 7 3 / 7 8 , LL-66,
10. Wahl, J. E., "New Catamaran RO/RO Design for Norwegian
Coastal Service--A Breakthrough in Hull Design," Proceedings. 9th Int. ILO-92, r u l e s of Kiel, Suez a n d P a n a m a C a n a l A u t h o r i t i e s ,
Conf. on Through Transport using Roll-ordRoll-off Methods, RO/RO '88, ITU, I E C a n d F i n n i s h B o a r d of N a v i g a t i o n Rules, d a n g e r o u s
Gothenburg, June 1988, BML, pp. 101-119. cargoes a c c o r d i n g to I M D G code c a n be c a r r i e d o n t h e f o u r t h
11. Sen, P., PawIowski, M., and Wimalsiri, W. K., "RO/RO Cargo Ship deck a n d in t h e o p e n p a r t of t h e t h i r d deck (Class 1, 2, 3, 4,
Design for Enhanced Survivability in the Damaged Condition," Proceed-
ings, 9th Int. Symp. on Ship Hydromechanics, Gdafisk, Sept. 1991, Vol. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), w h i l e closed Decks No. 1, 2 a n d 3 a r e r e s t r i c t e d
II, 5 pp. to few classes of d a n g e r o u s goods.
12. Mustam/iki, E., "FG-Shipping's New Baltic Combi-RO/ROs--Large
3200 Lane-Metre Ships with Two-Level Stern Access and Passenger Ac- Cargo vessel equipment
commodation," Proceedings, 12th Int. Conf. & Exh. on Marine Transport
using Roll-on/Roll-off Methods RO/RO '94, Gi3teborg, April 1994, Vol. 2, Movable ramps
11 pp.
13. Boyce, J., "Finnhansa--A Luxurious RO-RO Vessel," Cruise & Two s t e r n h y d r a u l i c a l l y o p e r a t e d a n d b a t t e n e d c o m b i n e d
Ferry Info, No. 11/94, pp. 18-21. ramps:
14. Polish Built Finnhansa Leads a New Class of Baltic Safe/ - - o n e on t h e s e c o n d deck, l e n g t h 12.5 m, d r i v e w i d t h 21.65
Passenger Ferry," The Naval Architect, Jan. 1995, pp. E15-24. m, a n d h e i g h t 5.30 m;
15. Wilson, T., "Freight RO/ROs are Adapted to Meet Route Demands,"
Motor Ship, Jan. 1995, pp. 12-17. - - o n e on t h e t h i r d deck, l e n g t h 13,45 + 3 m, d r i v e w i d t h
9.0 m.
Fixed internal ramps
Appendix - - o n e c e n t r a l l y p o s i t i o n e d i n t e r n a l fixed r a m p b e t w e e n t h e
first a n d s e c o n d decks (drive w i d t h 4.40 m w i t h cover
p a n e l s , d r i v e h e i g h t 4.8 m);
C o m b i RO/RO B501/I t y p e b u i l t b y S t o c z n i a - - o n e s t a r b o a r d i n t e r n a l fixed r a m p b e t w e e n t h e s e c o n d
G d a f i s k a S.A. a n d t h i r d cargo decks w i t h d r i v e w i d t h 4.3 m;
- - o n e p o r t s i d e i n t e r n a l fixed r a m p b e t w e e n t h e t h i r d a n d
Main particulars f o u r t h d e c k s w i t h d r i v e w i d t h 4.2 m a n d h e i g h t 4.8 m.
L e n g t h , o.a. 183.00 m Engine room
Leng"ch, b,p. 171.30 m
Breadth, molded 28.70 m Main engine
D e p t h to b u l k h e a d deck 15.23 m Type Z g o d a - S u l z e r 8ZAL40S x 4
D e p t h to w e a t h e r deck 21.20/23.10 m MCR 5760 k W a t 510 r p m e a c h
D e p t h to m a i n deck 8.90 m SFOC 179 g / k W h + 5%
Scantling draft 7.40 m H F O viscosity 600 cSt a t 50C
Scantling deadweight 10 700 t Propeller two C P t y p e
Design draft 6.80 m Reduction gears 510/142 r p m x 2

200 WINTER 1999 MARINE TECHNOLOGY


,[~,,~ ~ ~-; o o~, o~,-o o oo

. . . . qz~"~--"~ " I b -- ~ "

5th D E C K 6th D E C K 71h D E C K 8th D E C K

tYtY/ l

3rd D E C K

"~-" ~ ...... tt-----~ .--m-, = - - - - ~ - ~ - - - - ~ - ~ - - ~ - .::z:X~. Y ~ "

,. " , 1st D E C K

, X

- I ~ ",

~ ~ ~ U B L E 8OTTOM

Fig. 6 General arrangement of a p a s s e n g e r - f r e i g h t RO/RO B 5 0 1 / I t y p e f o r t h e s h i p y a r d of G d a n s k

WINTER 1999 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 201


Maneuvering gear Accommodation
Bow thrusters two of 900 kW each
Stern thrusters two of 450 kW each (in skegs) All accommodation is designed to a very high standard as
Generating sets on cruise passenger vessels, with single cabins for officers
Two shaft generators of 1750 kVA each. and crew, 24 luxurious three-berth and 10 four-berth cabins
One diesel generator of 1570 kVA. for passengers.
One diesel generator of 1175 kVA.
One emergency diesel generator of 450 kVA, all generators
3 x 380V, 5 0 H z Life saving appliances
Boilers
- - o n e vertical water-tube oil-fired auxiliary boiler of 4000 Two GRP lifeboats for 48 persons each.
kg/h steam capacity at 0.8 MPa. Two fast 20-knot rescue boats.
--four exhaust-gas boilers of 1000 kg/h steam capacity Four 16-person inflatable life rafts.
at 0.8 MPa. One inflatable raft for 6 persons.

Since commentary is vital to the research process, SNAME encourages the contribu-
tion of discussion, commentary, and questions that relate to technical papers published in
Marine Technology. Appropriate material submitted will be published in the next avail-
able issue of the journal.
Submissions should note the paper title, issue, and page numbers, must properly
identify the author by name, affiliation, and contact phone, fax, or email address, and
can be sent to Jaime Horowitz, Associate Director, Publications, using any of the fol-
lowing methods: Mall: SNAME
601 Pavonia Avenue
Jersey City, NJ 07306
Fax: 201-798-4975
Email: jhorowitz@sname.org

202 WINTER1999 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

Anda mungkin juga menyukai