Chapter 5.

Damage Stability Assessment of HSC after Grounding

5. Introduction Currently a substantial effort is done within the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on the revision of High Speed Craft (HSC) Code. A main issue is the extent of bottom damage and raking damage due to the grounding on hard rocks and the corresponding requirements to the damage stability of the vessel. It has been found that high-speed craft can experience a damage length up to 100% of the ship length. It has, however, also been argued that the damage stability requirements should reflect the size and the probability of the damage with a reduction of the demand for the largest damages. In this chapter a detailed grounding and damage stability analysis is carried out for two specific HSC, a mono-hull (86 m) and catamaran (69m). First various grounding scenarios are considered with different values of the forward speed and ground geometry the results indicate that 100% bottom damage is likely for grounding on sharp-pointed rocks. In the second part of the chapter the damage stability is determined for the two craft damage according to the proposal by the (IMO) working group. The results show that the two ferries cant comply with the regulations unless modified either with a double bottom or a watertight vehicle deck. In recent years both theoretical studies and the few actual grounding accidents involving HSC indicates that the present code with its requirements to damage lengths of approx. 10% of the vessel length are far below the actual damage grounded HSC may experience. The high-speed ferry Saint-Malo for instance had 65% of her port pontoon and 10% of the starboard torn up, after grounding off the Channel Island Jersey in 1995. In February 1999 an IMO committee, the sub-committee on Stability and Load Lines on Fishing Vessels Safety presented a proposal for revision of the HSC- code, SLF42/WP.5 (In the following referred to as SLF42). 5.1 The Craft investigated In this chapter two crafts are investigated in order to establish the expected damage length when grounding on rocks of different geometry. In the last part of the chapter damage stability calculations are carried out for the two ferries according to the damages given in SLF42. The two HSC investigated are both category B craft and both craft are Ro-Ro ferries. Their principal dimensions are as follows: Monohull 86m 17m 3.6m 1704 t 160 600 Catamaran 69m 23m 2.6m 1182t 150 600

Length B.P Beam Draught Displacement Cars Passengers

-36-

Chapter 5. Damage Stability Assessment of HSC after Grounding

5.2 Extent of Damage according to the codes The major changes in SLF42 compared to the present HSC-Code is the amount of bottom damage the craft must be able to sustain. The present HSC code requires that an HSC can satisfy the stability requirements following bottom damage on roughly 10% of the craft length. For most craft this is equivalent to the flooding of two compartments. According to SLF42 all HSC should be capable of satisfying the existing residual stability requirements after sustaining raking damage of 55% of the length from the most forward point of the underwater buoyant volume. All HSC should also satisfy the same residual stability criteria after sustaining raking damage 35% of the length anywhere of the hull. It should be emphasized that 35% is only a proposed figure. Category B craft should furthermore be able to survive with reduced residual stability after sustaining raking damage of 100% of the length vulnerable to raking damage has also been significantly increased in SLF42 compared to the area vulnerable to the bottom damage in the present HSC-code, which does not operate with the term raking damage. In the HSC-code bottom damage is assumed to extent from the baseline to maximum 0.5m above. In SLF42 the area vulnerable to bottom raking damage is defined as any part of the surface of the hull(s) laying below level 0.04 1/3 m above the water line. Note that this definition will not give credit to any double bottom below the water line. The definition is however likely to be changed in the final proposal. At present there are two other suggestions for the defining the vulnerability area. One is the area of the hull below a 60 tangent at the mid ship section. The second is the area below a panel parallel to the design water line drawn at 50% of the draught. It should here be stressed that its the ship owner / builder who decides whether the craft shall comply with the HSC-code or with SOLAS. Shipbuilders concerned with the severe damage requirements proposed in SLF42 have argued that future HSC might be build in accordance with SOLAS and not the HSC-code if the revision is found too restrictive. In Table 5.1 the approximate bottom damages in the different codes are shown for comparison. Table 5.1 Comparing the present code with the major damage changes in SLF42 HSC-Code SLF42 SOLAS Bottom damage Raking damage Damage for 2 comp. Ships Length: min(0.1L,3+0.03L,11m) Length: 35%anywhere Length: min(3+0.03L, 11m) Length: 55% fwd. Width: 1/5*B Length for category B:<15%fwd Length of category B:100% Vertical: Entire ship depth Width: 7m 1/3 Penetration: min(0.02B, 0.5m) Width: 0.1 m,0.5m) Vertical: 0-0.5 above baseline Vertical: 0.04 1/3m above WL No double bottom demand Margin line demand Fixed freeboard Fixed wind pressure 5.3 Calculated damage length: No double bottom demand No margin line demand Freeboard is dependent on sea state Double bottom demand. Margin line demand Fixed freeboard. Fixed wind pressure

-37-

Chapter 5. Damage Stability Assessment of HSC after Grounding

The aim in this paragraph is first to validate the damage length requirements proposed. This is accomplished by modeling a rock sizeable to the penetration and width given in SLF42. In the second part of the two craft hit different sizes of rocks with the aim to investigate what role the width of the rock plays. For all the damage calculations in this chapter it is assumed that the rock tears the bottom of the hull such that the craft and rock remains in contact and the craft not turn in sway and yaw due to asymmetrical collision. 5.3.1 Theoretical Prediction of Grounding Bottom Damage To calculate the raking forces it is necessary to consider the coupled effects of large plastic deformations, fracture and friction. It seems that the simplest idealization of the raking process is obtained by cutting a bare plate by a wedge. Since the work of Akita, Kitamura and coworkers in 1972, several studies have been made in this field. Analyses of grounding damage to assembled ship bottom structures are more limited in number. The present analysis is based on the method which was validated by use of four large-scale grounding tests performed by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, USA, and three large scale tests performed by the Association for Structural Improvement of Shipbuilding Industry, Japan. For each of the seven tests, which varied greatly in both structural design and rock penetration, the method was able to predict the energy absorption with errors less than 20%. 5.3.2 Rock size corresponding to damage width in SLF42 The extent of raking damage in SLF42 is given in 2.6.8.2; the penetration normal to the shell is 0.04 1/3 or 0.5m whichever is the lesser. The width of the damage is 0.1 1/3m. Using the calculation procedure described above, the graph on Figure 5.2 has been made. The rock that the mono hull ferry hits is modeled as a cone with a height 0.04*17041/3 =0.48m and a base diameter of 0.1*17041/3 =1.2m equal to the damage width given in SLF42. The rock that the catamaran ferry hits is modeled as a cone with a height of 0.04*1182 1/3 =0.42m and a base diameter of 0.1*11821/3 =1.06m. Figure 5.1 shows the rock model used.

-38-

Chapter 5. Damage Stability Assessment of HSC after Grounding

Figure 5.1: Model of the rock geometry and hull structure

Figure 5.2 shows that both craft when sailing more than 18 knots will receive 100% damage when hitting rocks with dimensions equal to the damage size given in SLF42. This indicates that the damage requirements in SLF42 are not exaggerated.

Figure 5.2: Damage length after hitting a rock of the same size as the penetration & width in SLF42

5.4 Different damage width The relationship between the width of the damage and the length of the damage is now investigated. This is done by modeling four rocks of the same height but different base radii ranging from 0.5m to 7m for the monohull and 0.5m to 4.5m for the catamaran. The results are shown on Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4.

-39-

Chapter 5. Damage Stability Assessment of HSC after Grounding

Figure 5.3: Monohull damage length for different rock widths. The penetration is 0.6 m.

Figure 5.4: Catamaran damage length for different rock widths. The penetration is 0.6 m. Again we see that when colliding with pinnacle rocks the craft are likely to receive 100% damage. But when the crafts are hitting rocks with the size of the damage width given in the HSC-Code the damage length are less than 100% but longer than the required length. The proposal in SLF42 for bottom damage on Category B craft seems to be supported by the analysis above; the 100% damage demand is reserved for grounding on pinnacle rocks and the 55% demand is reserved for grounding on larger rocks or grounding at slower speed. The reasonability of the demand in SLF42 that a craft shall be able to sustain 35% damage demand anywhere on the bottom is not validated in this chapter as all damages are initiated in the fore part of the vessel. Comparing Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4 we observe that the larger monohull receives longer relative damage than the smaller catamaran even though they hit similar rocks with the same speed. According to the present HSC-code and SOLAS-regulations the damage length should be calculated at the least of 0.1L or 0.03L+3m or 11m. Hence if the craft is less than 43 m it must be able to sustain 10% damage, but if the craft is longer than 43 m the damage length

-40-

Chapter 5. Damage Stability Assessment of HSC after Grounding

should be less than 10%. This contradiction has only been amended in SLF42 in the sense that there is no upper limit for the absolute damage length. The overall result tells that larger ship receives longer relative damage than smaller ship is not included. 5.5 Damage stability In the previous section it was verified that high-speed craft when grounding on sharp-pointed rocks are likely to experience 100% damage certainly damages longer than the present HSCcode requires. In this section the damages proposed in SLF42 are applied to the monohull and catamaran ferries previously described and their stability are analyzed. 5.5.1 Monohull ferry The hull is divided into 8 compartments by 7 watertight bulkheads. The ferry has a continuous vehicle deck and above the vehicle deck is the passenger accommodation. The down flooding points are the two emergency stations on each side of the craft 7.4m above the design waterline. The craft has been modeled in the hydrostatic program I-ship developed at the Technical University of Denmark. Damages according to the proposal in SLF42 are applied. The 35% damage is chosen as the worst possible, which for the monohull craft is flooding of the 4 compartments aft. Scenarios in which the superstructure is considered watertight are also computed. The results are presented as GZ-curves and are summarized in Table 5.4. Original design On Figure 5.5 the GZ-curves for the damaged monohull ferry are shown. The curve for 100% damage is not shown because the craft sinks when damaged in the entire length. For the 35% damage the result is not much better as the craft capsizes. For the 55% damage the craft ends up with a small positive righting lever, but not enough to satisfy the regulation. The major problem for all three damage conditions is that so much water is flooding the compartments that the Ro-Ro deck is submerged below the waterline resulting in water penetrating the deck. The last graph on Figure 5.5 is for the flooding of 2 successive compartments, in accordance with the present HSC-Code.

-41-

Chapter 5. Damage Stability Assessment of HSC after Grounding

Figure 5.5: GZ-curves for the original monohull design Superstructure included as watertight In this set of calculations the vehicle deck is considered watertight and hereby included in the stability calculations. This means that only the compartments below the deck flooded when the craft receives bottom damage. The argument for inclusion of the superstructure is that most nearly represents reality. On Figure 5.6 the GZ-curves for the three damage conditions in SLF42 together with the worst damage condition in the present HSC-Code are shown. The damage conditions in SLF42 have no problems fulfilling the stability requirements. Actually the stability is improved as the center of gravity is lowered and the water plane area increased. The question is of course how long it will take the water to penetrate the actual weather tight Ro-Ro deck. If sufficient water tightness can be obtained the survivability increases dramatically as shown.

Figure 5.6: GZ-curves for the monohull ferry where the superstructure is included

-42-

Chapter 5. Damage Stability Assessment of HSC after Grounding

Table 5.2 summarizes the analysis of the mono hull HSC. It is seen that if the superstructure is included or a double is fitted the requirements are fulfilled. Table 5.2 summary for the monohull HSC
Design Superstructure Raking damage length in % of craft length 35% 55% 100% aft fwd. Does not Does not Does not comply comply comply Complies Complies Complies Complies Complies Complies

Original

Excluded Included Excluded

Improved by double bottom (GZ-curves not shown)

5.5.2 Catamaran ferry Each hull is divided into 7 compartments by 6 watertight bulkheads. The ferry has a vehicle deck and above the vehicle deck is the passenger accommodation. The down flooding points are the two emergency stations on each side of the craft 9.4m above the design waterline. Other down flooding points are assumed located above or at level with the emergency stations. Table 5.3 and Table 5.5 summaries the results for the catamaran. As the distance between the hulls in the waterline is greater than 7m only one hull is considered damaged. Figure 5.7 shows that the problem for the catamaran is not the lake of righting lever, but the large angle of heel the craft ends up with, when only one hull is flooded. According to the regulation the angle of heel in the final condition should not exceed 10 degrees. All damage conditions have the required residual stability and the 55% condition actually complies fully with the regulation. Note that the residual stability demands for the catamaran are different than for monohull HSC. Contrary to the monohull ferry the problem of the catamaran cannot be solved by including the superstructure. By including the superstructure in the calculations the 55% and 35% damage condition does not change significantly. Only the 100% damage condition changes from a heel angle of 25 to 18 degrees. A way to reduce the angle of heel is to insert a double bottom. According to SLF42 a double bottom must be fitted in z = 2.6+0.04*11821/3 =3.0m above the baseline, which is the upper limit for the area vulnerable to bottom damage. This line is very likely to be lowered in the final text and calculations show that the craft, with a double bottom throughout the entire length fitted anywhere below z = 3.0m, can satisfy the stability requirements following any of the damages given in SLF42. However unless the vulnerability area is lowered a double bottom must be fitted in z =3.0m if it is to have any effect. In Table 5.5 results for a double bottom fitted in z =3.0m are shown.

-43-

Chapter 5. Damage Stability Assessment of HSC after Grounding

Another way to lessen angle of heel is to use cross flooding. The risk however that the wrong action is taken causing the heel to increased instead of reduced is obvious [17].

Figure 5.7: GZ-curves for the catamaran Table 5.3 Summary for the catamaran
Design Superstructure Raking damage length in % of craft length 35% 55% 100% midship fwd. Does not Complies Does not comply comply Does not comply Complies Complies Complies Does not comply Complies

Original

Excluded Included

Improved by double bottom at z 3.0m

Excluded

5.6 Conclusion In this chapter it has been shown that the current damage length requirements on approximately 10% of the length of the craft does not reflect the damage an HSC is likely to experience when grounding on rocks at high speed. It is shown that a raking damage length of 100% is likely when grounding on pinnacle rocks. Damages ranging from 30%-100% depending on the rock size are likewise expected for speeds exceeding 20 knots. The damages in the proposal (SLF42) for a revised high-speed craft code are therefore found to be realistic estimate of what an HSC should be able to sustain with some residual stability.

Table 5.4: Damage stability details for the mono hull HSC -44-

Chapter 5. Damage Stability Assessment of HSC after Grounding

Table 5.5: Damage stability details for the catamaran HSC

-45-