Examination of the intact stability and the seakeeping behaviour

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 Examination ˆ The limiting intact stability criterion (Area (30, 40) = 0.030 m · rad) requires a GM min = 0.65 m. The calculated transversal accelerations on the bridge and the rolling angles for the three accident conditions are listed in table 4.26. Table 4.26: Results of the seakeeping calculation for Vessel No. 13 Accident [ a situation t max m/s 2 ] ϕ max [ ◦ ] Situation 1 12.0 31 Situation 2 15.0 36 Situation 3 12.5 32 The maximum acceleration occurs for accident situation 2. The transversal acceleration of 15 m /s 2 in accident situation 2 is the highest value that occurs in the scope of the simulations. Mentionable is the fact, that all smaller vessels analysed in this chapter, are critical in accident situation 2, while for the other vessels the critical situation is situation 3. Apparently the seaway in situation 2 with a shorter signicant wave period of T S = 8.5 s stronger excites the small vessels. The statistical distribution of the transversal accelerations in this situation is shown in gure 4.26. Figure 4.26: Transversal acceleration on the bridge of Vessel No. 13 in accident situation 2 38
4.14 Vessel No. 14 4.14 Vessel No. 14 Figure 4.27: Lines plan and lateral areas of Vessel No. 14 Table 4.27: Main dimensions of Vessel No. 14 Main dimensions Value Unit L pp 319.00 [m] B 42.80 [m] T D 13.00 [m] Containers 8,600 [TEU] Vessel No. 14 has the geometric capacity to carry 8, 600 T EU. Having the main dimensions according to table 4.27, it belongs to the class of the large Post-Panamax vessels. With Vessel No. 14 the Chicago Express takes part of the analysis, which is the vessel involved in accident situation 1. For the BSU accident report [1] it has already been examined, although referring to a dierent loading condition. The following characteristics of the Chicago Express are to be noted: ˆ The lines of the ship shown in gure 4.27 have a c B value of 0.66 on design draft. ˆ The documented bilge keel area is a little bit larger than the mean value according to chapter 3.9. ˆ The stability in ballast arrival loading condition is extremely high resulting in a GM solid = 12.40 m. ˆ The limiting intact stability criterion (Max. GZ at 25 ◦ ) requires a GM min = 4.92 m. Besides Vessel No. 11, the Chicago Express is the second vessel in the examination out of the class of large Post-Panamax vessels. With a c B value of 0.66, the Chicago Express has not such a ne shaped hull as Vessel No. 11. But the stability values GM solid and most notably GM min also have a signicant higher order of magnitude, than the values for the smaller analysed vessels. The calculated transversal accelerations on the bridge and the rolling angles for the three accident conditions are listed in table 4.28. Table 4.28: Results of the seakeeping calculation for Vessel No. 14 Accident [ a situation t max m/s 2 ] ϕ max [ ◦ ] Situation 1 3.0 7 Situation 2 3.5 8 Situation 3 3.0 8 39
Page 1:
Dezember 2010 SCHRIFTENREIHE SCHIFF
Page 5: 1st Examiner: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan
Page 9 and 10: Contents List of Figures List of Ta
Page 11 and 12: Contents A.14 Vessel No. 14 . . . .
Page 13 and 14: List of Figures 2.1 Calculation mod
Page 15 and 16: List of Tables 3.1 Accident situati
Page 17 and 18: Nomenclature Symbol Unit Meaning A
Page 19 and 20: 1 Introduction In the years 2008/20
Page 21 and 22: 1.2 Following objectives for the di
Page 23 and 24: 2 Theory 2.1 Description of the uti
Page 25 and 26: 2.1 Description of the utilised sea
Page 27 and 28: 2.1 Description of the utilised sea
Page 29 and 30: 2.2 Environmental conditions period
Page 31 and 32: 3 Data input The thesis is written
Page 33 and 34: 3.6 Free surface correction 3.6 Fre
Page 35 and 36: 3.10 Bridge height 3.10 Bridge heig
Page 37 and 38: 4 Examination For each vessel the s
Page 39 and 40: 4.2 Vessel No. 02 4.2 Vessel No. 02
Page 41 and 42: 4.3 Vessel No. 03 ˆ The documented
Page 43 and 44: 4.5 Vessel No. 05 accident situatio
Page 45 and 46: 4.6 Vessel No. 06 4.6 Vessel No. 06
Page 47 and 48: 4.7 Vessel No. 07 ˆ The stability
Page 49 and 50: 4.9 Vessel No. 09 Figure 4.16: Tran
Page 51 and 52: 4.10 Vessel No. 10 4.10 Vessel No.
Page 53 and 54: 4.11 Vessel No. 11 ˆ The limiting
Page 55: 4.13 Vessel No. 13 Figure 4.24: Tra
Page 59 and 60: 4.15 Vessel No. 15 4.15 Vessel No.
Page 61 and 62: 5 Evaluation Based on the determina
Page 63 and 64: 5.3 Recommendations accelerations s
Page 65 and 66: 6 Detailed examination The evaluati
Page 67 and 68: 6.1 Variation of the GM values acce
Page 69 and 70: 6.2 Rolling behavior of the large v
Page 75 and 76: 7 Conclusions Summing up the result
Page 77 and 78: A Vessel data A.1 Vessel No. 01 Tab
Page 79 and 80: A.3 Vessel No. 03 A.3 Vessel No. 03
Page 87 and 88: A.11 Vessel No. 11 A.11 Vessel No.
Page 93 and 94: B Variation of the bilge keel area
Page 95 and 96: C Variation of the ship's speed 16
Page 97: Bibliography [1] BSU; Federal Burea
show all

Examination of the intact stability and the seakeeping behaviour

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?