floodstand d7.2b revfloodstand.aalto.fi/info/files/floodstand_d7.2b_final... · 2012. 2. 15. ·...

FLOODSTAND FP7-RTD- 218532

Integrated Flooding Control and Standard for Stability and Crises Management

FLOODSTAND-deliverable:

DEMONSTRATION OF THE FLOODING PREDICTION TOOL Authors Pekka Ruponen & Paavo Penttilä Organisations Napa Ltd Revision 1.1 Deliverable No. D7.2b Date 3 February 2012

FLOODSTAND Demonstration of the Flooding Prediction Tool 3.2.2012 FP7-RTD-218532

D3.3

Document identification sheet

FLOODSTAND Integrated Flooding Control and Standard for Stability and Crises Management

FP7-RTD- 218532

Title: Demonstration of the Flooding Prediction Tool

Other report identifications:

Investigating partners: NAPA Authors: Pekka Ruponen & Paavo Penttilä Reviewed by: Petri Pennanen & Petteri Vilanen Outline Draft x Final

Version number: 1.1 Revision date: 3 February 2012 Next version due: Number of pages: 21+appendix

x A deliverable Part of a deliverable Cover document for a part of a

deliverable Deliverable cover document Other

Deliverable number: D7.2b Work Package: WP7 Deliverable due at month: 36

Accessibility: x Public Restricted Confidential (consortium only) Internal (accessibility defined for the

final version)

Available from: http://floodstand.aalto.fi Distributed to: Disclosees when restricted: Comments:

Abstract: Calculation method for prediction of progressive flooding on the basis of level sensor measurements is demonstrated with a sample cruise ship and two different damage scenarios. The user interface of the system is introduced and the available time and information for decision making in the tested scenarios are presented and discussed. Acknowledgements The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Frame-work Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 218532. The financial support is grate-fully appreciated. Disclaimer Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the FLOODSTAND Consortium is responsible for the use, which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission and other members of the FLOODSTAND Consortium. Copyright © 2012 FP7 FLOODSTAND project consortium Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged


D7.2b 1

CONTENTS

Page

CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 2 2 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 3

3 USER INTERFACE ......................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Main Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Flooding Prediction ................................................................................................................. 5

3.3 Analysis of the Prediction Results .......................................................................................... 6 4 CASE STUDY SHIP ........................................................................................................................ 7

4.1 Sample Ship Design B ............................................................................................................ 7 4.2 3D Ship Model ........................................................................................................................ 7

4.3 Calculation Method ................................................................................................................. 8 5 CASUALTY SCENARIO B1 .......................................................................................................... 9

5.1 Scenario .................................................................................................................................. 9

5.2 Modelling .............................................................................................................................. 10

5.3 Results ................................................................................................................................... 11

5.4 Effect of Open Watertight Doors .......................................................................................... 12 6 CASUALTY SCENARIO B2 ........................................................................................................ 14

6.1 Scenario ................................................................................................................................ 14

6.2 Modelling .............................................................................................................................. 15

6.3 Results ................................................................................................................................... 16

7 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 19

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 20 9 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 21

APPENDIX A: General Arrangement and Room Names ...................................................................... 22 APPENDIX B: Loading Conditions for Damage Scenarios ................................................................... 24


D7.2b 2

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The demonstration and tests of the flooding prediction tool for decision support, developed in Task 3.1, are presented in this additional deliverable. The new method for prediction of progressive flooding onboard a damaged ship (presented in Deliverable D3.1) is tested and demonstrated with realistic casualty scenarios. Two grounding cases (as developed in Task 7.1) are studied. First the user interface and functionalities of the progressive flooding prediction tool are described. The developed tool can also be used for training and educational purposes as various scenarios can be calculated offline. Results for the two damage scenarios are presented. The cruise ship design, developed by Meyer Werft in Task 1.1, is briefly presented, with the main emphasis on the 3D model of the ship, i.e. modeled rooms and openings. The available time and information for decision making are presented and discussed. The applicability and performance of the flooding prediction as a part of the decision support system are discussed. The developed flooding prediction tool is able to produce results in relatively fast time, which is a necessity for decision support. Critical information, such as a very large heeling angle, is reported immediately even if the prediction calculation is still continuing. Moreover, the developed tool can be used for training purposes. E.g. the effect of open watertight doors can be easily studied and demonstrated in a very visual way.


D7.2b 3

2 BACKGROUND A new innovative approach for fast and yet reliable prediction of progressive flooding onboard a damaged ship has been developed in Task 3.1, and reported in deliverable D3.1, Ruponen et al. (2011). Originally in the Description of Work (DoW) for the FLOODSTAND project, it was planned that the testing and analysis of the new tool is done within the same task. However, it was later decided by the Steering Committee of the project that the demonstration should be done within Task 7.2 of the Work Package 7. Thus the demonstration part of Task 3.1 is now presented in this additional deliverable D7.2b. The user interface and functionalities of the developed decision support system and flooding prediction tool are presented in detail. The developed flooding prediction tool is tested for selected crises scenarios that were developed in Task 7.1. It should be noted that the demonstration concentrates only on grounding damages, but the developed tool can also be used for analysis of progressive flooding after any damage (including collisions). The demonstration of the developed flooding prediction tool is done based on an offline situation. This corresponds to a training mode, where the damage size and extent are assumed to be known. The flooding detection on the basis of level sensors has been discussed in detail in Deliverable D3.3, Penttilä (2012). The method for assessing the damage extent on the basis of sensor data has been presented in Deliverable D3.1, Ruponen et al. (2011). The performance as well as the comprehensiveness of the new decision support system are analyzed and discussed in the conclusions.


D7.2b 4

3 USER INTERFACE

3.1 Main Characteristics The developed calculation method for prediction of progressive flooding has been implemented in the NAPA Loading Computer, Figure 1. The status of the doors (open/closed) comes automatically from the online system. Similarly the flooding rates come automatically from the level sensors as soon as flooding is detected. For training purposes the “offline” mode can be used. This feature is utilized also in this demonstration report. In this mode various casualty scenarios can be simulated by defining either explicit breaches (size and location) or “measured” flooding rates to the damaged compartments. Doors can also be opened or closed. Thus for example the effect of an open watertight door can be studied rather easily. Status of the doors is indicated by color coding: green means closed and red means open. In offline mode the status of any door can be easily changed in a dialog (Figure 2) that is opened by clicking the door. Other connections, such as corridors, cross-flooding ducts and down-flooding hatches are also displayed. Also the loads in the tanks are shown.

Figure 1: User interface for flooding prediction ta sk, implemented in the NAPA Loading Computer; the liquid loads and status of the doors is displayed

Figure 2: Dialog for changing the status of a door


D7.2b 5

3.2 Flooding Prediction NAPA Loading computer is connected to ship’s automation systems by communication program called NAPA Online. Napa Online is reading values from the automation system approximately every 10 seconds and calculates the possible flooding rates with some filtering. If the flooding rate in some space exceeds a threshold value of 50m3/h, the space is considered to be breached. When a breach is detected, the user is prompted to close all watertight doors1 and to proceed to calculate a one hour prediction of the flooding. If symmetrical rooms, extending from side to side, are damaged the algorithm requires some additional information from the user, and the query of the damaged side is displayed, Figure 3. It is expected that the user is able to define this, especially in case of a collision. Moreover, direct user input is considered to be more reliable than a pure guess. For grounding cases the answer may not be known. However, in such a case the side is not likely to have a major influence on the progress of the flooding. The calculation of progressive flooding in time domain is done with the new method, described in Deliverable D3.1. The applied time step is 30 s but it is automatically shortened when needed. During the calculation process, some important events are immediately displayed in the window. These events have two levels, highlighted with yellow and red. Typically the tracked quantities include heeling angle and trim. Yellow code is used when the lower limit (e.g. heeling larger than 5 degrees) is exceed and red code is used when the higher criterion (10 degrees for heeling) is exceeded. The ship is considered to capsize when the (static) heeling angle exceeds 20 degrees. The limits can be defined separately for each ship, taking into account the size of the ship (e.g. for limits of trim and draft). Example of the prediction results is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3: Query on the side of the damage

Figure 4: User interface showing the results of flo oding prediction

1 Or make sure that all WT doors are closed

Warning messages are displayed

during computation

Time history of heeling

Filling degree is presented,

not the actual water surface


D7.2b 6

3.3 Analysis of the Prediction Results After the calculation any moment (time step) can be analysed in detail. This can be very useful, especially for training purposes. 3D views of the floodwater in selected compartments, as well as the openings, can be easily presented. An example of this is presented in Figure 5. The projection can also be changed and rotated with the mouse. It is also possible to move back and forth in time during the flooding process and see the distribution of floodwater at any time step. Moreover, the progress of floodwater can be visualized as an animation in the selected setup drawings (typically profile, some deck layouts and cross-section at a selected frame).

Figure 5: Example of 3D view of floodwater, also th e damage and internal openings are shown


D7.2b 7

4 CASE STUDY SHIP

4.1 Sample Ship Design B The studied ship is the sample ship design B, developed in the Task 1.1 of the FLOODSTAND project by Meyer Werft, Luhmann (2009). The profile of the ship is shown in Figure 6 and the main dimensions are listed in Table 1.

Figure 6: Profile of the studied passenger ship, Luhmann (2009)

Table 1: Case study ship data

Gross tonnage 63 000 Length over all 238 m Beam (moulded) 32.2 m Draft (design) 7.2 m

4.2 3D Ship Model A 3D NAPA model of the ship, created in Task 1.1, was kindly supplied by Meyer Werft. This 3D model was further enhanced for use in the decision support software. These enhancements included:

- slight modification of the rooms: o “virtual bulkheads”2 at the centerline in the cabin areas on Deck 2 o More detailed modelling of staircases

- double bottom voids were modelled as two rooms, connected by a cross-flooding opening - modelling of openings, such as doors and down-flooding hatches

The general arrangement plans are shown in Appendix A. Due to the limited resources the openings were modelled only in the compartments that were potentially flooded in the studied damage scenarios. As an example, the modelled openings on Deck 3 are shown in Figure 7. This also illustrates the “virtual bulkhead” and openings at the centerline in the cabin areas. The door parameters for leaking and collapsing were taken from the FLOODSTAND Deliverable D2.2b, Ruponen and Routi (2011). The values are based on the full-scale tests and FEM analyses that were carried out in Tasks 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. All watertight doors are assumed to be fully watertight.

2 See FLOODSTAND Deliverable D3.3 (chapter 5.4.1)


D7.2b 8

Figure 7: Modelled internal openings on the forward part of Deck 3 (closed doors are marked with green and open corridors/hatches with d ark grey)

4.3 Calculation Method The calculation method that was developed in Task 3.1, Ruponen et al. (2011) is used. The applied time step is 30 s, but it is shortened automatically during the calculation, if needed. Breaches are modelled manually to the damaged compartments on the basis of the predefined damage scenarios from Task 7.1. This procedure corresponds to a training use of the flooding prediction tool. The breaches are based on area as the flood level sensors were not modelled. The damage scenarios include also definition of the time of the accident. However, all calculations were done during normal office hours without manipulation of the computer’s time settings. Thus the clock times in the screen captures do not match the scenario descriptions.


D7.2b 9

5 CASUALTY SCENARIO B1

5.1 Scenario In the first scenario two watertight compartments are assumed to be damaged from a bottom opening, symmetrical to CL. The flooding is assumed to be limited within the two zones as shown in Figure 8. Flooding through openings is considered possible and thus the two forward compartments are potentially flooded3; however, they remain intact at the time of damage incident.

Figure 8: Casualty scenario B1, Spanos and Papanikolaou (2010)

3 The scenario has been slightly revised from the original one due to a small mistake in the description in Deliverable D7.1


D7.2b 10

Table 2: Details for scenario B1, Spanos and Papanikolaou (2010)

CASUALTY SCENARIO B1 Grounding of Cruise vessel Location 61°20'10"N, 6°39'30"W Time (day/night) 9:00 (local time) / day Season Winter Distance of nearest ship 150 sm Ship loading condition Passengers and crew 2400 Displacement 35400 tn GM 2.5 m Damage opening Location +35.8 FWD from midship

0.0 m from CL Length 11.0 m Penetration 1.5 m Breadth 4.0 m from BL

5.2 Modelling The details of the loading condition are given in Appendix B. The initial floating position before the damage is listed below: F L O A T I N G P O S I T I O N -------------------------------- Draught moulded 7.028 m KM 17.97 m Trim 0.256 m KG 15.31 m Heel, PS=+ 0.0 deg TA 7.157 m GM0 2.67 m TF 6.900 m GMCORR -0.17 m Trimming moment -21336 tonm GM 2.50 m The original damage scenario defines the breach location to be at centreline. However, this would result only in the flooding of the double bottom compartments. In order to achieve flooding on the upper decks as well, the damage side is defined to be starboard. The modelled breach locations, as well as the loading condition and the status of the doors is shown in Figure 9. All watertight doors below the bulkhead deck are assumed to be closed. The A-class fire doors to the staircases are also considered to be closed. However, the doors on the bulkhead deck are open. Also the watertight doors on both sides of the bulkhead deck are open.


D7.2b 11

Figure 9: Breaches (marked with red “X”) and loads in the damage scenario B1

5.3 Results A 3 hour flooding prediction was calculated. During this time the ship reaches a rather steady equilibrium in calm water. The result of the flooding prediction is shown in Figure 10. Small leakage through the fire doors may still take place but the situation seems to be rather safe since there is no risk of progressive flooding to other compartments if the closed watertight doors are really fully watertight. It should be noted that throughout the flooding process the heeling angle is very small (less than 0.5 deg). The ship clearly meets the SOLAS2009 damage stability requirements (Luhmann, 2009), and thus it is no surprise that a two-compartment damage does not result in the flooding of the bulkhead deck when all watertight doors are closed. Thus the flooding is limited to the damaged watertight compartments.


D7.2b 12

Figure 10: Result of flooding prediction for scenar io B1

5.4 Effect of Open Watertight Doors In order to demonstrate the effect of open watertight doors, a flooding prediction was performed from exactly the same initial condition but with the watertight doors at frames #224 and #249 on Deck 3 open. This is illustrated in Figure 11. The flooding prediction ends at capsize at 27 minutes after the damage creation. The results are shown in Figure 12. Due to the open watertight doors the two-compartment damage results in flooding of four compartments. Water also reaches the bulkhead deck. Due to the asymmetry of the arrangement the ship starts to heel towards the undamaged (port) side. Eventually the large free surfaces cause the capsizing, i.e. the critical heel angle of 20 degrees is exceeded. It should also be noted that the bow trim of the ship is very large. The distribution of floodwater on Deck 3 just before the ship capsizes is shown in Figure 13.

Figure 11: Open watertight doors (red) on two bulkh eads on Deck 3


D7.2b 13

Figure 12: Result of flooding prediction for scenar io B1 with open watertight doors

Figure 13: 3D view of the floodwater in the forward part of Deck 3 just before the ship capsizes


D7.2b 14

6 CASUALTY SCENARIO B2

6.1 Scenario In this scenario long slide grounding is assumed to happen with the starboard side of the bottom. As a result a long raking breach is created. The breach is deep enough to penetrate the double bottom as well. Total of five compartments get damaged and up-flooding occurs simultaneously for all these compartments, leading to an asymmetrical flooding condition. The extent of the flooding is shown in Figure 14. The real accidents of SALLY ALBATROSS (1994), MONARCH OF THE SEAS (1998), SEA

DIAMOND (2007) and most recently COSTA CONCORDIA (2012), show that this kind of extensive bottom/side damages do happen in grounding. It may be obvious that the ship cannot survive such an extensive flooding, but the prediction of time-to-sink and the intermediate phases of flooding will provide valuable information for decision making.

Figure 14: Casualty scenario B2, Spanos and Papanikolaou (2010)


D7.2b 15

Table 3: Details for scenario B2, Spanos and Papanikolaou (2010)

CASUALTY SCENARIO B2 Extensive grounding of Cruise vessel Location 30° 9' 00" N, 15° 51'10" W Time (day/night) 17:00 (local time) / early dusk Season Summer Distance of nearest ship 10 sm Ship loading condition Passengers and crew 1600 Displacement 34000 tn GM 2.1 m Damage opening Location +7.0 m FWD from midship

+9.6 m STRB from CL Length 40.0 m Penetration 0.6 m Breadth 0.6 m from BL

6.2 Modelling The details of the loading condition are given in Appendix B. The initial floating position before the damage is listed below: F L O A T I N G P O S I T I O N -------------------------------- Draught moulded 7.028 m KM 17.97 m Trim 0.257 m KG 15.71 m Heel, PS=+ 0.0 deg TA 7.157 m GM0 2.26 m TF 6.900 m GMCORR -0.17 m Trimming moment -21335 tonm GM 2.10 m Due to the symmetry of some damaged compartments the user is asked to define the side of the damage. Based on the damage scenario definition (Table 3), starboard (SB) side is selected. The breach location is illustrated in Figure 15, along with the loading condition and status of the doors. Also the tank T38 in the port side is considered to be damaged (as shown in the scenario definition in Figure 14), since in the ship model this ballast water tank is not connected to the tank T41 in the damaged side of the ship. All watertight doors below the bulkhead deck are assumed to be closed. The A-class fire doors to the staircases are also considered to be closed. However, the doors on the bulkhead deck are open. Also the watertight doors on both sides of the bulkhead deck are open.


D7.2b 16

Figure 15: Breaches (marked with red “X”) and loads in the damage scenario B2

6.3 Results Floodwater rises rapidly in the damaged compartments and the ship starts to heel towards the damaged (starboard) side due to asymmetry in the flooded rooms and large free surfaces. Warnings on the large heeling angle are displayed during the flooding prediction computations. The maximum heeling angle is about 14 degrees. After that the heeling decreases. However, as progressive flooding continues the ship starts to heel again but now towards the undamaged (port) side. The heel angle slowly increases until the ship eventually capsizes (in practice exceeds the critical heeling angle). Just before capsizing also the bulkhead deck is flooded. The final condition is presented in Figure 16. The reason for the change of heeling direction is the asymmetric arrangement of staircase (at frame #160), where the up-flooding to Deck 3 takes place. The situation is illustrated in Figure 17. The distribution of floodwater on Decks 2, 3 and 4, just before the ship capsizes is shown in Figure 18. The actual time-domain calculation for flooding prediction took about a minute and the time-to-capsize (or time to reach the critical heeling angle of 20 deg) is about 55 min. Warning about extensive heeling angle (larger than 10 deg) was shown immediately. The studied damage case is very extensive as total of five watertight compartments are flooded. Large free surfaces cause the loss of stability and the ship capsizes. Even with a larger initial GM the bulkhead would have been flooded, causing progressive flooding to undamaged compartments.


D7.2b 17

Figure 16: Result of flooding prediction for scenar io B2

Figure 17: Ship initially heels towards the damaged (SB) side (upper figure), but due to asymmetric staircase the flooding to Deck 3 cases h eeling towards PS (lower figure);

the time between the presented conditions is 10 min

Up-flooding through a staircase


D7.2b 18

Figure 18: 3D visualization of floodwater just befo re the ship capsizes


D7.2b 19

7 CONCLUSIONS The developed platform for flooding prediction tool has been presented and demonstrated with two different grounding damage scenarios. Previously the flooding prediction method has been tested against full-scale experiments and detailed time-domain simulations, as presented in Deliverable D3.1 (Ruponen et al., 2011). Based on those tests it was concluded that the method is capable of assessing the intermediate phases of the flooding process with relatively good accuracy. It also provides a reasonable estimation of the time-to-flood. Moreover, on the basis of the test cases in Task 3.1 (see Deliverable D3.1) the results seem to be a little conservative. When the flooding prediction tool is combined with the loading computer the actual condition before the flooding is used and the flooding rates can be calculated from the result of flood level sensor measurements. Furthermore, the status of the doors (open or closed) can also be obtained from the online system. These factors provide a solid basis for reliable predictions to support the decision making in a crisis situation. The fact that the user interface of the decision support system is very similar to the loading computer that is used on a daily basis is considered to be a major advantage. Moreover, as concluded by Nilsson and Rutgersson (2006), the decision support tools should also be used frequently for training and education purposes. The presented flooding prediction tool can be easily used for studying the consequences of various damage scenarios, as well as the effect of some open doors. It is believed that it will provide the crew some valuable knowledge and awareness of the damage stability of their ship. The demonstration with a two-compartment damage scenario but open watertight doors at two bulkheads clearly showed how important it is to keep the watertight doors closed at sea. The progressive flooding through the open doors resulted in quite fast capsizing of the ship, while the actual damage scenario was survived with closed watertight doors. The developed flooding prediction tool enables visualization of the results and increases the awareness of the crew on the effects of open watertight doors. The performance of the flooding prediction is considered to be acceptable but there is still need for some improvement. For the investigated damage scenarios predictions until capsize or steady equilibrium was computed in about one minute. With the graphical user interface the total computation times are significantly slower than in the initial studies that were reported in deliverable D3.1 (Ruponen, et al., 2011). The reason for this is in the applied user interface, which is fully implemented into the loading computer and updating all the tables and graphics takes some time. The benefits are obvious but the drawback is the slower overall performance. However, during the development of the demonstration platform a lot of potential improvements for performance were observed and these will be implemented later.


D7.2b 20

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The development of the flooding prediction tool and implementation in the demonstration platform is a result of a long process, involving several software developers at Napa Group. Besides the authors, mainly Markku Larmela, Petri Pennanen, Petteri Vilanen, Claes-Johan Westen, Kimmo Laaksonen and Ville Nurmi have had a significant contribution, which is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also like to thank Mr. Henning Luhmann and Meyer Werft for providing the sample ship design and Dr. Dimitris Spanos and Prof. Apostolos Papanikolaou for the casualty scenarios.


D7.2b 21

9 REFERENCES Luhmann, H. (2009) Concept Ship Design B, FLOODSTAND Deliverable D1.1b Nilsson, R., Rutgersson, O. (2006) Damage Stability and Decision Support – How can we be better prepared and what questions do the teaching face?, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles STAB2006, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Penttilä, P. (2012) Design Guidelines for Placement and Technical Requirements of Flooding Sensors in Passenger Ships, FLOODSTAND Deliverable D3.3. Ruponen, P. Penttilä, P., Larmela, M. (2011) Estimation of Damage and Flooding Extent from the Flood Sensor Data, FLOODSTAND Deliverable D3.1. Ruponen, P., Routi, A.-L. (2011) Guidelines and Criteria on Leakage Occurrence Modelling, FLOODSTAND Deliverable D2.2b, v. 1.0.3. Spanos, D., Papanikolaou, A. (2010) Benchmark Data on Causality Mitigation Cases, FLOODSTAND Deliverable D7.1.


D7.2b 22

APPENDIX A: General Arrangement and Room Names

T1

R103.1

R103.2

R103.3

R103.4

R103.5

R103.6

R113.1

R113.2

R113.3

R113.4

R113.5

R123

R123.1

R123.2

R123.3

R123.4

R123.5

R13.1

R13.2

R13.3

R133

R133.1

R133.2

R143

R153

R153.1

R153.2

R163

R23.1

R23.2

R23.3

R23.4

R23.5

R23.6

R23.7

R23.8

R33.1

R33.2

R33.3

R33.4

R33.5

R33.6

R33.7

R43.1

R43.2

R43.3

R43.4

R43.5

R43.6

R43.7

R43.8

R43.9

R53.1

R53.10R53.11

R53.12

R53.2

R53.3

R53.4R53.5

R53.6

R53.7

R53.8

R53.9

R63

R63.1

R63.2

R63.3

R73.1

R73.2

R73.3

R73.4

R73.5

R73.6

R73.7

R83.1

R83.2

R83.3

R83.4

R83.5

R93.1

R93.2

R93.3

R93.4

R93.5

D4R1

D4R10

D4R11

D4R12

D4R13

D4R14D4R15

D4R16

D4R18

D4R19

D4R2

D4R20

D4R21

D4R22

D4R23

D4R24

D4R25

D4R27

D4R28

D4R29

D4R3

D4R30

D4R31

D4R32

D4R33

D4R34

D4R35

D4R36

D4R37

D4R4

D4R5

D4R6

D4R7

D4R8

D4R9

R163

R53.3

R53.8

R53.9

R63.1

R63.2

T0

T1

T47

T48

T50

T55

D12R8

T17

D4R1

D4R18

D4R2

D4R21

D4R22

D4R24

D4R25

D4R27

D4R28

D4R3

D4R30

D4R31

D4R35

D4R36

D4R4

D4R5

D4R6

D4R7

D4R8

D4R9

R101

R102

R103.1

R103.5

R110

R111

R112

R112.1

R113.4

R12

R121

R121.1

R122

R123

R123.2

R13.2

R130

R131

R132

R133

R140

R141

R142

R143

R151

R152

R153

R153.2

R163

R21

R22.1

R23.1

R23.2R23.6

R23.7

R30

R31

R32.3

R32.4

R32.6

R32.7

R33.1

R33.2

R33.6

R40

R41

R41.1

R42.2

R42.4

R43.1

R43.7

R50

R50.1

R51

R52.2

R53.12R53.2

R53.9

R60

R61P

R63.1

R71

R72

R72.1

R73.1

R80.1

R81

R82

R83.1

R83.5

R90

R91

R92

R93.1

R93.5

T4

T44

T54

T3

T27

D5R5

D5R7

D10R1

D10R2

D10R3

D10R4

D10R5

D11R4

D6R1

D6R2

D6R4

D6R5

D6R6

D7R1

D7R2

D7R3

D7R4

D7R5

D8R1

D8R2

D8R3

D8R4

D8R5

D9R1

D9R2

D9R3

D9R4

D9R5

D11R1

D11R2

D11R3

D11R5

D11R6

D11R7

D12R1

D12R2

D12R3

D12R5

D12R6

D12R7

D5R1

D5R2

D5R3

D5R4

D6R3

T56

T57

D6R7

T22T23

T25

T26

T32

T37

D5R6

T24

T33

R80.P

R100.P


D7.2b 23

T0

T1

T36

T38

T41

T42

T47

T48

T49

T50 T51

T55

T17

R100

R110

R130

R140

R30

R40

R50

R50.1

R60

R80

R80.1

R90

R92.1

T40

T43

T44

T45

T53

T54

T19

T20

T21

T27

T28

T31 T34 T35

T18

T22T23

T25

T26

T30

T32

T37

T24

T29

T33

R80.P

R100.P

T0

T1

R101

R111

R121

R121.1

R131

R131.1

R141

R151

R21

R31

R41

R41.1

R41.2

R51

R61P

R61S

R71

R81

R91

R92.1

T4

T5

T10

T11

T12

T3

T52

T7

T8

T9

T15

T16

T2

T6

T13

T14

T56

T57

T1

R102

R102.1

R102S

R112

R112.1

R112S

R12

R122

R122.1

R122S

R132

R132.1

R142

R152

R21

R22.1

R32.1

R32.2

R32.3

R32.4

R32.5

R32.6

R32.7

R42.1

R42.2

R42.3

R42.4

R42.5

R42.6

R51

R52.1

R52.2

R52.3

R61P

R61S

R71

R72

R72.1

R72.2

R72.3

R82

R82.1

R82S

R92

R92.1

R92S


D7.2b 24

APPENDIX B: Loading Conditions for Damage Scenarios

Scenario B1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME LOAD MASS FILL XM YM ZM FRSM t % m m m tm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS=BALLAST WATER (RHO=1.025) T55 BW 78.8 22.0 164.59 0.00 0.50 265.79 CONTENTS= (RHO=0) (CREW) CREW 7.0 0.0 122.20 0.00 24.81 0.00 CONTENTS=DIESEL OIL (RHO=0.86) T17 DO 60.6 80.0 42.14 0.00 0.82 51.24 CONTENTS=GAS OIL (RHO=0.86) T4 GO 38.2 22.0 29.85 2.63 2.58 85.16 T5 GO 38.2 22.0 29.85 -2.63 2.58 85.16 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL GO 76.5 29.85 0.00 2.58 170.31 CONTENTS=GREY WATER (RHO=1) T43 GW 115.6 32.0 149.70 5.50 1.24 370.91 T44 GW 108.8 32.0 150.35 0.00 0.66 248.72 T45 GW 133.7 37.0 149.73 -5.63 1.36 433.31 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL GW 358.0 149.91 -0.33 1.11 1052.94 CONTENTS=HEAVY FUEL OIL (RHO=0.96) T10 HFO 98.7 65.6 91.60 -3.10 3.37 33.56 T11 HFO 191.2 32.0 119.40 5.40 2.46 650.55 T12 HFO 191.2 32.0 119.40 -5.40 2.46 650.55 T3 HFO 35.9 22.0 21.45 1.92 3.08 76.55 T52 HFO 35.9 22.0 21.45 -1.92 3.08 76.55 T7 HFO 119.5 65.6 91.60 7.30 3.37 59.52 T8 HFO 98.7 65.6 91.60 3.10 3.37 33.56 T9 HFO 119.5 65.6 91.60 -7.30 3.37 59.52 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL HFO 890.7 97.88 0.00 2.96 1640.35 CONTENTS=HEELING WATER (RHO=1) T15 HW 51.3 32.0 135.03 13.51 3.73 25.01 T16 HW 51.3 32.0 135.03 -13.51 3.73 25.01 T2 HW 85.7 32.0 28.42 11.71 4.22 180.22 T6 HW 85.7 32.0 28.42 -11.71 4.22 180.22 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL HW 274.1 68.33 0.00 4.04 410.46 CONTENTS=LUBRICATING OIL (RHO=0.9) T19 LO 26.3 50.0 43.07 -3.53 0.80 32.93 T20 LO 14.1 50.0 57.25 8.10 1.00 26.39 T21 LO 5.6 50.0 57.95 3.75 1.00 2.60 T27 LO 3.6 50.0 63.20 0.00 0.40 4.80 T28 LO 4.8 50.0 57.95 -3.75 1.00 2.26 T31 LO 4.8 50.0 70.55 3.75 1.00 2.26 T34 LO 5.6 50.0 71.95 -3.75 1.00 2.60 T35 LO 15.6 50.0 73.35 -8.10 1.00 29.17 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL LO 80.2 57.90 -1.31 0.91 103.02


D7.2b 25

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME LOAD MASS FILL XM YM ZM FRSM t % m m m tm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS= (RHO=0) (OWNER) OWNER 900.0 0.0 110.00 0.00 19.00 0.00 CONTENTS= (RHO=0) (PASS) PASS 230.0 0.0 110.23 0.00 28.05 0.00 CONTENTS= (RHO=0) (PASSENGERS) PASSENGERS 25.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME LOAD MASS FILL XM YM ZM FRSM t % m m m tm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS= (RHO=0) (PROV) PROV 150.0 0.0 28.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 CONTENTS=POTABLE WATER (RHO=1) T13 PW 149.4 32.0 134.45 5.40 2.46 508.24 T14 PW 149.4 32.0 134.45 -5.40 2.46 508.24 T56 PW 87.4 32.0 178.39 0.00 3.09 355.07 T57 PW 45.3 32.0 185.14 0.00 3.52 146.20 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL PW 431.4 148.67 0.00 2.70 1517.76 CONTENTS=SPECIAL TANKS (RHO=1) T18 SPEC 29.2 50.0 43.07 3.53 0.80 36.59 T22 SPEC 4.0 50.0 51.30 0.00 0.40 5.33 T23 SPEC 5.9 50.0 53.05 0.00 0.40 8.00 T25 SPEC 11.9 50.0 58.30 0.00 0.40 16.00 T26 SPEC 4.0 50.0 61.10 0.00 0.40 5.33 T30 SPEC 17.3 50.0 73.35 8.10 1.00 32.41 T32 SPEC 4.4 50.0 66.70 0.00 0.40 7.32 T37 SPEC 16.9 50.0 94.05 0.00 0.50 51.16 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL SPEC 93.4 62.68 2.60 0.65 162.15 CONTENTS= (RHO=0) (STORE) STORE 250.0 0.0 96.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 CONTENTS=TECHNICAL WATER (RHO=1) T24 TW 7.1 60.0 55.15 0.00 0.48 8.00 T29 TW 18.8 60.0 57.25 -8.10 1.04 29.33 T33 TW 50.1 60.0 74.05 0.00 0.48 69.51 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL TW 75.9 68.13 -2.00 0.62 106.84 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 3981.5 103.12 -0.03 8.80 5480.88


D7.2b 26

Scenario B2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME LOAD MASS FILL XM YM ZM FRSM t % m m m tm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS=BALLAST WATER (RHO=1.025) T55 BW 78.8 22.0 164.59 0.00 0.50 265.79 CONTENTS= (RHO=0) (CREW) CREW 7.0 0.0 122.20 0.00 24.81 0.00 CONTENTS=DIESEL OIL (RHO=0.86) T17 DO 60.6 80.0 42.14 0.00 0.82 51.24 CONTENTS=GAS OIL (RHO=0.86) T4 GO 38.2 22.0 29.85 2.63 2.58 85.16 T5 GO 38.2 22.0 29.85 -2.63 2.58 85.16 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL GO 76.5 29.85 0.00 2.58 170.31 CONTENTS=GREY WATER (RHO=1) T43 GW 115.6 32.0 149.70 5.50 1.24 370.91 T44 GW 108.8 32.0 150.35 0.00 0.66 248.72 T45 GW 133.7 37.0 149.73 -5.63 1.36 433.31 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL GW 358.0 149.91 -0.33 1.11 1052.94 CONTENTS=HEAVY FUEL OIL (RHO=0.96) T10 HFO 98.7 65.6 91.60 -3.10 3.37 33.56 T11 HFO 191.2 32.0 119.40 5.40 2.46 650.55 T12 HFO 191.2 32.0 119.40 -5.40 2.46 650.55 T3 HFO 35.9 22.0 21.45 1.92 3.08 76.55 T52 HFO 35.9 22.0 21.45 -1.92 3.08 76.55 T7 HFO 119.5 65.6 91.60 7.30 3.37 59.52 T8 HFO 98.7 65.6 91.60 3.10 3.37 33.56 T9 HFO 119.5 65.6 91.60 -7.30 3.37 59.52 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL HFO 890.7 97.88 0.00 2.96 1640.35 CONTENTS=HEELING WATER (RHO=1) T15 HW 51.3 32.0 135.03 13.51 3.73 25.01 T16 HW 51.3 32.0 135.03 -13.51 3.73 25.01 T2 HW 85.7 32.0 28.42 11.71 4.22 180.22 T6 HW 85.7 32.0 28.42 -11.71 4.22 180.22 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL HW 274.1 68.33 0.00 4.04 410.46 CONTENTS=LUBRICATING OIL (RHO=0.9) T19 LO 26.3 50.0 43.07 -3.53 0.80 32.93 T20 LO 14.1 50.0 57.25 8.10 1.00 26.39 T21 LO 5.6 50.0 57.95 3.75 1.00 2.60 T27 LO 3.6 50.0 63.20 0.00 0.40 4.80 T28 LO 4.8 50.0 57.95 -3.75 1.00 2.26 T31 LO 4.8 50.0 70.55 3.75 1.00 2.26 T34 LO 5.6 50.0 71.95 -3.75 1.00 2.60 T35 LO 15.6 50.0 73.35 -8.10 1.00 29.17 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL LO 80.2 57.90 -1.31 0.91 103.02 CONTENTS= (RHO=0) (OWNER) OWNER 900.0 0.0 110.00 0.00 34.00 0.00


D7.2b 27

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME LOAD MASS FILL XM YM ZM FRSM t % m m m tm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS= (RHO=0) (PASS) PASS 230.0 0.0 110.23 0.00 28.05 0.00 CONTENTS= (RHO=0) (PASSENGERS) PASSENGERS 25.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CONTENTS= (RHO=0) (PROV) PROV 150.0 0.0 28.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 CONTENTS=POTABLE WATER (RHO=1) T13 PW 149.4 32.0 134.45 5.40 2.46 508.24 T14 PW 149.4 32.0 134.45 -5.40 2.46 508.24 T56 PW 87.4 32.0 178.39 0.00 3.09 355.07 T57 PW 45.3 32.0 185.14 0.00 3.52 146.20 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL PW 431.4 148.67 0.00 2.70 1517.76 CONTENTS=SPECIAL TANKS (RHO=1) T18 SPEC 29.2 50.0 43.07 3.53 0.80 36.59 T22 SPEC 4.0 50.0 51.30 0.00 0.40 5.33 T23 SPEC 5.9 50.0 53.05 0.00 0.40 8.00 T25 SPEC 11.9 50.0 58.30 0.00 0.40 16.00 T26 SPEC 4.0 50.0 61.10 0.00 0.40 5.33 T30 SPEC 17.3 50.0 73.35 8.10 1.00 32.41 T32 SPEC 4.4 50.0 66.70 0.00 0.40 7.32 T37 SPEC 16.9 50.0 94.05 0.00 0.50 51.16 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL SPEC 93.4 62.68 2.60 0.65 162.15 CONTENTS= (RHO=0) (STORE) STORE 250.0 0.0 96.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 CONTENTS=TECHNICAL WATER (RHO=1) T24 TW 7.1 60.0 55.15 0.00 0.48 8.00 T29 TW 18.8 60.0 57.25 -8.10 1.04 29.33 T33 TW 50.1 60.0 74.05 0.00 0.48 69.51 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBTOTAL TW 75.9 68.13 -2.00 0.62 106.84 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 3981.5 103.12 -0.03 12.19 5480.88

floodstand d7.2b revfloodstand.aalto.fi/info/files/floodstand_d7.2b_final... · 2012. 2. 15. ·...

Documents