presentation of the projectfloodstand.aalto.fi/info/examples/floodstand... · risk analysis of...

FLOODSTAND - Overview Risto Jalonen / 18.1.2012

EU project FLOODSTAND –Overview

INTEGRATED FLOODING CONTROL AND STANDARD FOR STABILITY AND CRISES MANAGEMENT

Coordinator: Risto Jalonen Aalto University, School of EngineeringDepartment of Applied MechanicsMarine Technology group / Marine Technology Research Unit

“FLOODSTAND project overview – a lunchtimepresentation in connection to SLF54 ”International Maritime Organization4, Albert EmbankmentLondon SE1 7SR, United Kingdom

January 18th, 2012

Aalto University / School of EngineeringDepartment of Applied Mechanics / Marine TechnologyRisto Jalonen

January 2012

FLOODSTAND – Overview

Contents• Introduction

- The coordinator (Aalto University)- The project FLOODSTAND

• Main objectives- Main objectives of the project

• Results of the project- Project results achieved so far in the project, but

concentrating mainly in the work in WP2: Flooding progression modeling

• Final workshop & Contact data- Information of the final public workshop/seminar- Contact data


Introduction of the project coordinator (1)


aJanuary 2012

Aalto University was created in the merge of three older universities in Finland:

Helsinki University of TechnologyUniversity of Art and Design Helsinki Aalto UniversityHelsinki School of Economics

Aalto University started 1 January 2010

Aalto University statistics for 2010:* Students: 19 516* Professors: 338

Aalto University Aalto University



Page 3bJanuary 2012

Introduction ofthe projectcoordinator

Mr Risto Jalonen, Lic.Sc. (Naval Architecture), is the Coordinator of EU-project FLOODSTAND.

His experience includes 10 years of R&D and ship design duties (incl. cruise ships) in marine industry and over 20 yearsof research and education in Marine Technology/Ship Laboratory in Aalto University (ex. Helsinki University of Technology) carrying out the duties of project manager, senior/research scientist and laboratory manager.

Aalto University Aalto University

School of EngineeringSchool of Engineering

Department of Applied MechanicsDepartment of Applied Mechanics

Marine TechnologyMarine Technology


Introduction of the project coordinator (3)


Page 3cJanuary 2012

Marine TechnologyMarine Technology

• Marine Traffic Safety Prof. P. Kujala; Head of the group• Ship Hydrodynamics Prof. J. Matusiak• Naval Architecture Acting Prof. J. Romanoff• Ship Machinery (Ship Systems Eng.) Prof. N.N.• Senior staff: 6• Full time doctoral students: 14• Support staff: 10• In total: ~ 40 persons

Main facilities: a 130 m long towing tank and a 40m x 40m manoeuvring & seakeeping tank,suitable for model tests in ice

Ship Stability Ship Dynamics

Hydroelasticity CFD

Propulsion

Marine HydrodynamicsProf. Jerzy Matusiak

Naval Architecture and Ship StructuresProf. Petri Varsta (acting professor Jani Romanoff)

Structural Safety inAccidents

Fatigue Strength ofMarine Structures

Design of Advanced Ship Structures

Risk analysis of marine traffic in open water and in iceStructural risks in iceCollisions Groundings

Pareto2(9009.10; 1.90) Shift=+3.04 X > 344855.0%

0,0E+00

5,0E-05

1,0E-04

1,5E-04

2,0E-04

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000Spill size [t]

Pro

babi

lity

Accident’s consequencesSpecific operations Collision energy

Safety of Marine Transport and Winter NavigationProf. Pentti Kujala


FLOODSTAND Introduction (1)

Why was research project FLOODSTAND initiated?

• It was established to get the missing data for the validation oftime-domain numerical tools forthe assessment of passenger ship* survivabilityas a reply to the recognized need reported in SLF47/INF.6**

and (see next slide) ...

* The focus in project FLOODSTAND (218532), merged from two EU-project proposals (Floodcontrol and Istand), is in passenger cruise ships and ropax-vessels

** See SLF47/INF.6 Survivability investigation of large passenger ships


Page 4January 2012


FLOODSTAND Introduction (2)Why was research project FLOODSTAND initiated?

... and

• to develop a standard for decision* on abandonment during flooding crises situation- reflecting the stochastic nature of damaged ship stability in waves

- based on first-principles modeling

- reflecting foundering as a process (loss of flotation/stability)

- considering risk-based decision making

The project FLOODSTAND (218532) is a merge of two EU-project proposals (Floodcontrol and Istand)

• or, a standard approach focusing the original objective: "to develop a standard for a comprehensive measure of damaged ship stability addressing the flooding risk". Each incident has its individual features. Thus, there may beseveral limitations to such a standardized approach. However, the key issue is: How to improve the availability and reliability of the information that the most reasonable decisions require.

The idea behind such a standard can be characterized as an aim to support the master's decision-making with sufficient information. The information should be reliable and reasonably obtainable. However, when making adecision, all relevant aspects should be considered. The Administrations, IMO and its Sub-Committees must consider these matters with the support from the scientific community.


Page 5January 2012


FLOODSTAND Introduction (3)

Thus, research project FLOODSTAND was created with the focus on passenger cruise ships and ropax-vessels as follows


Page 6January 2012

Courtesy of Pekka Ruponen


FLOODSTANDIntroduction(4)

Research topicswithin the project


Page 7aJanuary 2012

uncertainty

uncertainty

uncertainty

WP4Stochastic ship

response modelling

WP6Conditional

risk

WP5Rescue

modelling

WP7Demonstration

WP2Flooding

progressionmodelling

WP3Flooding simulationand measurement

on board

WP1Task 1.2

Effect on ship design

WP1Task 1.1

Basic design

uncertainty

uncertainty

uncertainty

WP4Stochastic ship

response modelling

WP6Conditional

risk

WP5Rescue

modelling

WP7Demonstration

WP2Flooding



on board

WP1Task 1.2


WP1Task 1.1

Basic design


Introduction(5)

Research topicswithin

the project

WP-leaders:WP1: STX FinlandWP2: AALTOWP3: NAPAWP4 & WP6: SSRCWP5: BVWP7: NTUA

uncertainty

uncertainty

uncertainty

WP4Stochastic ship

response modelling

WP6Conditional

risk

WP5Rescue

modelling

WP7Demonstration

WP2Flooding



on board

WP1Task 1.2


WP1Task 1.1

Basic design


Page 7bJanuary 2012


Introduction (6): FLOODSTANDFLOODSTAND, a 3-year collaborative research project

- focused on: Safety and security by design and

Crisis management and rescue operations

- FLOODSTAND was started in March 2009 and it will end in February 2012

- it has a planned project staff effort of almost 400 person months

- it has a total budget of over 4 M€ with nearly 70% EC contribution


Page 8

6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months

2012/1

January 2012


FLOODSTAND Consortium: Who we are? • FLOODSTAND Consortium consists of 17 beneficiaries

located in 10 European countries:classification societies, maritime administration, research organisations, shipyards, SMEs, universities etc.

Aalto University (coordinator),

STX Finland, CNRS, CTO, DNV, BMT Limited,

MARIN, MEC, Meyer Werft GmbH, Napa Ltd,

SSPA, SF-Control*, National Technical University

of Athens, Bureau Veritas, S@S, MCA

and University of Strathclyde (SSRC)

* merged to Rosemount Tank Radar AB since 2011/01


Page 9January 2012


FLOODSTAND: Who are our advisors? • FLOODSTAND Advisory Committee consists of 8 members*:

- STA (chairman),TraFi (member), USCG (member),IMO (member),GL (member),CAR (member),RCCL (member)NMRI (member)

=> maritime administrations, classification societie(s), ship operators, research institute

* DNV was a member of AC during the first half of the project but acts now as a beneficiary


Page 10

January 2012


FLOODSTAND Objectives (1)

The main objectives of FP7 project FLOODSTAND (218532):

1. Modelling of leaking and collapsing of non-watertight structures

2. Finding out pressure losses (discharge coefficients) in typical openings

3. Simplified modelling of complex compartments

4. Flooding detection and damage estimation


Page 11a

Passenger Cruise Ships & Ropaxes

January 2012


FLOODSTAND Objectives (2) and

5. Stochastic ship response modelling

6. Rescue process modelling

7. Standard for decision making in crises

8. Demonstration


Page 11b

Passenger Cruise Ships & Ropaxes

January 2012


Research topic: WP1 Design and Application

Development of basic design of passenger shipsResponsible partners: STX Finland Oy, MW => Work completed with

D1.1a & D1.1b

Analysis of the real flooding effects on designResponsible: STX Finland Oy and MW, DNV, AALTO => Work completed

Above: LargePost-Panama sized cruise ship: 125000 GT, L = 327 m, B = 37.4 m, T = 8.8 m, and

Below: Handy-sizei.e. medium sized cruise vessel: 63000 GT, L = 238 m, B = 32.20 m, T = 7.4 m


Page 12aJanuary 2012


Research topic: WP1 Design and Application

Analysis of the real flooding effects on designResponsible: STX Finland Oy and Meyer Weft GmbH, DNV, AALTO => D1.2 available

A number of design alternatives were investigated:

• Investigation of cross-flooding ducts

• Flooding through fire doors for assessment of intermediate stages

• Fire doors on tank top cause instantaneous flooding

• Fire doors are assumed to withstand pressure head on bulkhead deck

• Cold rooms are assumed to withstand flooding

• Design modification to achieve a minimum vulnerability

For details, see D1.2


Page 12bJanuary 2012


Research topic: WP1 Design and Application Analysis of the real flooding effects on designResponsible: STX Finland Oy and Meyer Weft GmbH, DNV, AALTO => D1.2 availableSUMMARY:

Main focus was on the application of the results of the full scale flooding tests & simulations in WP2, but the design targets presented in WP6 have also been considered.

It can be shown, that the results found in these work packages do not have a significant influence on the global design of cruise ships, as many of the assumptions defined in the explanatory notes of SOLAS could be confirmed in this project

However,• The results obtained in project FLOODSTAND give more precise input data and

thus, more reliable basis for time domain flooding simulations used for stability studies and assessments.

• Significant details in the design of the watertight subdivision of cruise ships can now be improved to enhance safety and to consider the physical behavior of the ship.

• A number of items have been identified, which need to be addressed to the Regulatory Bodies to improve the SOLAS convention and its explanatory notes

For more details, see D1.2


Page 12cJanuary 2012


Research topic: WP2 Flooding progression modelling

Experiments with leaking and collapsing structures => Work completedResponsible: CTO S.A.; Other participants: STX Finland, MEC, MW, AALTO

- Semi-watertight doors, fire doors (sliding and hinged), cabin walls etc.

- Measured: water pressure and flow rate through the leakages duringthe structural deformation and collapse

Photographs of doors with the frames

sent from the shipyard to the

testing facility at CTO in Gdansk,

Poland, where these tests with

stepwise increased water pressure

head were carried out in 2010




Research topic: WP2 Flooding progression modellingDifferent door types

in category A,see D2.2b:


Page 13a.2January 2012





Figure 1: Distributions of pressure and assumed flow velocity for assessment of leakage area ratio

A photograph of experiments in full scale in 2010 at CTO in Gdansk, Poland




Page 13c


January 2012




Page 13d

Photographs of experiments in full scale in 2010 at CTO in Gdansk, Poland

January 2012



For more photogaphs,details & results, seeD2.1b (D2.1a) and

SLF53/Inf.2and

SLF54/Inf.8 Rev.


Page 13e


January 2012


Numerical modeling and criteria for leaking and collapsing structures => Work completed (see D2.2a & D2.2b)

Responsible: MEC; Other Participants: CTO, NAPA, STX

- Focus on failure mechanisms for doors and structural components

- Numerical simulations; explicit FEM code

- Specific data obtained also on

-- the leakage pressure, i.e. when the structure

looses watertight integrity and-- the collapse pressure gets it to collapse.

- Computations will be validated with experiments

=> criteria for leakage and collapse of doors etc.


Page 14a


January 2012


Result from WP2 / Task 2.2:

Based on this workrough guidelines for modelling leakage and collapse of various A- and B-class doors etc. for flooding simulations could be given => D2.2b

These guidelines have been provided for IMO's use:

SLF54/INF.8/Rev. Modelling of leaking andcollapsing of closed non-watertight doors.28 October 2011. Submitted by Finland.

=>


Page 14b


January 2012

Table 1: Rough guidelines for modelling doors and boundaries for flooding simulation, the values marked with an asterix (*) are estimations that are not based on experimental or FEM

results (Ruponen and Routi, 2011)

Type direction Hleak (m) Aratio Hcoll (m) Notes

Light watertight

door

into – – 8.0* minimal leaking at lower pressures, full collapse likely for H > 8 m; note that only direction “out” was tested

out – – 8.0

A-class sliding

into 0.0 0.025 1.0 almost constant leakage area ratio out 0.0 0.025 1.0

A-class hinged

into 0.0 0.02 Heff 2.5 Aratio depends on the gap size out 0.0 0.03 Heff 2.5 Aratio depends on the gap size

A-class double

leaf

into 0.0* 0.025* 2.0* Not tested! Assumed to be independent on direction

out 0.0 0.025 2.0 Collapsing could not be tested due to high leaking, value based on FEM

Cold room

sliding door

into 0.0 0.01 Heff 3.5 Only one direction tested; collapsing pressure height assessed with numerical methods out 0.0*

0.01 Heff*

3.5*

B-class joiner door

into 0.0 0.03 Heff 1.5 panels around the door will fail first, Aratio expression is very approximate

out 0.0 0.03 1.5 door is distorted, Aratio increases slowly

Windows – – – > 18 can be excluded in simulations


Experimental studies on pressure losses => Work completed (see D2.3)Responsible: AALTO; Others: STX Finland, Meyer Werft GmbH

- Hydraulic experiments on specific configurationsencountered in floodings

- Manholes (1:1, 1:2 & 1:3) and cross-flooding arrangements: cross-ducts (1:3)

- Results: Discharge coefficients etc.

=> First results submitted to IMO in SLF53/Inf.2 & SLF 53/INF.2/Corr.1

Photographs of model construction and tests carried out at AALTO


Page 15


January 2012


Computational studies & RANSE CFD => Work completed (see D2.4a)

Responsible: CNRS; Other Participants: CTO, STX Finland

- Objective:to determine the ability of CFD RANSEsolvers to improve the numerical prediction of the pressureloss for a typical opening in different flooding conditions

Computational flooding through openings visualised by CNRS


Page 16a


January 2012


An exampleof results: Flow in a cross-duct

Sub-Task 2.4.1Responsible: CNRSStatus: Completed

For more details,see D2.4a


Page 16b


January 2012



Page 17b


January 2012

Results:

.



Page 16c


January 2012

An example of results: Flow in a cross-ductSub-Task 2.4.1Responsible: CNRS (& CTO) Status: Completed

For more details,see D2.4a



Page 17a


January 2012

Results: The method of successive openings (with Cd = 0.6 for each manhole) results in slightly smallereffective discharge coefficient for the whole duct than the model tests or CFD results.

So it can be deduced that the method of successive openings is slightly conservative.

The regression equation (that is currently recommended in the Resolution) gives notably higher (about +30%) values for the discharge coefficient.

Thus the use of the regression equations may cause a significant under-estimation of the cross-flooding time.

=> A related document has been now submitted to IMO: SLF54/4

.

Table 1: Comparison of discharge coefficients

Cross-duct design: Model test or CFD

Successive openings

Regression equation

FLOODSTAND: Lduct = 6 m 0.442 0.397 0.582 FLOODSTAND: Lduct = 12 m 0.342 0.318 0.451 FLOODSTAND: Lduct = 18 m 0.287 0.273 0.382 Case Study 2 (CFD) 0.308 0.296 0.37 .. 0.39


An example of results: Pressure losses in air pipes and

openings

Sub-Task 2.4.2Responsible: CTOStatus: Completed

For more details,see D2.4b


Page 16d


January 2012


Model tests for complex compartments in MARIN’s vacuum tank=> Completed, see D2.5bResponsible: MARIN; Other: STX, MW, NAPA

- Objectives:to collect validation material for simulation toolsto show the effect of air pressure on the flooding processto show the effect of ‘level of detail’

Sensitivity of the simulation modelResponsible: AALTO & NAPA=> Deliverable D2.6 completed- Objectives:

to conduct simulations with a typical layout of ship to vary input parameters of the simulations systematicallyto prepare guidelines for the preferred accuracy of the input data with simple error estimations

Flooding model test starting at MARIN


Page 18a


January 2012


An exampleof results of Task 2.6:

Sensitivity analysis

Task 2.6Responsible: AALTO & NAPAStatus: Completed

For more details, see D2.6


Page 18b


January 2012


WP3 Flooding Simulation and MeasurementOnboard

An example of flooding status in compartments described by Napa Ltd


Page 19January 2012

- Development of flood sensors data interpreterResponsible: NAPA; Other participants: STX Finland, RTR Status: Completed => D3.1

- Impact of ship dynamicsResponsible: AALTO, Other participants: NAPAStatus: Completed => D3.2

- Design of flood sensor systemsResponsible: NAPA, Other participants: STX Finland, DNV, RTR Status: Completed => D3.3


Research topic: WP1-WP2 and WP3

For additional information related to WP1 - WP2 - WP3,

see the following reports (deliverables) of the project:

- D1.1a, D1.1b and D1.2- D2.1a, D2.1b, D2.2a, D2.2b, D2.3, D2.4a, D2.4b, D2.5b, D2.6- D3.1, D3.2 and D3.3

These documents, covering WP1-WP3 are now completed


Page 20January 2012


Research topic: WP4 Stochastic shipcapsize modelling (WP4)

- Objectives:Requirements and uncertainty bounds on methods for predictingthe time it takes a ship to capsize or sink after damage

- Benchmark data on time to capsize, ttc (model tests)Responsible: SSPA, Participants: SSRC Completed (D4.1)

- Test/develop analytical time to capsize modelResponsible: SSRC, Participants: SaS, NTUA Completed soon

- Test/develop numerical time to capsize modelResponsible: NTUA, Participants: SSRC, SSPA, SaS Completed (D4.3)

- Test/develop hybrid time to capsize modelResponsible: SSRC, Participants: SaS, NTUA Completed soon

- Establish uncertainty bound on ttc modelsResponsible: SSRC, Participants: BMT, SaS, NTUA, MCA Completed soon

Capsize tests in model scale at SSPA




Research topic: WP4 Stochastic shipcapsize modelling



An exampleof results of WP4:

Establishing uncertainty bounds on ttc models

Task 4.5Responsible: SSRC, BMT, SaS, NTUA, MCA Status: D4.5 expected to be completed soon


Research topic: WP5 Rescue process modellingObjectives:

Test /develop M-A-R-models (Mustering-Abandonment-Rescue) - requirements & uncertainty bounds - required detail of representation etc.

- Benchmark data on mustering / abandonment / rescueResponsible: BV, Participants: SSRC, BMT Status: Completed => D5.1

- Test/develop mustering model (M)Responsible: BMT, Participants: SSRC, SaS, BV Status: Completed => D5.2

- Test/develop abandonment model (A)Responsible: BV, Participants: SSRC, BMT, SaS Status: Completed => D5.3

- Test/develop rescue model (R)Responsible: BV, Participants: SSRC, BMT, SaS Status: Completed => D5.4

- Establish uncertainty bounds on M-A-R modelsResponsible: SSRC, Participants: BMT, SaS, BV, MCA Status: To be completed soon


Page 21January 2012


Research topic: WP5 Rescue process modellingOne result from WP5/Task 1: M-A-R-model (Mustering-Abandonment-Rescue)




Research topic: WP5 Rescue process modellingOne result from WP5: The list of obstacles inthe M-A-R -model

Source: D5.3 Report on validation and sensitivity

testing of methods for assessing effectiveness of abandonment process




Research topic: WP6 Standard for decision making in crises (WP6)

ObjectivesLoss function and likelihood for integrated standardReflecting the societal concerns pertinent to a “large” loss in a balanced way Conditional probability (likelihood) reflecting the requirements on the methods to be used for generating basic information on stability, evacuation and rescue process as well as the associated uncertainty

- Loss functionResponsible: SSRC, Participants: NTUA, MCA

Status: Expected to be completed soon

- Likelihood functionResponsible: SSRC, Participants: NTUA, MCA

Status: Expected to be completed soon

to be explored:




Research topic: Demonstration (WP7) Objectives:

- Test effectiveness of the standard in rating decisions for various casualty cases (hypothetical & real-life, historical scenarios) in working environment

- Test the approach in design process - Feedback for modification, improvements/fine-tuning of the proposed standard

- Benchmark data on casualty mitigation casesResponsible: NTUA, Participants: SSRC, BMT, MCA Status: Completed => D7.1

- Demonstration of a casualty mitigation standardResponsible: BMT, Participants: SSRC, SaS, BV, MCA, NAPA Status: To be completed soon => D7.2a, D7.2b

- Demonstration for use as a design standardResponsible: NTUA, Participants: SSRC, SaS, BV, MCAStatus: To be completed in the end of the project => D7.3


Page 23January 2012


Research topic: WP4-WP6 and WP7

for additional information related to WP4 - WP5 - WP6 and WP7,see the following reports (deliverables) of the project:

- D4.1 and D4.3, D5.1, D5.2, D5.3, D5.4 and D7.1 (all available)

and

- D4.2, D4.4 and D4.5 - D5.5, - D6.1 and D6.2- D7.2a, D7.2b and D7.3

which should be soon available,

and Appendix 1




Results

Some conclusions made by the AC:

General comment: The current project research is related to the SOLAS 2009 regulatory

standard and the design of future passenger ships

Many of the results and general conclusions from WP2 relate to intermediate stage offlooding and progressive flooding. This information could be helpful in the work underway at SLF to refine the current intermediate stage flooding guidance in the Explanatory Notes,resolution MSC.281(85). (e.g. B-class divisions have [no] impact on progressive flooding;A-class doors …; etc)

WP3 relates to SOLAS regulation 22-1 Flooding detection systems for passenger ships, and the guidelines for these systems in MSC.1/Circ.1291. Information and results from WP3 could be used to update the MSC.1/Circ.1291guidance for sensors and their arrangements, locations, types, etc.




Results

Some conclusions made by the AC:

continued from previous page...

Parts of WP4 relate to SOLAS regulation 22.4 and the provision to allow certain watertight doors to remain open during navigation. If the results from this WP indicate a potential dramatic impact on ship survivability then this could provide a basis for SLF to reconsider regulation 22.4

WP5 regarding muster, abandonment, and rescue processes relate primarily to the Ship Design & Equipment (DE) Sub-Committee at IMO.

The focus of WP6 on development of a standard for decision making in flooding crises relates to SOLAS regulation 19.5 and providing stability guidance to the master. This is an area that SLF has struggled with under the new SOLAS 2009 probabilistic stability standard. The results from this WP could be very helpful to SLF in this area.




Results are reported in public reports (deliverables), articles etc.. Now available at http://floodstand.aalto.fi/Info/public_download.html as follows:




Results of project FLOODSTAND

A final one-day public Workshop/Seminarrelated to project FLOODSTAND and its results will be arranged by AALTO on

February 7th, 2010 in

Finland, Espoo, Otaniemi

So, if you are interested to attend, get the program and more information from our web page:

http://floodstand.aalto.fi

and confirm your participation in the Workshop to

Ms Seija Latvala ( [email protected] )


Page 25January 2012

will also be presented in


FLOODSTAND contacts at AALTO• Coordinator: Risto Jalonen ([email protected])

andSC chairman: Prof. Pentti Kujala ([email protected]) Secretary: Ms. Seija Latvala ([email protected])

Note! Most of the project reports (e.g. D2.2b, and many more) are available at our web-site, see:

http://floodstand.aalto.fiNote! The project ends in the end of February 2012

Thank you! Questions?FLOODSTAND – Overview

Page 26January 2012

mailto:[email protected]





Page 27January 2012

Appendix 1

presentation of the projectfloodstand.aalto.fi/info/examples/floodstand... · risk analysis of...

Documents