SHIP BUOYANCY AND STABILITY

Lecture 07 – Second generation of

intact stability criteria

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 1

 BEFORE THIS LECTURE
• Dynamic lever
• Dynamic angle of roll (transient stages)
• Balance of energy concept
• General Intact stability criteria
• Wind and wave effects on ships
• Weather criterion

Now, you should be able to:

• Define and calculate the dynamic lever of the ship
• Describe dynamic angle of roll
• Understand and apply the general intact stability criteria
• Understand the effects of wind and waves on ship stability
• Describe and apply weather criterion

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 2

 Following lecturers
• Introduction
• Ship equilibrium and introduction to hydrostatics
• Ship initial Stability
• The stability curve (GZ curve)
• Preparation for the laboratory test

• Dynamic stability
• Second generation of intact stability criteria
Ø BR: broaching to/surf riding

Ø PR: parametric roll

Ø PL: pure loss of stability

• Ship Damage Stability

• Stability special topics

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 3
 Transition stage of the rules…
SHIP INTACT STABILITY (CURRENT RULES!!!)
• Dynamic Lever
• Energy balance concept
• Intact stability criteria on GM, GZ and e
• Weather criterion
• Additional intact stability criteria

SECOND GENERATION OF INTACT STABILITY CRITERIA

• Surf riding/broaching to
• Parametric roll Ongoing

• Pure loss of stability

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 4

 Book Chapters
• Laivan kelluvuus ja vakavuus by Matusiak (ch. 5 sec. 5.7) in
Finnish
• Short Introduction to Ship Theory (Part 1)(sec. 2.10) in
English
• Evaluation of simplified methods for judging intact stability
of ships in waves by T. Tompury (detailed master thesis in
English on the topics of the current lectures)

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 5

 On-going development of new Rules of
Intact Ship Stability
The so-called Second Generation of Intact
stability criteria have been planned to have a
multi-tiered structure consisting of three
levels. The criteria in level 1, named
vulnerability criteria consist of relatively simple
methodologies to be applied at the very
preliminary phase of the stability assessment in
the design process. If a possible vulnerability is
detected, then the vulnerability second level
criteria are used.

The final third level, to be applied in case of

failure of the previous ones, is called direct
assessment, based on numerical simulation
tools or, as alternative, experimental tests.
It also foresees a list of critical operative
conditions to avoid during navigation to
minimize the risk of stability failures.

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 6

 On-going development of new Rules of
Intact Ship Stability

Three level approach:

Level 1: vulnerability criteria; simple formulae
Level 2: vulnerability criteria; probabilistic approach
Level 3: direct stability assessment; numerical simulations
or model tests

Most ships are expected to pass stability evaluation by

Levels 1&2

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 7

 Considered modes of stability loss
• Pure loss of stability
– on wave crest
• Parametric roll resonance
• Surf-riding/broaching
• Dead ship condition
– weather criterion-type –in progress
• Excessive accelerations
– In progress
________________________________
• Roll resonance in stern-quartering seas
– lacking from the considered scenarios

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 8

 Warming up- Encounter frequency
Beam seas: b=90°
we = w
• w is the wave frequency b = 90o l
• is the encounter frequency
• b is the heading angle o o
b=0 b b = 180
• l is the wave length

2pg
w= x
l
we < w we > w
Following seas: b=0° Head seas: b=180°

Encounter frequency – Doppler effect of a moving ship

we = w 1- wV cos b
g
21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 9
 Warming Up - Response with Bonjean
Curves
Variation of the immersed volume in waves

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 10

 PURE LOSS OF STABILITY
• The so-called “static loss of stability” refers to the quasi-static loss
of transverse stability (associated with an excessive righting arm
reduction) in the wave crest.
• This mode occurs typically at forward speed in regular or irregular
following to stern quartering waves with low encounter
frequencies.
• The ship can capsize when it experiences temporarily a critically
reduced (possibly negative) righting arm for a sufficient amount of
time, while the wave crest overtakes the ship slowly and the ship is
surging or surf-riding periodically.
• For this mode of capsize to occur in irregular waves, a single
encountered wave of critical length and steepness is sufficient to
cause the sudden catastrophic event.

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 11

 Pure loss of stability
• If the wave length is almost the same as the length of the ship, i.e. l ≈
(0.75...1.2) L of the vessel, the change of the immersed hull volume in wave is
significant.
• In the situation when the wave crest is amidships, the metacentric height
reaches its minimum value

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 12

 Pure loss of stability

In the situation when the wave crest is

close to amidships, the metacentric
height reaches its minimum value.
The GZ curve in waves modifies
accordingly.

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 13

 Metacentric height behavior in wave.

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 14

 Pure loss of stability
• Pure loss of stability is a phenomenon of prolonged reduction
of GZ curve with wave crest located or near amidship. The GZ-
curve on wave crest may be insufficient to resist the heeling
moment, while the GZ in calm water would be sufficient.

• The dynamics of this phenomenon are different from

parametric roll, but closely related to magnitude of and
duration of waterplane area changes as the wave passes the
ship. Critical situation can occur when in following or stern-
quartering sea ship encounters a single large wave with
celerity close to the speed of the ship.

• Parametric roll requires multiple waves for the phenomenon

to develop, while pure loss of stability is fundamentally a
single wave event.
21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 15
 Pure loss: conditions that may yield
ship capsizing in a following wave
• For wave length more or less of the same length of the ship, has been
seen that there is the maximum variation in GM; i.e. λ≈L
• If the ship experiences for enough time a negative GM, she could capsize
due to the loss of initial stability in wave.
• The worst condition would be the ship travelling almost with the same
wave velocity, i.e. the ωe≈0.

we = w 1- wV cos b
2pg
w=
g l

=1 =0
Following wave
2pg V Fn ≈ 0.4
g -1
l
21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 16
 Stability check proposal for pure loss
• Unconventional vessels may experience a stability failure on the wave crest, due
to their unusual hull geometry, where a conventional ship is not subjected to
additional risk.
• Nevertheless, a conventional ship also experiences a decrease of stability in the
wave crest.
• However this risk was implicitly accounted for, as the existing criteria are based
on the experience of operation and expressed through statistics of stability
failures.
• Summarizing the considerations above, vulnerability assessment should
consider:
ü Loading conditions, corresponding to critical KG i.e. GM
ü Waves characteristics i.e frequency and height (operating area)
ü Ship length and velocity
21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 17
 Level I method for pure loss
• Pure loss of stability analysis applies to all the ships with a Froude number
Fn>0.24
• The first level requires: > = 0.05 [ ]

• GMmin is the minimum value of the Metacentric height in wave, balanced for
sinkage and trim
• Standard waves for the calculation of metacentric height

• Metacentric height in wave includes free surface correction

If the ship complies the I level vulnerability criteria, then no other
verifications are needed
If the ship fails the I level vulnerability criteria, then II level vulnerability
criteria applies

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 18

 Importance of Balancing for GM in Waves for
sinkage and trim
• It is known that balancing a ship with sinkage and trim may
significantly change the result for determining GZ in waves.
• In performing the calculation, balancing is the most intensive part

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 19

 Level II method for pure loss
max 1, 2 < 0.06

> 30° à C1=0

1= 1
< 30° à C1=1

> 25° ( 15° ℎ ) à C2=0

2= 2 < 25° ( 15° ℎ ) à C2=1

v W is the weighting factor for the specific wave applied N

is the number of analyzed wave cases
v fv angle of vanishing stability
v fs angle of heel under the external heeling moment RPL3

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 20

 Level II method for pure loss
The heeling moment RPL3 is due to the centrifugal force of the ship yawing in stern
quartering wave
• The assumption of following waves is not precise enough: in stern quartering sea, roll
angle due to pure loss, could be larger.
• In stern quartering waves a large yaw angular velocity could arise leading to a
centrifugal force.
• The reduced stability on wave crest together with the heeling moment due to the
centrifugal force could lead to a heavy roll.
• Centrifugal force has to be taken in account, especially because it is proportional to
the square of the forward speed.

= ≅8 [ ]
λ
= is assumed to be equal to d
.
v d is the ship draft = ship yaw angular velocity
.
v m is the ship mass from experimental data
v u is the ship surge velocity
v zH is the distance between the hydrodynamic center and the center of gravity
21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 21
 PARAMETRIC ROLL

WHAT DO WE MEAN FOR PARAMETRIC ROLL?

Parametric roll is a resonance phenomenon, but it is completely
different from synchronous roll (that is w=wn)

WHY LINEAR MODEL CANNOT BE USED TO SIMULATE IT?

Restoring actions are changing in waves i.e. GM is not constant

This can trigger parametric roll
21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 22
 Parametric Roll

= −Δ

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 23

 Non linear restoring actions

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 24

 Parametric Roll
= −Δ
= + cos ( )
It is assumed that GM changes
sinusoidally in regular wave:

= 0.5( + )

= 0.5( − )

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 25

 Parametric Roll
= + cos ( )
1
=
2 +

Mathieu’s Equation Δ
=
̈ +2 ̇ +[ + cos ] =0 +
Natural roll frequency based
on the mean value of GM in
wave

This is the so-called Mathieu’s equation; its solution depends on

the change of GM in wave compared to the wave frequency.
Δ
Its solution can be stable (bounded) or unstable (unbounded) =
+

Unstable condition in the Mathieu’s equation is known as

”parametric roll resonance”

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 26

 Mathieu’s Equation
̈ +2 ̇ +[ + cos ] =0

= = =

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 27

 Mathieu’s Equation solution: Ince-Strutt
diagram
q

p
The red part of the diagram present unbounded(unstable) solutions i.e. parametric
roll resonance can arise.
At p=0.25 there is a great possibility to develop parametric roll
Neglecting damping ≅ ( / ) that means the parameter p is related to to
the natural roll frequency of the ship divided the encounter frequency

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 28

 PARAMETRIC ROLL
• Main parametric resonance, (the roll response is the largest), occurs
when: p=0.25 that is possible when

• Also weaker resonances are possible at p=1 when =

DO NOT CONFUSE IT WITH SYNCRONOUS

RESONANCE
The parametric roll resonance phenomenon is very rare, since it
requires several simultaneous conditions, but it can have severe
consequences

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 29

Development of Parametric Roll

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 30

 Level 1 – Parametric roll

∆GM1 may be determined as one-half the difference between the maximum and minimum values of the
metacentric height calculated for the ship, including free surface correction, corresponding to the loading
condition under consideration, considering the ship to be balanced in sinkage and trim on a series of waves with
the following characteristics:

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 31

 Level 2 – Parametric roll
If the ship complies the I level vulnerability criteria, then no other verifications are needed
If the ship fails the I level vulnerability criteria, then II level vulnerability criteria applies
Level II vulnerability for parametric roll has the same “structure” of the
pure loss ones, but with different calculations!
max 1, 2 < 0.06

For CR1 verify:

1= 1

2= 2

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 32

 BROACHING-TO
• The term broaching-to is used do describe a violent uncontrollable turn
that occurs in following or stern-quartering waves.
• The uncontrollable turn is often accompanied with a large roll angle, that
can lead to partial or total stability failure.
• Broaching-to is often preceded by surf-riding phenomenon that is easier
to describe by means of equations than broaching-to.
• That’s why we talk about vulnerability to broaching-to and surf-riding

Thus if we avoid surf-riding we can likely avoid also broaching-to phenomenon!!!

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 33

 Surging vs Surf-riding
• Usually a ship travelling in following waves advance with a periodic surge motion,
named also surging. Surging is due to the difference between wave-induced surge
force, propeller thrust and resistance.
• Surf-riding occurs when a wave, approaching from the stern, “captures” a ship and
accelerates the ship to the wave-phase speed (wave celerity).
• To the outside observer, surf-riding looks like a transition from periodic surging
(when waves overtake a ship) to a situation where a ship runs with a wave.
• Surf-riding occurs in an equilibrium condition between wave-induced surge force,
propeller thrust and resistance, when the ship speed is equal to the wave celerity.
• This situation is an unstable equilibrium that can lead to the dynamic instability
called broaching-to.
• Large ships are less prone to surf-ride because longer waves are simply too fast
compared to ship speed. Thus fishing vessels and fast mono-hull ships are more
vulnerable to broaching-to

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 34

 1DOF model for Surf-riding

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 35

 Level 1 – Broaching-to/Surf-riding
A ship is considered not to be vulnerable to the surf-riding/broaching failure mode if:

Level 2 – Broaching-to/Surf-riding
A ship is considered not to be vulnerable to the surf-riding/broaching failure mode if:
C < 0.005

The calculation of C is based on the analysis of a

critical Froude number (critical speed) in wave
corresponding to the threshold of surf-riding.

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 36

 Check the rules in the material folder
• Pure loss: DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO PART B OF THE 2008
IS CODE WITH REGARD TO VULNERABILITY CRITERIA OF
LEVELS 1 AND 2 FOR THE PURE LOSS OF STABILITY
FAILURE MODE
• Parametric roll: DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO PART B OF THE
IS CODE WITH REGARD TO VULNERABILITY CRITERIA OF
LEVELS 1 AND 2 FOR THE PARAMETRIC ROLLING FAILURE
MODE
• Broaching-to / surf-riding: DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO
PART B OF THE IS CODE WITH REGARD TO VULNERABILITY
CRITERIA OF LEVELS 1 AND 2 FOR THE SURF-RIDING /
BROACHING FAILURE MODE

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 37

 Summary
• Need for a second generation of intact stability criteria
• Structure and current development of the second generation
criteria
• Effects of wave on metacentric height and GZ curve
• Importance of the wave frequency and encounter frequency
• Importance of the wave length
• Description of the pure loss of stability
• Description of the parametric roll
• Description of the broaching-to

21/11/2017 Maria Acanfora Ship Buoyancy and Stability 38