The 14th International Ship Stability Workshop (ISSW), 29th September- 1st October 2014, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Criteria for Minimum Powering and Maneuverability in

Adverse Weather Conditions

V. Shigunov1 and A. Papanikolaou2

1. DNV GL Maritime, Hamburg, Germany
2. Ship Design Laboratory, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Abstract: The 2012 guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships,
MEPC.212(63), represent a major step forward in implementing energy efficiency regulations for ships, MEPC.203(62), through the
introduction of specifications for calculating the EEDI for various types of ships. There are, however, concerns regarding the
sufficiency of propulsion power and steering devices to maintain manoeuvrability of ships in adverse conditions, hence safety of
ships, if the EEDI requirements are achieved by simply reducing the installed engine power. In the frame of a review of current EEDI
provisions, the paper discusses possible criteria required to ensure ship’s manoeuvrability and safety under adverse conditions and
proposes a way ahead regarding the implementation of these criteria by numerical methods and model tests.

Key words: Manoeuvrability; Minimum Power; Adverse Conditions; EEDI; Ship Safety

1. Introduction Adverse Weather Conditions, MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.1

The introduction of EEDI regulations in MARPOL (2012), updated in Res. MEPC.232 (65) [5].
facilitates drastic improvement of energy efficiency of In relation to this, a new European research project
ships and reduction of GHG impact of shipping called SHOPERA [6], funded by the European
operations. There are, however, concerns regarding Commission in the frame of FP7, was launched in
the sufficiency of propulsion power and steering October 2013, aiming at addressing the challenges of
devices to maintain manoeuvrability of ships under this issue by in-depth research studies and submission
adverse conditions, hence the safety of ships, if the of main results for consideration to IMO-MEPC in
EEDI requirements are achieved by simply reducing 2016. A strong European RTD consortium was
the installed engine power. Following a proposal formed, representing the whole spectrum of the
from the International Association of Classification European maritime industry, including classification
Societies (IACS), the following requirement was societies, universities, research organisations and
added to the Reg. 21, Ch. 4 of MARPOL Annex VI: model basins, ship designers, shipyards and ship
For each ship to which this regulation applies, the operators. The project will
installed propulsion power shall not be less than the • develop and fine-tune hydrodynamic analysis
propulsion power needed to maintain the methods for manoeuvring of ships in complex
manoeuvrability of the ship under adverse conditions environmental conditions
as defined in the guidelines to be developed by the • perform seakeeping and manoeuvring model
Organization. Work carried out by IACS to develop tests in seaway to provide basis for the
such guidelines [1-4] served as basis for the Interim validation of numerical methods
Guidelines for Determining Minimum Propulsion • integrate hydrodynamic analysis tools into a
Power to Maintain the Manoeuvrability of Ship in ship design software platform and perform
.
© Marine Technology Centre, UTM
 The 14th International Ship Stability Workshop (ISSW), 29th September- 1st October 2014, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

multi-objective holistic optimisation, balancing standard manoeuvres in calm water (advance and
economy, efficiency and safety tactical diameter in turning circle, distance for heading
• develop new guidelines for sufficient change by 10° due to rudder angle change by 10°, first
manoeuvrability in adverse weather conditions and second overshoot angles in 10°/10° and the first
• put together teams of designers, shipyards, overshoot angle in the 20°/20° zig-zag manoeuvres
owners, classification societies and national and advance until full stop in emergency stopping).
administrations to conduct investigations on the IMO’s Manoeuvrability Standards have been
impact of the proposed guidelines on design criticized by some authors, e.g. [8], for not addressing
and operation of various ship types ship manoeuvrability at low speed, in restricted areas
and in wind, waves and currents[8]. Because the
2. Definitions
task of steering is not only turning, course-keeping
The following terminology is used herein: and stopping, but also withstanding environmental
• functional requirements (avoiding collision, forces (e.g. to keep or change course and speed), and
maintaining and changing speed or course, because different ships react in a different way to
transit, stopping, rescue etc.) are used to set environmental forces, norming ship’s steering ability
up the framework of new guidelines; in waves seems an essential part of minimum
• criteria refer to ship characteristics which are manoeuvrability requirements.
defined in idealized situations (e.g. turning However, this issue has not been addressed by
and course-keeping and -changing abilities); regulations so far. IACS gathered requirements of
• corresponding measures quantify ship’s classification societies regarding redundancy of the
performance in idealized situations (turning propulsion system [9] as a preparation to the
diameter, stopping distance, maximum wave development of performance criteria for safe
height for course-keeping etc.) and navigation in adverse conditions. In general, these
• standards (or norms) set the limits on these requirements require the ability to change heading into
measures for the ship to be considered position of less resistance to the waves and wind and
fulfilling the defined requirements. maintain this heading, to keep a prescribed minimum
3. Existing Regulations advance speed, or a combination of these two
requirements. IACS work towards 2013 Interim
Manoeuvrability in waves is an issue of both ship’s
Guidelines [5] elaborated on functional requirements
powering and manoeuvrability in waves, thus also of
to manoeuvrability in adverse conditions [1,2], which
seakeeping. Ship’s powering and efficiency are
led to the following two criteria in [3,4]: the ship must
regulated by the EEDI provisions; manoeuvrability
be able to keep a prescribed course at advance speed
has been considered in the past more as an issue of
of at least 4.0 knots in waves and wind from any
operation rather than design; however, once it was
direction, which are elaborated in the following.
realized that some uniform minimum requirements to
manoeuvrability are necessary, IMO introduced the 4. Manoeuvrability in Adverse Conditions
Interim Standards for Ship Manoeuvrability, Ship’s master knows the performance of his ship in
A.751(18), which were revised and finally adopted in adverse conditions; thus, at least in the open sea, he
2002 [7]. These standards address turning, initial can decide how close the ship can come to a storm,
turning, yaw-checking, course-keeping and emergence depending on the ship size and type, freeboard, type of
stopping abilities by geometrical measures of selected cargo, dynamic stability, engine power and steering

© Marine Technology Centre, UTM

 The 14th International Ship Stability Workshop (ISSW), 29th September- 1st October 2014, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

devices. However, reliable weather forecast and

routing are not always possible. In violent weather
conditions, no engine power will help as the ship will
be mainly driven by the weather; however, turning
against the seaway will still be possible, for which a
period of less severe seas is selected, and the heading
is changed as fast as possible.
Manoeuvring in coastal waters is more demanding
and important, than in the open sea. The usual
practice in a growing storm in coastal waters is to look
for a shelter or, if there is no safe escape, move away Figure 1. Percentage of ship types by accident types
from the coast and take a position with enough room
for drifting away; grounding, stranding and contact
accidents in heavy weather suggest however that there
are notable exceptions. The most frequent cause of
grounding accidents in a growing storm is waiting at
anchor until it starts dragging; after that, engine may
be started too late or at too low power. However, in
several occasions [10-13] vessels were not able to
move away from the coast despite full engine power
applied. Although in accident [10] full engine power
was not available due to failure of one of the engines,
in accident [11] forward speed was reduced in the
approach channel to the port to wait for entrance Figure 2. Percentage of ship types by accident location
clearance by an outward-bound vessel, and in
accidents [12,13] full engine power was available and
applied, such accidents suggest that there is a
minimum limit for the installed power for a ship to be
able to leave a coastal area in a growing storm.
Experience shows that a specific manoeuvring
problem of ship types with large windage area is
manoeuvring at low speed in restricted areas in strong
wind (and usually current) without significant seaway.
An indicative sample of results of a comprehensive
statistical analysis [14] of ship accidents1 in adverse
sea conditions is given in Figures 1 to 4.
Figure 3. Comparison of distribution of accident types with
1 included very extreme (abnormal) weather conditions
Accident period 1980-2013; ships over 400GT built after 1980;
accidents related to adverse/heavy weather conditions, excluding poor
visibility (e.g. fog)

© Marine Technology Centre, UTM

 The 14th International Ship Stability Workshop (ISSW), 29th September- 1st October 2014, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

of cargo or even to injuries to the crew, or to water on

deck for vessels with low freeboard. Another
argument for the need to norm weather-vaning ability
in extreme conditions is the preservation of the present
safety level: the present rate of intact stability failures
in dead ship condition is low because, first, combina-
tions of extreme weather and engine failure are rare
and, second, the Weather Criterion is sufficiently
conservative. If, however, majority of ships would
be uncontrollable in extreme weather due to reduced
installed power (as a possible consequence of
Figure 4. Comparison of accident location with included reducing EEDI), the level of safety provided by the
very extreme (abnormal) weather conditions Weather Criterion alone might become insufficient.
A counterargument to this reasoning, related to
In view of the above findings, we consider three
seakeeping and stability problems, can be in the way
groups of criteria:
of adopting other design measures, not concerning
1. Manoeuvring in extreme conditions in open sea
manoeuvrability in extreme seaway; for example,
2. Manoeuvring in coastal areas in a growing storm
adjusting the strictness level of the Weather Criterion,
3. Low-speed manoeuvring in wind and current in
which will inherently lead to more severe seakeeping
restricted waters
criteria, likely increase of required roll damping,
5. Manoeuvrability in Extreme Conditions in stronger deck cargo securing etc.
Open Sea If a criterion for manoeuvrability in extreme open
sea weather conditions is required, the following is
In the open sea, the ship must be able to turn into a
proposed: the ship should be able to keep heading in
favourable heading towards the seaway to limit
head to bow-quartering extreme2 waves and wind up
excessive ship motions and to maintain this heading.
to 60° off-bow to avoid synchronous rolling and water
Arguably, even uncontrolled drifting with waves and
on deck. Testing and adjustment of this criterion is
wind may be acceptable for some time. For
required, as well as the definition of the “extreme
container ships with low metacentric height, this
weather” conditions. For the latter, benchmarking of
practice is considered as one of the safest ways to
existing ships against the proposed criterion, as well
weather-vane, if there is enough room available for
as accident investigations seem as possible way ahead
drifting. Anyway, if the ship is forced to drift in
and are planned within project SHOPERA.
beam waves and wind without being able to turn into
seaway, her stability will be controlled by the Severe 6. Manoeuvrability in Escalating Storm in
Wind and Rolling Criterion (Weather Criterion) [15]. Coastal Areas
However, is some situations it might be not
Operation in coastal areas places greater
acceptable for a ship to simply drift away without
requirements on manoeuvrability than in the open sea:
possibility of weather-vaning, for example, in loading
2
conditions with deck cargo and large initial GM, The severity level of extreme weather conditions is arguable,
considering that the ship may nowadays avoid crossing through
because direct exposure to resonance roll excitation violent weather conditions (hurricanes, typhoons etc.) and
can lead to large lateral accelerations, loss or damage should by design and operation remain a cost effective
transportation vehicle

© Marine Technology Centre, UTM

 The 14th International Ship Stability Workshop (ISSW), 29th September- 1st October 2014, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

the ship must be able to change the course to the and verifiable. Ideally, the procedure should allow
required one and maintain it; she should also maintain using both calculations and equivalent model tests
some minimum advance speed to leave the coastal interchangeably and complementarily, in such a way
area before the storm escalates. Because of possible that any assessment can be verified, if necessary; this
navigational restrictions, all this must be possible in is only possible if experiments and computations are
waves, wind and possible currents from any direction. performed in simple and well-controlled conditions.
If a ship can keep any course with respect to the In principle, evaluation of the course-keeping and
seaway, including seaway directions which are most advance speed criteria requires transient model tests
unfavorable with respect to course-keeping, the ship with self-propelled models in simulated irregular
will also be able to perform any course change. waves and wind, for all possible wave and wind
Thus, the requirement to keep any course is more directions with respect to the ship course. Such
stringent than the requirement to change course. experimental techniques are however not mature
However, course changing must happen in a short enough; besides, few facilities exist worldwide able to
enough time, thus the requirement of some minimum carry out such tests, which makes them impracticable
advance speed in seaway from any direction is also for routine ship design and approval. Further,
necessary. The requirement of some minimum reliable predictions in irregular seaways require
advance speed is also necessary to enable leaving repetition of tests in multiple realisations of the same
coastal area before the storm escalates. seaway in a seakeeping basin, Fig. 5, which is
These considerations led, during the work of IACS expensive. Finally, the time history of the applied
on minimum power requirements [3,4], to the helm in each seaway realization is deciding for the
following criteria: results, and impact of its variability is difficult to
• ship must be able to keep any prescribed course quantify, especially for regulatory purposes. Despite
in waves and wind from any direction some progress in the State of the Art, available
• ship must be able to keep advance speed of at numerical methods for the simulation of transient ship
least 4.0 knots in waves and wind from any manoeuvres in waves are still not mature enough for
direction routine use in ship design and approval.
Note that the use of port tugs in such situations is
unlikely, because port tugs may not be available away
from ports, and because port tugs cannot operate in
heavy seaway; open sea tugs are used seldom in
normal operations.
Whereas the compliance with the IMO
Manoeuvrability Standards [7] is demonstrated in
full-scale trials, evaluation of criteria concerning
adverse weather conditions is impracticable in
full-scale trials. Alternatives to full scale tests are
model experiments and numerical computations.
Because the assessment procedure will be routinely Figure 5. MARINTEK's 80mx50m Ocean Basin facility
used by designers and verified by Administrations, it (project SHOPERA)
must be reasonably simple, inexpensive, transparent

© Marine Technology Centre, UTM

 The 14th International Ship Stability Workshop (ISSW), 29th September- 1st October 2014, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Therefore, a practical assessment procedure should • Rudder is used in seaway both to ensure
be based on steady model tests or calculations, under course-keeping with respect to the steady
well-controlled conditions. A possible simplification effects and to compensate the dynamic yaw
is to neglect oscillatory wave forces and moments motions due to waves and wind gusts. To take
because their time scale is shorter than the time scale these dynamic effects into account in the
of manoeuvring motions, and thus to consider only procedure, the maximum available average
average in time forces, moments and other variables, rudder angle should be slightly lower than the
such as propeller thrust, torque and rotation rate, maximum possible rudder angle (by 3-5° to 10°
required and available power, drift angle and rudder according to different sources).
angle. The second possible simplification is to use Any practical procedure inevitably involves simpli-
spectral methods to calculate wave drift forces and fications, each of which leads to either conservative or
moments, which requires only measurements or non-conservative bias. The overall safety level as an
calculations of drift forces in regular waves. outcome of the adopted assessment procedure can still
Encounter-frequency wave-induced motions and be fine-tuned by the adjustment of the standards: in
forces can influence manoeuvring, especially in high this case, the environmental conditions used in the
waves, in several ways: assessment should lead to an appropriate classification
• At high speeds in stern waves, encounter of existing ships into safe and unsafe. The only
frequency motions can induce broaching-to; trivial requirement to the procedure is that it should be
however, broaching-to can be handled in sensitive to ship-specific factors, which are important
operation (speed reduction) and is, moreover, for the manoeuvring in waves.
not relevant to minimum power requirements. One of important ship-specific factors in this
• Neglecting oscillations of propeller thrust, of respect is the under way drift motion: in response to
required and available power and jumps of the seaway-induced lateral forces and yaw moment, the
required power above the torque-speed limit ship will sail at a certain average drift angle and with
(engine overload) due to encounter-frequency average rudder angle; this increases the required
motions and forces, we introduce a non- propeller thrust and the required power. Thus, the
conservative error. This error is to some assessment procedure should take into account at least
degree compensated by the conservativeness of three degrees of freedom (horizontal motions and
the course-keeping requirement in any wave yaw); the hydrodynamic problem may be then solved
and wind direction; besides, short overload is as a steady equilibrium problem in the horizontal
possible without damage to the engine. plane for the ship advancing with constant forward
• Propeller pitching reduces available time-ave- speed and course under the action of average wave
rage thrust; besides, it leads to the drop of the and wind forces, calm-water drift forces and rudder
mean available power due to dynamic response and propeller forces. The solution of the system of
of a diesel engine after ventilation events and equations provides the required average propeller
can even lead to engine shutdown. These thrust, drift angle and rudder angle. From the
effects are particularly relevant in ballast propeller thrust, average advance ratio and rotation
loading conditions and can be ignored if the rate of the propeller are found using open-water
assessment is done for full load condition, not propeller curves; then the average in time required
extreme seaways and at low forward speeds. power is calculated, as well as the average available
power (which will be less than MCR due to reduced
© Marine Technology Centre, UTM
 The 14th International Ship Stability Workshop (ISSW), 29th September- 1st October 2014, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

rotation rate in seaway). The procedure takes into

Figure 6. Example of
account longitudinal and lateral forces and yaw
assessment results for a
moments due to
handysize bulk carrier
• Wind: can be defined from wind tunnel tests,
for significant wave
RANSE simulations or empirical data
height 6.0 m: line 1 –
• Waves: seakeeping tests in regular waves,
advance speed of 4.0
perhaps potential flow computations or
knots, line 2 – required
empirical formulae
power equal to available
• Calm-water: steady model tests, RANSE
power, area 3 – rudder
simulations, empirical data or formulae
angle greater than 25°°, vs
• Rudder: steady model tests, RANSE
is ship speed, β e is wave
simulations, semi-empirical models
and wind direction (ship
• Propeller (open-water propeller curves): steady
course is to the north)
model tests, propeller series, potential or
RANSE computations
The procedure checks whether the required average First, these conditions cannot be too severe because
rudder angle is less than the maximum allowed rudder ships usually leave to the open sea or search for a
angle (taking into account margin for steering in shelter before storm escalates. Second, although ship
waves) and whether the average required power does masters know the capabilities of their ships and, if
not exceed the average available power. Example of weather forecast is available, they can decide when
assessment results in Fig. 6 shows in axes ship speed they have to search for shelter or leave to the open sea,
(radial coordinate) – wave and wind direction practice shows that in the majority of accidents, ships
(circumferential coordinate) achievable operational wait at anchor in a growing storm and thus, anchor
conditions (grey area) in waves with significant wave dragging defines very frequently the environmental
height 6.0 m; in this example, the ship can fulfill the conditions for leaving coastal areas in practice.
course-keeping criterion with the installed engine and Figure 7 shows the dependency of the number of ships
rudder, but fails to keep advance speed of 4.0 knots in remaining at anchor as percentage of the initial
waves and wind from directions against the course to number of vessels at anchor vs. significant wave
about 60 degree off the course. height during an increasing storm, based on data [13].
The advantage of this procedure is that the
time-average forces and moments due to different
factors (wind, waves, calm water, rudder and
propeller) can be computed or measured separately, in
simple well-controlled steady tests, and combined in a
simple steady mathematical model. If necessary,
separate force components can be verified in
additional model tests.
Several observations can be made regarding Figure 7. Number of vessels at anchor as percentage of the
environmental conditions to be used with these initial number of vessels vs. significant wave height during
course-keeping and advance speed criteria. an increasing storm according to data in [13]

© Marine Technology Centre, UTM

 The 14th International Ship Stability Workshop (ISSW), 29th September- 1st October 2014, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

About 80% of vessels were still at anchor at the and stranding accidents than for collisions; the
significant wave height of 4.5 m, whereas at 6.0 m, corresponding statistics of environmental conditions is
the majority of vessels have already left to the open to be evaluated yet.
sea only about 20% remained at the anchor. In this As final consideration, a practical approach to the
case, all vessels left anchorage only after they have definition of environmental conditions to be used in
dragged anchor in the increasing storm. An the assessment is the benchmarking of existing ships
argument against using the anchor holding power to against the new criteria; the advantage of this
define the environmental conditions for leaving to the approach is the possibility to calibrate the assessment
open sea is the fact that anchoring equipment is procedure and thus compensate for all biases due to
intended for temporary mooring of a vessel, and not inevitable simplifications. Such an approach, which
designed to hold the vessels off exposed coast in relied on the assumption that only a small percentage
rough weather, even though in practice this is of existing vessels in service might have insufficient
frequently the case. manoeuvrability in adverse weather conditions, led to
Another consideration is the idea to use statistics of the following environmental conditions in [5]:
environmental conditions during groundings, contacts significant wave height 4.0 to 5.5 m for ships with
and collisions; a similar approach was used to choose length between perpendiculars less than 200 and more
the wave height for the definition of survival probabi- than 250 m, respectively, and corresponding wind
lity in the SOLAS damage stability requirements. speeds of 15.7 to 19.0 m/s, respectively; modal wave
According to the results of HARDER project, periods vary from 7 to 15 s in all cases. The
concerning statistics of weather conditions at the time reduction of significant wave height to 4.0 m for small
of collision for all ship types, Fig. 8, 80% of collisions vessels followed from applying the course-keeping
happened at significant wave heights below 1 m, i.e. and advance speed criteria to small (about 20000 t
practically in calm water, and very few accidents dwt) bulk carriers and tankers.
happen at significant wave heights in excess of 4 m.
7. Low-Speed Manoeuvrability in Wind
Manoeuvrability at low forward speed in strong
wind is critical for ships with large windage area, such
as container ships, cruise vessels, RoPax and car
carriers, during approach to and entering ports (where
also strong current is frequently relevant). There are
several specific considerations in this respect. First,
low-speed manoeuvrability does not seem to be an
issue of safety for most ship types, but an operational
issue: because these criteria concern port entrance,
Figure 8. Cumulative probability of significant wave height availability of port tugs can be assumed. Some
) in
during collisions according to HARDER database ( vessels are towed during the complete port entry, so
comparison with North Atlantics wave climate (- - -) they might not need low-speed manoeuvrability 3 .
Second, such criteria will lead to additional
Note that Figures 1-4 from the SHOPERA
3
Important exemption to this rule are RoPax and passenger
project [14] show that adverse environmental
ships in general, commonly not calling for tug assistance; the
conditions are more relevant for contact, grounding insufficiency of tugs in small ports should also be considered.

© Marine Technology Centre, UTM

 The 14th International Ship Stability Workshop (ISSW), 29th September- 1st October 2014, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

requirements on the steering performance, but not to • Swedish Maritime Safety Inspectorate
restrictions on the minimum installed power, thus • Federal Bureau of Maritime Casualty
there is no potential conflict with EEDI. Still, these Investigation, Germany
criteria are considered in the project SHOPERA for • Panama Maritime Authority
completeness. According to proposals in the • Marine Accident Inquiry Agency (MAIA),
literature, the following criteria seem to be suitable: Japan
• course-keeping in strong wind at specified • Transportation Safety Board of Canada
reduced speed in loading condition maximizing • Accident Investigation Board Norway (AIBN)
lateral windage area • Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand
• course-keeping in shallow water near channel • Maritime Safety Investigation Unit, Malta
wall or bank at specified reduced speed in load We believe that the collected data are sufficient to
case maximizing hydrodynamic forces evaluate the risk of the operating worldwide fleet with
• course-keeping on shallow water at reduced respect to the maneuverability in adverse conditions.
forward speed during overtaking by a quicker Another activity is to complete initiated interviews
ship in load case maximizing hydrodynamic with ship masters: so far, masters of about 30
forces container ships and about 5 bulk carriers were
In these criteria, no waves are considered but strong consulted. Thus, interviewing masters of RoPax and
wind and, perhaps, strong current. In addition to passenger ships, bulk carriers, tankers and especially
steering devices dimensioning, these criteria provide general cargo vessels is an important activity to verify
important guidance to operators, e.g. up to what speed criteria and environmental conditions.
the ship can manoeuvre itself in a given wind and Finally, available statistics and accident reports
beyond what wind force tug assistance is required. show that adverse weather conditions in coastal areas
Low-speed manoeuvrability criteria require are especially relevant for grounding and stranding
specification of the wind speed and, perhaps, current. accidents and for contacts with fixed installations.
Reference [8] recommends wind speed of 20 knots for However, the only available processed statistical data
general use and 30 knots for ferries and cruise ships, on wave heights during accidents (HARDER
as the wind speed at which the ship should be able to database) concerns collisions, for which poor visibility
leave the quay. in calm-water conditions is most relevant. Thus,
statistics of environmental conditions relevant to
8. Way Ahead to Fill Gaps
grounding, stranding, and contact accidents is required
Most of the accident reports studied so far [14] are to define environmental conditions for all three groups
from the IHS Sea-Web Marine Casualty Database and of criteria.
the public area of Marine Casualties and Incidents Development of Criteria: One of the main strengths
Database of the IMO Global Integrated Shipping of the IACS proposal [3,4] is the three-tiered
Information System (GISIS). Information collected approach, allowing better flexibility to designers and
from these sources was cross-referenced, whenever evaluators in meeting the requirements. The consi-
possible, with accident reports acquired from the derations presented in this paper concern only Level 3
following sources: procedures (Comprehensive Assessment). Note that
• Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB), in the final version of Guidelines [5], comprehensive
United Kingdom assessment was dropped because of the insufficient

© Marine Technology Centre, UTM

 The 14th International Ship Stability Workshop (ISSW), 29th September- 1st October 2014, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

state-of-the-art of numerical methods for the a practical procedure, their computation with potential
assessment to be used for regulatory purposes. theory panel methods is desired in the long-term,
Implementation of Level 3 procedures in the new which requires development, fine-tuning and validati-
Guidelines requires the following: first, three groups on of such methods; in the short term, semi-empirical
of criteria (for growing storm in coastal areas, extreme solutions can be an alternative.
waves in the open sea and low-speed manoeuvring in Impact of New Manoeuvrability Standards: Because
wind) should be tested and updated as necessary; this the proposed criteria address only the ability of ships
especially concerns criteria and corresponding envi- to withstand environmental conditions, ships subject
ronmental conditions for extreme waves in the open to the new criteria will also have to fulfill IMO
sea. Second, the proposed simplifications in the Manoeuvrability Standards [7]. In this respect, it has
assessment procedure should be validated and, if to be checked how the reduction of installed power
necessary, revised; transient simulations of course influences the fulfillment of the IMO Manoeuvrability
change in waves, taking into account first-order forces Standards: it is well known that turning circle
and other dynamic effects can be used for validation. parameters (transfer and advance) are nearly identical
Third, further simplifications of the proposed Level 3 for different engine sizes for the same rudder area
procedure should be considered. Environmental (time scale of turning is of course different); however,
conditions should be defined and justified for all three zig-zag manoeuvres are affected by the reduction of
groups of criteria. the engine size, thus it is interesting to see to what
To develop Level 2 procedure (Simplified degree reduced installed power will influence the
Assessment), a possible approach is to use empirical ability of ships to fulfill the requirements of 10°/10°
formulae for all forces and moments, including the and, especially, 20°/20° zig-zag in calm water.
horizontal wave drift forces and yaw wave drift Another important check is whether the existing fleet
moment. Level 1 assessment procedure is supposed in service is evaluated in a feasible way by the new
to be simple and based on some empirical formulae or criteria; otherwise, criteria and environment will have
graphs, which are to be developed after processing to be adjusted.
results of application of the Level 3 procedure to a Design and Optimisation: An important question
sufficiently large number of ships; this procedure for ship designers in the EEDI era will be to manage
should take into account installed power as well as possible contradictions between EEDI requirements,
steering and propulsion efficiency. especially in Phases 3 and 4 of EEDI implementation,
Numerical Methods: For the horizontal forces and and minimum power requirements (which will have to
yaw moment due to wind and calm-water motions, the be based on the present navigational practice). An
existing SoA of numerical methods seems adequate. important task of SHOPERA is to elaborate on
For a practical procedure, empirical data can be used optimal design solutions, demonstrate their feasibility
for wind forces; for calm-water forces, such empirical and assess them through case studies involving
recommendations exist for VLCCs but still have to be multiple criteria. There may be the possibility to
developed for other ship types. Also desirable is the employ emergency means of manoeuvring and
development of validated semi-empirical models for propulsion, e.g. emergency rating of the engine, which
rudder forces in propeller race; some existing models should not be used for propulsion in normal operation
[16,17] can be used as a starting point and fine-tuned. and thus not included in the EEDI calculation, and
Problematic is the determination of the horizontal should be only activated in adverse weather
drift forces and drift yaw moment due to waves. For conditions.
© Marine Technology Centre, UTM
 The 14th International Ship Stability Workshop (ISSW), 29th September- 1st October 2014, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Acknowledgements [5] IMO (2013) Interim guidelines for determining minimum

propulsion power to maintain the manoeuvrability in
The work presented in this paper was partly adverse conditions, Res. MEPC.232(65), in MEPC 65/22,
supported by the Collaborative Project SHOPERA Annex 16
(Energy Efficient Safe SHip OPERAtion), Grant [6] SHOPERA (2013-2016) http://www.shopera.org
[7] IMO (2002) Standards for ship manoeuvrability, Res.
Agreement number 605221, co-funded by the
MSC.137(76)
Research DG of the European Commission within the [8] F.H.H.A. Quadvlieg and P. van Coevorden (2008)
RTD activities of the FP7 Thematic Priority Manoeuvring criteria: more than IMO A.751
Transport, FP7-SST-2013-RTD-1, Activity 7.2.4 requirements alone!
[9] EE-WG 1/4 (2010) Minimum required speed to ensure
Improving Safety and Security, SST.2013.4-1: Ships
safe navigation in adverse conditions, submitted by IACS
in Operation. The European Community and the [10] N. N. (2009) Report on the investigation into the
authors shall not in any way be liable or responsible grounding, and subsequent loss, of the roro cargo vessel
for the use of any knowledge, information or data of Reverdance, Shell Flats – Cleveleys Beach, Lancashire,
31. January 2008, Marine Accidents Investigation Branch
the present paper, or of the consequences thereof. [11] N. N. (1996) Report on the investigation into the
The views expressed in this paper are those of the grounding of the passenger roro ferry Stena Challenger
authors and do not necessary reflect the views and on 19 September 1995, Blériot-Plage, Calais, Marine
Accidents Investigation Branch
policies of the European Community.
[12] N. N. (2012) Report on the investigation of the grounding
References of the cargo ship Carrier at Raynes Jetty in Llanddulas,
North Wales on 3 April 2012, Marine Accidents
[1] MEPC 62/5/19 (2011) Reduction of GHG emissions from Investigation Branch
ships - Consideration of the Energy Efficiency Design [13] Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2008) Independent
Index for New Ships. Minimum propulsion power to investigation into the grounding of the Panamian
ensure safe manoeuvring in adverse conditions, registered bulk carrier Pasha Bulker on Nobbys Beach,
Submitted by IACS, BIMCO, CESA, INTERCARGO, Newcastle, New South Wales, 8 June 2007, ATSB Rep.
INTERTANKO, WSC Marine Occurrence Investigation No. 243
[2] MEPC 62/INF.21 (2011) Reduction of GHG emissions [14] Ventikos et al. (2014) Database of ships and accidents,
from ships - Consideration of the Energy Efficiency project SHOPERA, D1.3.
Design Index for New Ships. Minimum propulsion power [15] International Code on Intact Stability, 2008 (2008 IS
to ensure safe manoeuvring in adverse conditions, Code), IMO, MSC 85/26/Add.1, Annex 2
Submitted by IACS, BIMCO, CESA, INTERCARGO, [16] Brix, J. E. (1993) Manoeuvring Technical Manual. –
INTERTANKO, WSC Seehafen Verlag, Hamburg
[3] MEPC 64/4/13 (2012) Consideration of the Energy [17] H. Söding (1998) Limits of potential theory in rudder
Efficiency Design Index for new ships – Minimum flow predictions, Proc. Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics,
propulsion power to maintain the manoeuvrability in Washington
adverse conditions, Submitted by IACS, BIMCO,
INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and OCIMF
[4] MEPC 64/INF.7 (2012) Background information to
document MEPC 64/4/13, Submitted by IACS

© Marine Technology Centre, UTM