International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering

The Society of Naval Architects of Korea (대한조선학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative analysis among deterministic and stochastic collision damage models for oil tanker and bulk carrier reliability

  • Campanile, A. (The University of Naples "Federico II", Department of Industrial Engineering) ;
  • Piscopo, V. (The University of Naples "Parthenope", Department of Science and Technology) ;
  • Scamardella, A. (The University of Naples "Parthenope", Department of Science and Technology)
  • Received : 2016.09.16
  • Accepted : 2017.03.25
  • Published : 2018.01.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The incidence of collision damage models on oil tanker and bulk carrier reliability is investigated considering the IACS deterministic model against GOALDS/IMO database statistics for collision events, substantiating the probabilistic model. Statistical properties of hull girder residual strength are determined by Monte Carlo simulation, based on random generation of damage dimensions and a modified form of incremental-iterative method, to account for neutral axis rotation and equilibrium of horizontal bending moment, due to cross-section asymmetry after collision events. Reliability analysis is performed, to investigate the incidence of collision penetration depth and height statistical properties on hull girder sagging/hogging failure probabilities. Besides, the incidence of corrosion on hull girder residual strength and reliability is also discussed, focussing on gross, hull girder net and local net scantlings, respectively. The ISSC double hull oil tanker and single side bulk carrier, assumed as test cases in the ISSC 2012 report, are taken as reference ships.

Keywords

References

  1. ABS, 1995a. Guide for Assessing Hull-Girder Residual Strength for Tankers. American Bureau of Shipping, New York (NY), United States.
  2. ABS, 1995b. Guide for Assessing Hull-Girder Residual Strength for Bulk Carriers. American Bureau of Shipping, New York (NY), United States.
  3. Alie, M.Z.M., Fujikubo, M., Iijima, K., Oka, S., Takemura, K., 2012. Residual longitudinal strength analysis of ship's hull girder with damages. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference ISOPE 2012, pp. 831-838.
  4. Amlashi, H.K.K., Moan, T., 2008. Ultimate strength analysis of a bulk carrier hull girder under alternate hold loading condition - a case study Part 1: nonlinear finite element modelling and ultimate hull girder capacity. Mar. Struct. 21, 327-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2007.12.006
  5. Ashman, K.M., Bird, C.M., Zepf, S.E., 1994. Detecting bimodality in astronomical datasets. Astron. J. 108, 2348-2361. https://doi.org/10.1086/117248
  6. Campanile, A., Mandarino, M., Piscopo, V., 2009. On the exact solution of non-uniform torsion for beams with asymmetric cross section. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 31, 46-53.
  7. Campanile, A., Mandarino, M., Piscopo, V., 2010. On the influence of the warping shear stress on the hull girder strength. J. Sh. Res. 54 (4), 231-243.
  8. Campanile, A., Piscopo, V., Scamardella, A., 2014. Statistical properties of bulk-carrier longitudinal strength. Mar. Struct. 39, 438-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2014.10.007
  9. Campanile, A., Piscopo, V., Scamardella, A., 2015. Statistical properties of bulk-carrier residual strength. Ocean Eng. 106, 47-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.06.060
  10. Campanile, A., Piscopo, V., Scamardella, A., 2016a. Time-variant bulk carrier reliability analysis in pure bending intact and damage conditions. Mar. Struct. 46, 193-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2016.02.003
  11. Campanile, A., Piscopo, V., Scamardella, A., 2016b. Incidence of residual stresses and steel properties variability on corroded bulk carrier reliability. Ocean Eng. 128, 58-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.10.026
  12. Choung, J., Nam, J., Ha, T., 2012. Assessment of residual strength of an asymmetrically damaged tanker considering rotational and translational shifts of neutral axis plane. Mar. Struct. 25, 71-84.
  13. Choung, J., Nam, J., Tayyar, G.T., 2014. Residual ultimate strength of a very large crude carrier considering probabilistic damage extents. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 6 (1), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.2478/IJNAOE-2013-0160
  14. DNV, 2011. CSA - Direct Analysis of Ship Structures. Classification Notes 2011: 34.1.
  15. Egge, E.D., Bockenhauer, M., 1991. Calculation of the collision resistance of ships and its assessment for classification purposes. Mar. Struct. 4 (1), 35-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8339(91)90023-5
  16. Fang, C., Das, P.K., 2005. Survivability and reliability of damage ships after collision and grounding. Ocean Eng. 32, 293-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2004.08.006
  17. Fjeld, S., 1978. Reliability of offshore structures. J. Pet. Technol. 30 (10), 1486-1496. https://doi.org/10.2118/6963-PA
  18. Graham, U., Cook, I., 1996. Understanding Statistics. Oxford University Press.
  19. Guedes Soares, C., Dogliani, M., Ostergaard, C., Parmentier, G., Pedersen, P.T., 1996. Reliability based ship structural design. Trans. Soc. Nav. Archit. Mar. Eng. - SNAME 104, 357-389.
  20. Hart, D.K., Rutherford, S.E., Wickham, A.H.S., 1985. Structural reliability analysis of stiffened panels. RINA Trans. 128, 293-310.
  21. Horte, T., Wang, G., White, N., 2007. Calibration of the hull girder ultimate capacity criterion for double hull tankers. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures, Houston (TX), pp. 235-246.
  22. Hussein, A.W., Guedes Soares, C., 2009. Reliability and residual strength of double hull tankers designed according to the new IACS common structural rules. Ocean Eng. 36, 1446-1459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2009.04.006
  23. IACS, 2015a. Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers. International Association of Classification Societies, London, UK.
  24. IACS, 2015b. Technical Report for CSR-H External Release on 2014-06-01. International Association of Classification Societies, London, UK.
  25. IMO, 1973. Regulations on Subdivision and Stability of Passenger Ships as an Equivalent to Part B of Chapter II of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960. Resolution A.265(VIII).
  26. IMO, 1995. Interim Guidelines for Approval of Alternative Methods of Design and Construction of Oil Tankers under Regulation 13F(5) of Annex I of Marpol 73/78. Resolution MEPC.66(37).
  27. IMO, 2003. Revised Interim Guidelines for Approval of Alternative Methods of Design and Construction of Oil Tankers under Regulation 13F(5) of Annex I of Marpol 73/78. Resolution MEPC.110(49).
  28. IMO, 2009. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 2009. The International Maritime Organization, London (UK).
  29. IMO, 2012. Revision of the Damage Stability Regulations for ro-ro Passenger Ships. SLF55/INF.7 Sub-Committee on Stability and Load Lines and on Fishing Vessels Safety.
  30. ISSC, 2000. 14th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, ISSC Committee VI.2: Ultimate Strength.
  31. ISSC, 2012. 18th international ship and offshore structures congress. In: Fricke, W., Bronsart, R. (Eds.), ISSC Committee III.1: Ultimate Strength.
  32. Ivanov, L.D., 1986. Statistical evaluation of the ship's hull cross section geometrical characteristics as a function of her age. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 33 (387), 198-203.
  33. Kim, D.K., Kim, H.B., Mohd, M.H., Paik, J.K., 2013. Comparison of residual strength-grounding damage index diagrams for tankers produced by the ALPS/HULL ISFEM and design formula method. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 5 (1), 47-61. https://doi.org/10.2478/IJNAOE-2013-0117
  34. Kim, D.K., Kim, H.B., Zhang, X., Guang Li, C., Paik, J.K., 2014. Ultimate strength performance of tankers associated with industry corrosion addition practices. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 6 (3), 507-528. https://doi.org/10.2478/IJNAOE-2013-0196
  35. Mansour, A.E., Howen, L., 1994. Probability-based ship structural safety analysis. J. Sh. Res. 38 (4), 329-339.
  36. MathWorks, 2014. Matlab User Guide R2014b. On line version at. www.mathworks.com.
  37. Ozguc, O., Barltrop, N.D., 2008. Analysis on the hull girder ultimate strength of a bulk carrier using simplified method based on an incremental-iterative approach. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 130 (2).
  38. Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Yang, S.H., 1998. Residual strength assessment of ships after collision and grounding. Mar. Technol. 35, 38-54.
  39. Paik, J.K., Frieze, P.A., 2001. Ship structural safety and reliability. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 3, 198-210. https://doi.org/10.1002/pse.74
  40. Saydam, D., Frangopol, D.M., 2013. Performance assessment of damage ship hulls. Ocean Eng. 68, 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.03.016
  41. Smith, M.J., Pegg, N.G., 2003. Automated assessment of ultimate hull girder strength. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 125 (3).
  42. Sorensen, J.D., 2004. Notes in Structural Reliability Theory and Risk Analysis. Aalborg University, Denmark.
  43. Sprinthall, R.C., 2011. Basic Statistical Analysis, ninth ed. Pearson Education Group.
  44. Teixeira, A., 1997. Reliability of Marine Structures in the Context of Risk Based Design (MSc Thesis, University of Glasgow).
  45. VanDerHorn, E., Wang, G., 2011. A statistical study on the material properties of shipbuilding steels. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of the International Maritime Association of the Mediterranean, Genoa, Italy, pp. 371-378.
  46. Vhanmane, S., Bhattacharya, B., 2011. Ultimate strength analysis of ship hull girder under random material and geometric properties. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 133 (3).
  47. Wirsching, P.H., Ferensic, J., Thayamballi, A., 1997. Reliability with respect to ultimate strength of a corroding ship hull. Mar. Struct. 10, 501-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8339(97)00009-9
  48. Zhu, B., Frangopol, D.M., 2013. Reliability assessment of ship structures using Bayesian updating. Eng. Struct. 56, 1836-1847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.07.024

Cited by

  1. The ultimate strength characteristics on double hull oil tanker vol.575, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/575/1/012195
  2. Progressive Collapse Analysis of Intact and Damaged Ships under Unsymmetrical Bending vol.8, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8120988
  3. Post-accidental structural reliability of double-hull oil tanker with near realistic collision damage shapes vol.15, pp.suppl1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2020.1789035