Design Methodology For Cross-Flodding Connects On Naval Vessels

Unclassified
This document is supplied by QinetiQ for USCG Engineering Logistics Center under Contract No. DTCG40-03-P-40387.
Design methodology for crossflooding connects on Naval vessels
Mr A Peters; Mr M Galloway QinetiQ/FST/CR033339/1.0 January 2004
Requests for wider use or release must be sought from: Intellectual Property Division QinetiQ Ltd Cody Technology Park Farnborough Hampshire GU14 0LX
Copyright USCG Engineering Logistics Center [2004]
Unclassified
Unclassified
Administration page
Customer Information Customer reference number Project title Customer Organisation Customer contact Contract number Date due January 2004 DTCG40-03-P-40387 Design methodology for cross-flooding connects on Naval vessels USCG - Engineering Services Mr P Minnick
Principal author A J Peters BEng CEng MRINA QinetiQ Haslar Haslar road Gosport Hants PO12 2AG Authorised by Name Post Signature Date of issue January 2004 Dr M R Renilson Technical Manager, Hydrodynamics +44 (0) 2392 335217 ajpeters@qinetiq.com
Record of changes Issue 1.0 Date January 2004 Detail of Changes
Page 2
QinetiQ/FST/CR033339/1.0
Unclassified
Unclassified
Abstract
The scope of this project was to develop a methodology for the design of crossconnects on Naval vessels. As a demonstration of the state-of-the-art design philosophy and the use of time-domain simulation for design, an alternative crossconnect arrangement for the USCGs 270-ft (Corvette-sized) WMEC Famous Class ship (CG270) was performed. After using the methodology and the time-domain program to design the new system the performances of both the current and alternative cross-flooding arrangements were compared in relation to current IMO and USCG criteria. The study was conducted using the FREDYN program in order to compare the time-domain analysis of the current and alternative cross-flood systems. The existing method to statically calculate, by hand the time to cross-flood is examined and the merits and shortcomings of the two cross-connect arrangements are then discussed. The design and analysis of the cross-flooding ducts were performed using a nonlinear time-domain ship motion program called FREDYN. The use of a time-domain code allows cross-flooding ducts to be modelled to take account of the vessel motion and transient flow after the damage. This allows the effectiveness of the crossflooding ducts and the time taken to cross-flood to be assessed in a seaway. The worst damage case under the current USCG criteria was selected as the test case incorporating the tanks containing a cross-flooding system. For each damage scenario a set of thirty-minute simulations were performed with the vessel in a deep seagoing condition for a matrix of speed, heading sea state conditions. The simulations were repeated with and without the existing cross-flooding activated and with the new system activated. In the damage cases tested, the cross-flooding system was shown to improve the after damage performance of the vessel. In most of the cases tested the damage list angle was reduced by up to 8 degrees. The effectiveness of the new design of crossflooding ducts was demonstrated.
Page 3
Unclassified
Unclassified
Blank page
Page 4
Unclassified
Unclassified
Executive summary
The scope of this project was to develop a methodology for the design of crossconnects on Naval vessels. As a demonstration of the state-of-the-art design philosophy and the use of time-domain simulation for design, an alternative crossconnect arrangement for the USCGs 270-ft (Corvette-sized) WMEC Famous Class ship (CG270) was performed. After using the methodology and the time-domain program to design the new system the performances of both the current and alternative cross-flooding arrangements were compared in relation to current IMO and USCG criteria. The study was conducted using the FREDYN program in order to compare the time-domain analysis of the current and alternative cross-flood systems. The existing method to statically calculate, by hand, the time to cross-flood is examined and the merits and shortcomings of the two cross-connect arrangements are then discussed. The FREDYN hullform was provided by the customer with a pertinent set of drawings of the vessel. Compartment definition in FREDYN is limited to orthogonal plane definitions of the compartment boundaries with the exception of the hull. A 3D solid static stability model was created using the PARAMARINE tool, which was used to calculate hydrostatics and static stability calculations. The analysis of the cross-flooding ducts was performed using a non-linear timedomain ship motion program called FREDYN. The use of a time-domain code allows the ducts to be modelled to take account of the vessel motion and transient flow after the damage is initiated. This allows the effectiveness of the cross-flooding ducts and the time taken to cross-flood in a seaway to be assessed. The worst damage case under the current criteria was selected as the test case incorporating the compartments containing a cross-flooding system. For each damage scenario sets of thirty-minute simulations were performed with the vessel in a deep seagoing condition for a matrix of speed, heading and sea state conditions. The simulations were repeated with and without the existing cross-flooding system activated and with the new system activated. In the damage cases tested the cross-flooding was shown to improve the after damage performance of the vessel. In most of the cases tested the damage list angle was reduced by up to 8 degrees. The effectiveness of the new design of cross-flooding ducts was demonstrated. This work was funded by USCG ELC under customer reference DTCG40-02-Q-41363 QinetiQ assignment code 300411 0001.
Page 5
Unclassified
Unclassified
Blank page
Page 6
Unclassified
Unclassified
List of contents
Administration page Abstract Executive summary List of contents List of figures List of tables 1 2 Introduction Review of cross-flooding systems 2.1 Criteria for cross-flood systems 2.2 Current cross-flooding systems 2.3 Current static based hand calculations FREDYN and cross-flooding methodology 3.1 FREDYN and the extreme motions of damaged ship 3.2 Cross-flooding design 3.3 Duct routing and sizing 3.4 Duct positioning 3.5 Effects of through life growth USCG 270-ft WMEC cutter 4.1 FREDYN and PARAMARINE model 4.2 Damage extents 4.3 CG270 model generation 4.4 Cross-flooding modelling in FREDYN 4.5 Alternative duct design 4.6 Matrix of tests 4.7 Run selection 4.8 Ship condition Simulations Discussion 6.1 Run Set 1 - Variation with ship speed and heading 6.2 Run Set 2 - Variation with ship loading condition 6.3 Run Set 3 - Variation with sea state 6.4 Run Set 4 - Variation with position on wave at damage onset 6.5 Results of parametric variation 2 3 5 7 10 10 11 13 13 14 17 19 19 21 23 23 24 25 25 25 26 30 31 31 32 33 34 35 35 36 37 38 38
5 6
Page 7
Unclassified
Unclassified
7 8 9 10
Conclusions Recommendations References Tables Table 1: Figures Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13: Figure 14: Figure 15: Figure 16: Figure 17: Figure 18: Figure 19: Figure 20: Figure 21: Figure 22: Figure 23: Figure 24: Figure 25: Figure 26: Figure 27: Figure 28: Figure 29: Figure 30: Figure 31: Figure 32: Figure 33:
40 41 42
Sea state wave heights and period
43
11
No duct - sea state 5 - beam seas - 7 kts - 0 kts - deep condition USCG duct - sea state 5 - beam seas - 7 kts - 0 kts - deep condition QinetiQ duct - sea state 5 - beam seas - 7 kts - 0 kts - deep condition No duct - sea state 5 - beam seas - 7 kts - 7 kts - deep condition USCG duct - sea state 5 - beam seas - 7 kts - 7 kts - deep condition QinetiQ duct - sea state 5 - beam seas - 7 kts - 7 kts - deep condition Heading vs transient roll angle at 12 kts before damage 0 kts after damage Heading vs transient roll angle at 7 kts before damage 0 kts after damage Heading vs transient roll angle at 7 kts before damage 7 kts after damage Heading vs RMS roll angle at 12 kts before damage 0 kts after damage Heading vs RMS roll angle at 7 kts before damage 0 kts after damage Heading vs RMS roll angle at 7 kts before damage 7 kts after damage Heading vs transient roll angle - no duct Heading vs RMS roll angle - no duct Heading vs mean list angle - no duct Heading vs transient roll angle - USCG duct Heading vs RMS roll angle - USCG duct Heading vs time to cross-flood - USCG duct Heading vs transient roll angle - QinetiQ duct Heading vs RMS roll angle - QinetiQ duct Heading vs time to cross-flood- QinetiQ duct Heading vs time to cross-flood at 12 kts before damage 0 kts after damage Heading vs time to cross-flood at 7 kts before damage 0 kts after damage Heading vs time to cross-flood at 7 kts before damage 7 kts after damage No duct - sea state 4 - beam seas - 0 kts - light condition USCG duct - sea state 4 - beam seas - 0 kts - light condition QinetiQ duct - sea state 4 - beam seas - 0 kts - light condition No duct - sea state 4 - beam seas - 0 kts - deep condition USCG duct - sea state 4 - beam seas - 0 kts - deep condition QinetiQ duct - sea state 4 - beam seas - 0 kts - deep condition Heading vs transient roll angle in sea state 3 - deep condition Heading vs transient roll angle in sea state 4 - deep condition Heading vs transient roll angle in sea state 5 - deep condition
44 44 44 45 45 45 46 46 46 47 47 47 48 48 48 49 49 49 50 50 50 51 51 51 52 52 52 53 53 53 54 54 54
Page 8
Unclassified
Unclassified
Figure 34: Figure 35: Figure 36: Figure 37: Figure 38: Figure 39: Figure 40: Figure 41: Figure 42: Figure 43: Figure 44: Figure 45: Figure 46: Figure 47: Figure 48: Figure 49: Figure 50: Figure 51: Figure 52: Figure 53: Figure 54: Figure 55: Figure 56: Figure 57: Figure 58: Figure 59: figure 60: Figure 61: Figure 62: Figure 63: Figure 64: Figure 65:
Heading vs transient roll angle in sea state 3 - light condition Heading vs transient roll angle in sea state 4 - light condition Heading vs transient roll angle in sea state 5 - light condition Heading vs transient roll angle - no duct Heading vs RMS roll angle - no duct Heading vs mean list angle - no duct Heading vs transient roll angle - USCG duct Heading vs RMS roll angle - USCG duct Heading vs time to cross-flood - USCG duct Heading vs transient roll angle - QinetiQ duct Heading vs RMS roll angle - QinetiQ duct Heading vs time to cross-flood - QinetiQ duct Heading vs RMS roll angle in sea state 3 - deep condition Heading vs RMS roll angle in sea state 4 - deep condition Heading vs RMS roll angle in sea state 5 - deep condition Heading vs RMS roll angle in sea state 3 - light condition Heading vs RMS roll angle in sea state 4 - light condition Heading vs RMS roll angle in sea state 5 - light condition Heading vs time to cross-flood - in sea state 3 Heading vs time to cross-flood - in sea state 4 Heading vs time to cross-flood - in sea state 5 Sea state vs transient roll angle at beam seas - opening towards 0 kts Sea state vs transient roll angle at beam seas - opening towards 12-0 kts Sea state vs transient roll angle at beam seas - opening towards 7-7 kts Sea state vs RMS roll angle at beam seas - opening towards - 0 kts Sea state vs RMS roll angle at beam seas - opening towards - 12-0 kts Sea state vs RMS roll angle at beam seas - opening towards - 7-7 kts Sea state vs time to cross-flood - 0 kts Sea state vs time to cross-flood - 12-0 kts Sea state vs time to cross-flood - 7-7 kts Sea state vs transient roll angle at beam seas - no duct Sea state vs transient roll angle at beam seas - USCG duct
55 55 55 56 56 56 57 57 57 58 58 58 59 59 59 60 60 60 61 61 61 62 62 62 63 63 63 64 64 64 65 65 66 67
Initial distribution list Report documentation page
Page 9
Unclassified
Unclassified
List of figures Figure 2-1: Straight duct - cross-section Figure 2-2: Inverted U type duct - cross-section Figure 2-3: Double bottom tank - cross-section Figure 2-4: Double duct - cross-section Figure 2-5: Double duct - plan view Figure 4-1: Damage zone and cross-flooding duct location Figure 4-2: PARAMARINE hullform Figure 4-3: Stern of CG270 Figure 4-4: Damage region Figure 4-5: Cross-flooding tanks and existing duct Figure 4-6: Alternative QinetiQ cross-flood design (red) List of tables Table 4-1: Damage region Table 4-2: Run list Table 5-1: Ship conditions Table 6-1: Results from parametric variation
15 15 16 16 16 25 27 28 28 29 31
26 32 34 38-39
Page 10
Unclassified
Unclassified
1
1.1
Introduction
In 1990, a Co-operative Research Navies (CRN) committee was established with the aim of producing intact dynamic stability criteria for naval vessels. The criteria were required to ensure that new vessels were safe, while avoiding the high build and life cycle costs associated with over-engineering. The CRN committee comprises representatives from the Australian, Canadian, Netherlands, France, UK and US MOD/DoDs, the US Coast Guard, QinetiQ, DRDC, MARIN and NSWCCD. To derive the dynamic stability criteria, the committee needed to test in-service and new ship designs, in moderate to extreme seas, to assess their relative safety and probability of capsize. This required an extensive sensitivity study of a number of design parameters, including KG, GM, freeboard, dynamic stability and range of positive stability. As this would be impractical at full scale and both costly and time consuming in terms of model experiments, a time-domain prediction code, FREDYN, was developed. FREDYN, unlike the currently available frequency-domain programs, is able to take account of the non-linearities associated with the drag forces, excitation forces and rigid-body dynamics. The program was written by MARIN with steerage and guidance from the CRN committee. The latest version of FREDYN can model vessels with damaged compartments and cross-flooding ducts, and can predict the vessels behaviour in waves. This permits investigations into the dynamics of damaged vessels in realistic environments, rather than simple pseudo-static analysis, which is the current practice. The effectiveness in a seaway of cross-flood (cross-connect) arrangements fitted to naval ships has not, until recently, been well understood. The scope of this project was to develop a methodology using the state-of-the-art design philosophy and the FREDYN program for the design of cross-connects on naval vessels. As an example to demonstrate the methodology an alternative cross-connect arrangement was designed for the USCGs 270-ft (Corvette-sized) WMEC Famous Class ship (CG270). Both the current and alternative cross-flooding arrangements were tested in a large matrix of scenarios and also assessed in relation to current IMO and USCG criteria. The study was conducted using the FREDYN program in order to compare the timedomain analysis of the current and alternative systems to the design guidance given in the report Cross-flooding of a Frigate Sized Vessel, (Peters, March 2001). The merits and shortcomings of the IMO hand calculation and the proposed method are discussed as well as the two cross-connect arrangements. Static stability based hand calculation using the IMO guidelines for the performance of the cross-flooding ducts can be performed quite easily using data from standard static stability software, however, this does not take account of the vessel motions or transient flow after damage. The use of the FREDYN program enables the performance of the cross-flooding ducts to be analysed in a seaway and so allowing the time taken to cross-flood to be calculated more accurately. The other advantage of the simulation is that the performance of the vessel before, during and after flooding can be examined. To investigate the effect on the vessel of the two cross-flooding duct designs a matrix of runs was completed with FREDYN to assess the performance of the vessel. For
Page 11
1.2
1.3
1.4
Unclassified
Unclassified
each simulation, statistics of the run parameters were plotted to show the time taken to cross-flood and the resulting vessel behaviour. 1.5 This work was funded by United States Coast Guard customer reference DTCG40-02Q-41363 QinetiQ assignment code 350753 0001.
Page 12
Unclassified
Unclassified
Review of cross-flooding systems

Longitudinal subdivision is common practice in ship design. This internal arrangement can introduce asymmetric flooding in damage cases which can be resolved in many ways involving improving general stability with solid ballast or with liquid loading restrictions. Cross-flooding systems are regarded as a possible solution to this problem. The effectiveness of cross-flood arrangements fitted to naval ships in a seaway has until recently been little known. Static stability analysis of the effectiveness of the cross-flooding ducts can be performed using standard static stability software, but this does not take account of the vessel motions or transient flow after damage. However, large-amplitude motion dynamics play an important role in the capsize behaviour of a frigate in waves and to the performance of the cross-flooding arrangement fitted. The use of a time-domain simulation program enables the performance of the cross-flooding ducts to be analysed in a seaway, thus allowing the time taken to achieve cross-flooded equilibrium to be assessed. As with many static-based stability criteria adopted around the world, the origins date back to data and information gathered over many years. This applies especially to the great Pacific Typhoon of December 1944, which struck vessels of USN Pacific Fleet causing the loss of 790 men and three destroyers (see Calhoun, 1981). Following this incident a review of stability assessment was undertaken, which resulted in new stability criteria for US Navy ships (Sarchin and Goldberg, 1962). This covers the intact and damaged stability criteria, which has been adopted by many Navies around the world including the USCG and UKMOD.
2.1
Criteria for cross-flood systems

The 1960 SOLAS conference first laid out the requirements for cross-flooding systems where a maximum time for cross-flooding was defined as 15 minutes. This limit was probably based on evidence from the time and the need to set an achievable standard. This criteria is now included in the current regulations as Regulation 8 (5) in Chapter 2 Part B of the International Convention for the Safety of life at sea (SOLAS, 2001). This criterion for cross-flooding is stated as follows: 5. Unsymmetrical flooding is to be kept to a minimum consistent with efficient arrangements. Where it is necessary to correct large angles of heel the means adopted shall, where practical, be self-acting, but where controls to cross-flooding fittings are provided they shall be operable from above the bulkhead deck. These fittings shall be acceptable to the Administration. The maximum angle of heel after flooding but before equalisation shall be less than 15 degrees. Where cross-flooding fitting is required the time to equalisation shall not exceed 15 min. Suitable information concerning the use of the cross-flooding fitting shall be supplied to the master of the ship. The criteria goes on to state that for the unsymmetrical case that the angle of heel after equalisation has completed should be less than 12 degrees for two or more compartment damage.
Page 13
Unclassified
Unclassified
2.1.1
DDS 079-1 criteria The US Navy stability criteria are documented in the Design Data Sheet (DDS) 079-1 (US Navy, 1975), which is divided into criteria for damage stability for both sideprotected and non-protected vessels. The non-protected criteria relate to the 270-ft cutter that is the class used in this investigation. The DDS 079-1 states that an angle of less than 15 degrees is required after damage for operational requirements. There is no mention of cross-flood systems except for in the side-protected vessels, which states that the maximum list shall not exceed 20 degrees and that arrangements exist for rapidly reducing the list to less than 5 degrees. It does not specify any time constraints for this.
2.1.2
USCG criteria From the current USCG Design and Construction Standard (DCS) SWBS 079 on the use of "Cross-Connection of Tanks" it states "cross-connection of tanks should only be employed where other alternatives have been evaluated and are deemed impracticable. It then states that where cross-connection of tanks is utilised, the following applies: The cross-flooding system shall prevent transference of liquids from one tank to the other during normal rolling of the ship. Cross-flooding time shall not exceed five minutes Prior to cross-flooding the following criteria shall be met: Heel shall not exceed 20 degrees. Area A1/A2 greater than or equal to 1.4.
2.2
Current cross-flooding systems

The following duct types have been seen fitted to both commercial and naval vessels in recent years. Different types of cross-flooding arrangements are suitable for different tank positions and damage scenarios, and there is no one design suitable for all situations. Even if the tank layout is a similar shape and in a similar position to an existing design the size of the required ducts is still unknown. A brief description of some of the main styles of cross-connection duct designs that are commonly used is given below, with some of their advantages and disadvantages.
Page 14
Unclassified
Unclassified
Straight duct
Comp 2
Comp 1
Figure 2-1: Straight duct - cross-section This is the simplest of all cross-flooding designs, which consists of a straight pipe connecting the bottom of two wing tanks together. This creates a totally passive system, which is in-line with the IMO guidelines for passenger ships, which states that cross-flooding systems should be self-starting where possible. This system is often used where normally empty compartments are causing the asymmetry. This system is less suitable when it connects two tanks, as this system allows easy transfer of liquids. This is not desirable and can cause stability issues, and contamination if the tanks contain different fluids. A variation of this system has a valve in the centre of the pipe, which stops the tanks mixing fluids in normal service. The down side to a valve is that it has to be manually opened following damage which means there is an additional risk and time delay to the cross-flooding operation due to the required human action. Inverted U type duct
Tank 2
Tank 1
Figure 2-2: Inverted U type duct - cross-section The inverted U type duct is often used to connect tanks together in a similar manner to the straight duct but with the reduction of the possibility of the fluids mixing during the ships normal motions due to its shape. As long as the top of the U Tube remains permanently below the damaged waterline the fluids will cross-flood
QinetiQ/FST/CR033339/1.0 Page 15
Unclassified
Unclassified
successfully after damage. If the top of the pipe emerges from the water then the duct will not function. The design of this type of duct requires careful design to ensure that the duct will function after damage.
Tank 2
Tank 1
Figure 2-3: Double bottom tank - cross-section The pipe arrangement above is a similar system that is often used to connect double bottom tanks together. This design, because of its low position in the ship, means that the tanks are prevented from mixing liquids in the intact state. After the damage event, the tanks will cross-flood continuously if the duct stays below the damage waterline, which it is likely to be the case due to its low position in the ship. Double duct arrangement
Tank 2
Tank 1
Tank 2
Tank 1
Figure 2-4: Double duct - cross-section
Figure 2-5: Double duct - plan view
The double duct system is another type of arrangement that has been used in recent years. The layout of the pipes prevents, or at least minimises, the mixing of the tanks. There are both disadvantages and advantages to this type of system. The disadvantage of this system is that double the amount of pipe is required, but depending on the damage waterline it is possible for both pipes to flood which decreases the time to cross-flood and incorporates some element of redundancy in the system. The downside to this system is that one tank cannot be pressed full while the other is empty.
Page 16 QinetiQ/FST/CR033339/1.0
Unclassified
Unclassified
These previous used arrangements show some of the basic designs for cross-flooding systems, but actual final positioning and sizing of the duct is critical to the final performance and requires careful evaluation.
2.3
Current static based hand calculations

The current practice for a designer assessing the performance of cross-flooding systems involves using an approximate formula that was derived by Dr Ing Gino Solda in 1961 (Solda, 1961). This formulation takes account of the static water head at the start and end point of the cross-flooding and the amount of water to cross-flood. The shape and length of the pipe is also taken into account through the inclusion of a total pipe friction coefficient. This formulation then provides a simple answer to the time to cross-flood based on static calculations. The formula is as follows:
1 Hf Ho 2gHo
2W To = sf
1 Hf 1 Ho
(1)
To W s f g Ho Hf
= = = = = = =
Time to cross-flood Total volume of water for equalisation Cross-sectional area of cross-flooding pipe Flow reduction factor for the duct Acceleration due to gravity Head of fluid before equalisation Final head of water (after complete equalisation)
This formulation is suitable for calculating an initial figure for the time to cross-flood at the early stages of design. Care must be taken in the calculation of the f term, which is the flow reduction factor that is based on calculations for flow in pipes. This is also true for the time-domain computational method as the calculation of the flow reduction factor is also required. It was shown by Peters (2001) to be possible with care that suitable values could be produced for the total friction coefficient and used successfully in the time-domain simulations. This formulation does not take account of the transient roll or the motion of the vessel during the cross-flooding process. It is also not always straightforward for the designer to select the water height head to use in these calculations. Using a time-domain program like FREDYN allows the parameters that effect the cross-flooding performance to be assessed both independently or together.
QinetiQ/FST/CR033339/1.0 Page 17
Unclassified
Unclassified
In comparison to the tank experiments (Peters, 2001), it was shown possible in calm water to achieve predictions using this static formula with about 10% error, often under predicting the time to cross-flood. Relatively small changes in the pressure heads were found to change the time to cross-flood significantly. It was easy to achieve 30 to 40% differences in the time to cross-flood in comparison to the results from the experiments and time-domain simulations due to inaccuracies in the prediction of the pressure heads. An additional problem occurred with double duct arrangements due to predicting the contribution by the second duct which was difficult to determine. In the example in this report, using just the damage drafts to approximate the damage water heads again caused differences of the same magnitude. This meant that an accurate full hydrostatic computer model of the damaged ship was required to get accurate water head data to achieve good results using the formulation above in calm water. By exporting the geometry to a program like FREDYN, with little additional effort a full detailed investigation of the crossflooding can be made.
Page 18
Unclassified
Unclassified
FREDYN and cross-flooding methodology

The current practice for any design of a cross-flood system involves basic static analysis with the calculations using the assumption of calm water. In reality the vessel would be rolling and pitching about in waves causing the pressure heads to continually change thereby effecting how the cross-flooding system operates. The recent advances in time-domain simulation now allows a damage simulation to be conducted in 6 degrees of freedom with cross-flooding and down-flooding included. This allows the transient behaviour and motions after damage to be taken into account when evaluating the cross-flooding system.
3.1
FREDYN and the extreme motions of damaged ship

The FREDYN program was written by MARIN with steerage and guidance from the CRN committee. FREDYN was designed to enable the simulation of motion of an intact steered ship in wind and waves (MARIN, 2002). Unlike the currently available frequency-domain programs, FREDYN is able to take account of the non-linearities associated with the drag forces, excitation forces and rigid body dynamics. The approach is a physical one, where all physical factors are considered. Both the viscous forces and the potential forces are added to complete the physical model. Nonlinearities have to be considered as they arise from: Effect of large angles on excitation forces. Rigid body dynamics with large angles. Drag forces associated with hull motions, wave orbital velocities and wind; and Integration of wave induced pressure up to free surface.
The latest version of FREDYN can model vessels with damaged compartments and cross-flooding ducts, and can predict the vessels resulting behaviour in waves. The theory for predicting the large amplitude motions with FREDYN has been described by McTaggart and De Kat (2000) and by Van t Veer and De Kat (2000). The derivation of the equations of motions for a ship subjected to flooding through one or more damage openings is based on the conservation of linear and angular momentum for six coupled degrees of freedom. The fluid inside the ship is considered as a free particle with concentrated mass; using this approach classical rigid-body dynamics can be used to derive the equations of motion. 3.1.1 Time-varying mass In time-domain simulations it is necessary to integrate first-order equations of the form (see De Kat and Peters, 2002):
=v x = f (v , x , t ) v
(2)
Page 19
Unclassified
Unclassified
The effect of time varying mass associated with the flooding is treated as follows. The equations are derived by taking the time derivative of momentum to give:
F= d dv dm ( mv) = m + v dt dt dt
(3)
The second term on the RHS may be moved to the LHS and combined with the force vector:
F v dm dv = (m + m ') dt dt
(4)
The term m is the mass that varies with time due to the floodwater, while m is the actual physical mass of the body. After rearranging, this equation can be written:
dm F v dv dt = = v dt m + m'
(5)
which is of the form required for numerical integration. Using the above approach and generalised 6x6 mass matrices yields the following equations of motion for a damaged vessel in the ship-fixed co-ordinate system:
Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz ( m 0 + m f ).( w G q - v Gr) ( m 0 + m f ).( u Gr - w Gp ) ( m 0 + m f ).( v Gp - u G q ) f ]. x G + - [M ( I z z ,0 - I y y ,0 )q r ( I x x ,0 - I z z ,0 )p r ( I y y ,0 - I x x ,0 )p q
( [ M 0 ] + [a ( )] + [ M f ] ) . xG
(6)
+ a d d itio n a l te rm s
The matrix [M0] is the generalised 6x6 mass matrix of the intact ship, [a()] is the added mass matrix that is part of the linear radiation forces (the convolution integrals are part of the force terms in the RHS). [Mf] is the 6x6 matrix containing all ship-acceleration related, time-dependent mass and inertia terms associated with the floodwater, including non-zero off-diagonal terms. The summation signs in the RHS represent the sum of all external force contributions, including the effect of damage fluid, potential th flow and viscous fluid forces. The equations of motion are solved using a 4 order Runge-Kutta scheme. The additional terms in the RHS of the equations of motion stem from cross products, which appear when expressing the conservation of momentum in a shipfixed co-ordinate system, and from the motion of the fluid relative to the ship. One of the exciting force contributions that is treated "exactly" stems from the hydrostatic and dynamic wave pressure. This represents the Froude-Krylov force,
Unclassified
Unclassified
which is obtained by pressure integration over the instantaneous wetted surface of the hull at each time step. This will account for a large part of the non-linearities that affect the ship response. Linear wave theory is used to describe the sea surface and wave kinematics. In the case of irregular waves, the model makes use of linear superposition of sinusoidal components with random phasing. 3.1.2 3.1.2.1 Water ingress and fluid loading Hydraulic flow To estimate the flow rates of water entering a compartment, the flooding model is based on the Bernoulli equation (see De Kat and Peters, 2002, or Van 't Veer and De Kat, 2000). This analysis is applied to each damage opening or holes between two compartments. It assumes stationary flow conditions and no loss of energy due to friction or increased turbulence. Based on the difference in pressure head, the velocity through a damage opening can be calculated. In addition, airflow and compression effects are modelled using the appropriate gas laws. To obtain the total discharge through an opening, Q, the following empirical formulation is used:
Q = Cd v 2 A
(7)
where A is the area of the opening and Cd is the discharge coefficient. And v2 is fluid velocity. This coefficient accounts for a combination of several effects (such as friction losses). Cross-flooding ducts are modelled in a similar way to this but account is taken of the friction in the pipe. 3.1.2.2 Quasi-dynamic fluid loading Based on the computed inflow and outflow of fluid through all openings, the fluid mass inside a shipboard compartment is known at each time step. A simple yet practical approach is to assume that the water level of the floodwater inside any compartment remains horizontal (earth-fixed) at all times. This implies that the damage fluid causes a vertical force (due to gravity) to act on the ship and that any sloshing effects are neglected. Comparison of previous cross-flooding validation between a FREDYN prediction and an experiment of a damaged Leander class frigate operating in a seaway (De Kat and Peters, 2002) demonstrated that the simulation program FREDYN effectively modelled the motions of a ship with cross-flooding systems operational.
3.2
Cross-flooding design
Using either the current static hand calculations or using the time-domain program the following points give some guidance for consideration while designing a crossflooding system. These points were derived during the Cross-flooding of Frigate Sized Vessels project conducted in March 2001 for the USCG and the UKMOD (Peters,
Page 21
Unclassified
Unclassified
2001). The first main point that should be noted is that cross-flooding reduces the reserve of buoyancy on the intact side of the ship. This should be investigated to ascertain whether cross-flooding would firstly be beneficial or not. Cross flooding could, in an extreme case, cause a ship to sink further and reduce waterplane area, substantially reducing stability and lowering downflooding points closer to the waterline. During the design of cross-flooding systems the design should be made passive or automatic where possible, which is the case for the current and alternative arrangements. When a cross-flooding system involves human intervention or additional machinery or pumps then the time to operate is increased, as is the risk of the system not operating effectively. A system requiring activation will not begin operation during the critical seconds immediately following damage. The straight duct system is ideal for connecting two empty tanks, void spaces or cofferdams, but if it is used to connect two fuel tanks there is likely to be constant mixing of tanks. This is also undesirable if the ship sustains asymmetric damage elsewhere then the part full fuel tanks can drain freely under gravity into the tank on the lower side, thus degrading stability. The inverted U duct and double type duct would not be affected to such an extent due to their design. If the compartment will not press full when damaged then a system along the lines of the straight or inverted U duct is recommended, as the duct openings are likely to be well below the waterline throughout the damage event. This will result in immediate and continual flooding to the point of equilibrium. The straight duct option will allow tank mixing in the intact state unless a valve is fitted. The inverted duct has the advantage that its shape resists mixing, to a certain extent, in a totally passive manner. Where possible, cross-flooding systems should be fitted in regions where the compartments will fill completely after damage and, if possible, remain pressed full even during rolling. This reduces problems associated with additional free-surface effects and cross-flooding effectiveness, especially with the double type duct. All parts of the duct route should be below damaged waterlines at all times if the inverted U type duct is used, the highest part of the duct must be formed in a way so that none of the duct rises above the waterline any time after damage. If the duct rises above the waterline, for example during the transient roll, then cross-flooding will not initiate until the duct submerges below the waterline. Design studies and model experiments at Haslar have shown that even the initial transient roll is fractionally reduced with cross-flooding systems that initiate immediately after damage. When straight duct systems are fitted low in a ship that has a high beam, the position should be carefully assessed. It must be fitted to ensure that during the initial rolling after damage all the openings stay below the water surface. FREDYN simulations (Peters 2001) have highlighted the case where a wider ship, with a duct opening in the centre of the side tanks, rolled after damage to an angle so as to raise the end of the duct above the water, stopping completely any flow into the far side tank.
Unclassified
Unclassified
The double type duct system has shown to be very effective in certain conditions and less effective in others. It is recommended that this type of system should only be fitted in compartments that will be pressed full after damage, because when the compartment does not fill the duct often emerges above the waterline, stopping the cross-flooding. It has been shown that when the compartment is pressed full and below the waterline, this system floods through both ducts allowing for a rapid cross -flooding. It is recommended that the tops of the ducts should be positioned so that they do not rise above the water surface, particularly in the transient roll, as the system then only floods through one duct, increasing the time to cross-flood. If cross-flooding is to connect two tanks together then the tanks should contain the same type of contents, as there will definitely be some mixing with passive crossflooding systems. Ducts should be designed so as to reduce the potential sloshing between tanks, so reducing the mixing of tank fluids. Current designs often have openings at the top of the tanks or a curved connection to restrain cross-flooding. The design to stop or restrain the mixing of tanks must not reduce the effect of the ducts if damage is sustained. An option may involve a manual valve to be fitted to stop mixing if the vessel operates in scenarios that cause large roll angles. This is only recommended in the extreme circumstances to stop the tanks mixing. Any valve should be fitted near the centre of the duct to reduce the possibility of it not operating after damage. The remote opening of the valve should be possible from several locations on the ship, including the bridge.
3.3
Duct routing and sizing

It has been shown by Peters (2001) that the effect of increasing the cross-sectional area of the duct is proportional to the decrease in roll angle during the first 4 roll oscillations. The duct diameter used in that experiment scaled to a 0.28 m diameter duct at full scale, which is close to the size used in frigate sized vessels. It is suggested that the duct diameter should not be lower than 0.25 m, even in small tanks, and preferably be as large as practically possible for the compartment. Ducts of 0.4 m diameter are suggested as suitable for frigate type vessels as they showed a rapid cross-flooding in the double type ducts case, reducing the transient peak. Duct sizes should be physically or computationally modelled to assess any potential free surface or stability problems during the cross-flooding stage. Ducting should be the shortest possible length and contain as few bends and valves as possible to reduce frictional losses.
3.4
Duct positioning
The pipe openings and pipe runs should be positioned so they remain below the water line during the intact, transient and damage phases to ensure immediate and effective cross-flooding. Other considerations are to be made to the pipe run to reduce the risk of damage to the cross-flooding arrangement during the damage event.
Page 23
Unclassified
Unclassified
For bottom and side tanks, where the risk of collision damage is highest, the ducts should be as far as possible from the shell plating to ensure the duct itself does not get bent or blocked during damage. Double type ducts, that follow closely the shell plating, should be positioned preferably at each end of the compartment near the bulkheads, so as to offer some protection to the ducts during the damage incident. The double type duct has the disadvantage that it requires the complexity of two pipes to be fitted, although in cases tested often there is flooding through both ducts so increasing the rate of cross-flooding. It is recommended that a minimum of two ducts are fitted to a compartment to incorporate an element of redundancy so that cross-flooding will still occur (at a slower rate) if one gets blocked through damage. 3.5
Effects of through life growth

The chosen design of cross-flooding system should be analysed at a range of expected through life conditions for the vessel. This is to ensure that as KG and displacement grow, the ducts would still operate effectively. The condition later in life may result in, for example, part of the duct rising above the waterline, stopping cross-flooding where it may not do so in an earlier condition.
Page 24
Unclassified
Unclassified
USCG 270-ft WMEC cutter

To demonstrate the methodology and use of FREDYN in the design and guidance for cross-flooding designs the USCG 270-ft cutter was chosen as an example case for the study. The 270-ft cutter has an existing cross-flooding pipe between the Port and Starboard Ballast tanks 4-03-1-W and tank 4-103-1-W.
4.1
FREDYN and PARAMARINE model

The modelling approach taken for this task followed Haslar standard practice developed during previous FREDYN cross-flooding studies. The general approach is to identify the damage zones and compartments, generate the appropriate computer models to facilitate the analysis, verify these models against benchmark data and finally run a matrix of FREDYN simulations. A detail description of the process follows.
4.2
Damage extents
The damage zones and their extents were provided by the USCG. The damage zones were selected based on the static stability studies where the damaged list angles were shown to be the worst. The damage zone extents and associated cross-flooding for the damage case are shown in Table 4-1 and their location in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1: Damage zone and cross-flooding duct location
Page 25
Unclassified
Unclassified
Damage Space Clean Ballast Seachest Engine Space CPP Pump Oil Oily Waste Diesel Oil Service Clean Ballast Aft Void Dry Provisions Engineers Ctrl Room Elevator Crew Accommodation Electronic Store Uptakes Galley and Mess CPO Accommodation
Description 4-103-1-W 4-162-1-F 4-165-1-F 4-165-3-F 4-169-1-W 4-169-0-A 3-152-0-E 3-165-1-Q 1-103-3-A DB DB
st
Deck
Frames From 103 117 103 161.5 165 165 169 169 165 151.5 165 165 103 103 124 165 From 145 120.5 165 165 169 169 186 186 186 165 169 186 124 124 165 186
Extent Stbd Stbd Symm. Stbd Stbd Stbd Stbd Stbd Symm. Symm. Stbd Symm. Stbd Stbd Symm. Symm.
DB-1 Platform DB DB DB DB DB TT 1 Platform 1 Platform-Main Deck 1 Platform Main Deck Main Deck Main Deck Main Deck
st st st
Table 4-1: Damage region
4.3
CG270 model generation

Two computer models of the USCG 270-ft WMEC were required to perform FREDYN simulations, a basic static stability model and the FREDYN dynamic stability model. A static stability model was required to provide the basic hydrostatic inputs for FREDYN; it also served as a benchmark test to validate the FREDYN model. PARAMARINE was chosen as the software for which the static stability model would be produced. The Graphics Research Corporation (GRC) developed PARAMARINE, which is the static modelling package used by the UK Ministry of Defence (UKMOD). QinetiQ (Haslar) has rigorously tested and validated PARAMARINE against pure mathematical models, which gives confidence in the algorithms and equations used. This work was performed on the behalf of the UKMOD. The hull definition was generated from a surface fit of curve geometry data provided by the USCG ELC in the form of 270wmec.hul file containing offset data. The surface fit operation in PARAMARINE automatically provides a good match to the curve data; however, some manual fairing was performed to remove any inflexion points. The transom was treated as a separate surface fit due to rapid change in curve direction. The transom surface was later sewn to the main hull surface; this surface was then
Page 26
Unclassified
Unclassified
used to develop a solid hull definition Figure 4-2. The transom is highlighted in Figure 4-3. The internal arrangement was generated from the general arrangement drawings and frame sections provided by the USCG ELC. For the purpose of this task only the proposed damage section of the vessel has been fully subdivided. Each section in the damage zone was subdivided into its watertight compartments and tanks. It should be noted that this PARAMARINE model does not detail every room and passageway in each watertight compartment, therefore some compartments may have a combination of rooms and corridors. The subdivision breakdown is displayed in Figure 4-4.
Figure 4-2: PARAMARINE hullform
Page 27
Unclassified
Unclassified
Figure 4-3: Stern of CG270
Figure 4-4: Damage region The USCG 270-ft WMEC is fitted with a cross-flooding system connecting clean ballast tank 4-103-1-W with clean ballast tank 4-103-2-W. The cross-flooding duct was modelled using PARAMARINE to help visualise its complex shape, however, the duct was not used in the subsequent static stability analysis. The cross-flooding arrangement is shown in Figure 4-5.
Unclassified
Unclassified
Figure 4-5: Cross-flooding tanks with existing duct Finally point buoyancies were added to reproduce the additional buoyancy gained from the appendages (e.g. propeller, shaft, boss and hub). The FREDYN hullform was provided by the USCG ELC in the form of a FREDYN cda file. The hull definition is based on twenty-one sections approximately 3.9 m apart. At each stage in the development of the FREDYN model a number of checks and comparisons were performed against the PARAMARINE design and the data supplied by USCG ELC. The model validation was conducted in accordance with current practice for UK Navy computer models to Sea Systems Publication Number 24 (SSP24) Stability of Surface Ships (REFERENCE SSP24). The very basic hullform validation was conducted, as the geometry of the hullform for FREDYN was sent from the USCG. The FREDYN model does not take into account the additional buoyancy gained by the vessels appendages, therefore the PARAMARINE design was required to be modified so that the validation parameters would be comparable. This was the only alteration made to the PARAMARINE design. All subsequent calculations performed used the modified PARAMARINE design. The internal compartments were also subject to validation to SSP24 standards where data existed, e.g., tanks. The standards require the compartment volumes to be within 2%, and the vertical centre of gravity to be within 1%. There are no criteria set for compartment longitudinal and transverse centre of gravity, as these are deemed less important. As this study involves asymmetrical damage the transverse centre of gravity of the compartments is of great importance, therefore a 1% criteria for the transverse centre of gravity was introduced.
Page 29
Unclassified
Unclassified
In order to accurately model the cross-flooding ducts a flow coefficient is required to incorporate the friction effects in the duct. This flow coefficient is required to ensure that the ducts flow in a realistic manner. The coefficients were calculated based on the standard flow-in-pipe analysis. This method accounts for the size and length as well as the shape of the duct. In selecting a coefficient extreme care should be taken as this can greatly affect the flow both in terms of flow rate and time to achieve equalisation. A sensitivity study was completed on the coefficients selected for each duct to ensure valid calculations with small changes to the coefficients. The coefficients calculated for the current duct design were 5.65 and 2.14 as the duct was modelled in two parts to account for the height rise of the pipe. The coefficient for the alternative design was 1.74 for each duct. The existing duct coefficients are higher due to the number of bends in the pipe run.
4.4
Cross-flooding modelling in FREDYN

Defining an accurate cross-flooding system in FREDYN involves careful detailing to ensure realistic modelling. The x, y and z position of the openings of the duct are defined and so is the cross-sectional area of the pipe. The flow coefficient for the pipe is derived from using standard values mentioned above based on dimensions and shape of the duct. This was shown to be sufficiently accurate when used in FREDYN when compared with experiment data (Peters, 2001). For straight pipes or pipes where the duct openings are at the highest point of the pipe run this is straightforward. Pipes that have a higher part to stop undesired cross-flooding when the tanks are intact require additional modelling. To model the existing cross-flood pipe as currently fitted to the 270-ft cutter involves modelling the duct in three parts. Firstly, at the position of the highest point of the duct a very small virtual tank is created close to the size of the duct cross-section. The first duct is input with the tank opening defined on the one end and the virtual tank defined on the other end. The coefficients in this duct then take into account the length and bends in this part of the duct. A second duct then is defined between the virtual tank and the crossflooding tank. Again the coefficients are defined for that part of the duct. This ensures that the vertical path of the water in the pipe is taken account of and that the flooding will occur as the real duct.
Page 30
Unclassified
Unclassified
4.5
Alternative duct design
Figure 4-6: Alternative QinetiQ cross-flood design (red) As an example, an alternative cross-flooding design was created for the 270-ft cutter using the FREDYN program and the guidelines listed in chapter 3. This was then examined during a large matrix of runs alongside the current cross-flooding arrangement. The chosen design was based on the double duct design, as this was deemed suitable for this tank layout, and is shown in Figure 4-6, which indicates the position relative to the current duct. This pipe system joins the top of each tank to the bottom of the other. The diameter of the two ducts was smaller than that of the current duct as it was expected that both ducts would cross-flood, as would be demonstrated in the tests. Due to the position inside the tank, the ducts have a slight curvature to them so that restrictions to the flow within each pipe is kept to a minimum. The ducts are also shorter than the current duct design. The performance before fine-tuning was demonstrated in the matrix of runs. The results form the time-domain analysis highlight where improvements to both designs could be made.
4.6
Matrix of tests
To fully investigate the performance of the cross-flooding arrangements a number of simulations were required. A list was compiled of parameters, which could affect the performance of the ship following damage and hence how it may affect the crossflooding. These were to be included in a matrix of runs to assess the current and alternative duct performance. Ship speed was also included to investigate if this improved the situation for the ship after damage. The matrix was selected to not only thoroughly investigate the ducts but, to provide some guidance to the operator on heading and speed selection after damage, if available, and how it may affect the vessels behaviour.
Page 31
Unclassified
Unclassified
Parameter/Matrix Ship Condition Cross-flood systems Speeds Headings Sea Conditions Damage Occurrence Repeats TOTAL
Run Set 1 1 3 3 8 1 1 1 63
Run Set 2 2 3 1 3 3 1 1 54
Run Set 3 1 3 3 2 5 1 1 90
Run Set 4 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 18
Table 4-2: Run list
4.7
Run selection To conduct the entire run combinations for all the initial variables that were selected would have resulted in a requirement for over 8000 simulations, which was agreed excessive to meet the aims of this project. Each set of runs in the above table concentrates on a particular part of the matrix with the number of runs set so data trends can be deduced. The first set of runs in the table, Run Set 1, aimed to assess the performance without cross-flooding, with the current design and with an alternative design with the ship at different speeds and orientation to the waves while the other variables were kept constant. This allowed an assessment of the effect of heading and speed on the performance of each of the cross-flooding systems to be made. The zero speed/no cross-flooding case has been used as a baseline case to identify where the situation is improved. The second set, Run Set 2, was selected to assess the effect of ship loading condition on the performance of three cross-flooding systems. The selection tested two different ship conditions at three headings and in three sea conditions to allow the performance to be assessed. The third set, Run Set 3, was selected to assess the effect of sea state on the performance of the cross-flooding systems. In this set, the non-cross-flooding situation, the current design and an alternative design were tested in a range of wave conditions at three speeds in beam seas (damage opening towards and away from the waves). This demonstrated how the cross-flooding performance is affected in different sea conditions as the ship motions increased. It also identified the issues that occur at slow forward speed following damage. The aim of Run Set 4 was to evaluate the effect of the ships position on the wave to establish how orientation effects the initial damage transient responses for the noncross-flooding and cross-flooding cases. Repeat runs were also conducted at different
Page 32
Unclassified
Unclassified
points in the wave realisation (damage initiating on top of a wave crest, in a trough, or in a quiescent location between larger wave groups) to investigate how that effected the ship behaviour.
4.8
Ship condition
To select a ship condition to test, the main condition for the 270-ft cutter class B deep condition was initially selected. The current loading conditions of this class did not provide an interesting case as all of the damage criteria were met and the static list angles were less than 15 degrees. Consequently, minor modifications were made so that the final list angle after damage was increased to just over the current 15 degrees criteria limit (USCG and SOLAS). Standard permeabilities were used except the stores were lowered in permeability to 60% representative of a full store. The engine room was also reduced slightly in permeability to 75%. The diesel oil service tanks were also lowered to 25% full. The KG was then raised by 1.8% to give a list angle of 17.5 degrees. This gave a more suitable condition in which to test crossflooding designs. For Run Set 3 a second condition was required which was basically a minimum operating condition. In this condition, the two ballast tanks that crossflood are both pressed full. To create a suitable condition for the tests the two ballast tanks were emptied, which caused a list angle greater than required. The KG was then lowered by 3 inches to give a list angle close to 19 degrees. This condition is sufficiently different to the deep condition to investigate the effect that ship condition has on the performance of the cross-flooding systems.
Page 33
Unclassified
Unclassified
5
5.1
Simulations
The simulations were conducted mostly in the deep modified condition described in section 4.8. To define the ship condition in FREDYN a full loading case is not required, although due to the vessel size the main tanks were all modelled and loaded accordingly. In FREDYN the vessel displacement is calculated from the draft marks input from data provided by PARAMARINE, with the tanks loaded separately. For this the overall ship conditions used are outlined in 5-1. The tanks that contain fluid prior to being damaged are entered into the FREDYN load case so that the correct flooding will occur after damage.
Ship Condition Deep (1) Light (2) Displacement (Tonnes) 1875 1716 Kgfluid (m) 5.41 5.42 Gmfluid (m) 0.64 0.72 Draft AP (m) 4.34 4.38 Draft FP (m) 4.20 3.64
Table 5-1: Ship conditions The simulations were performed as defined in the test matrix above. The zero speed runs had yaw fixed in the simulation so that they could not change heading so the true effect of heading on the vessel performance could be realised. At the forward speed cases the vessel was started at the correct speed and control made by the autopilot. At the point of damage the RPM was set to zero (in the required runs) manually, as this currently cannot be done automatically with FREDYN. The vessel in these simulations then drifted to take up whichever heading it naturally wanted to the waves. This makes these runs more realistic but more difficult to directly compare after the initial performance. All of the compared runs are conducted in the same wave time history and with damage occurring at the same point of time so that the performance of the ducts can be directly compared.
Page 34
Unclassified
Unclassified
Discussion
The dynamic stability simulations were performed as described in Chapter 5. Each simulation run produced large data files containing the vessels motion and the damage water levels in each of the flooding compartments. The main statistics were gathered from each run and collated in a spreadsheet. This allowed plotting to be conducted to show trends in each of the run sets of data. These plots are shown in Figures 1 through 65. For the purpose of this report not all of the simulations are discussed in detail. A selection of time traces of certain runs are also included to demonstrate the performance of the vessel after damage that can be created using this method.
6.1
Run Set 1 - Variation with ship speed and heading

Run Set 1 includes runs at 8 headings and 3 speed variations to identify the effect on the vessel and cross-flooding after damage. Figures 1 through 3 show an example of the roll angle traces for the 3 duct options (no duct, USCG duct and QinetiQ Duct designs) in a sea state 5 at 7 kts prior to damage and 0 kts after. Figures 4 through 6 show the same plots but with the vessel at 7 kts after damage. These six plots show the how the speed variation effects the roll motion after damage. Analysis of the time traces allows an easier understanding of how the variables affect the performance of the vessel. The transient roll angle in this report refers to the first large roll excursion that occurs as the vessel floods. Figures 7 through 9 show the transient roll angle at the different headings for the 3 duct options (no duct, USCG duct and QinetiQ Duct designs). The three plots show the speed variations, 12 kts prior to damage and 0 kts after, 7 kts prior to damage 0 kts after and 7 kts before and after. The first point that can be seen in these three plots is that the no-duct case generally has a higher transient at most headings and all speeds. This suggests that both the current USCG duct and the QinetiQ duct are operating quickly enough to affect the initial transient roll. In all but head seas the USCG duct reduces the transient roll by 5 to 7 degrees and the QinetiQ duct by 1 to 2 degrees more. From Figures 7 through 9 it is generally shown that the lowest transients occur in head sea and increase with the worst between beam and stern quartering seas. The roll motion once the vessel has cross-flooded was compared using RMS motion about the mean heel angle. These runs were not conducted with fixed headings so the vessel was free to take up whatever heading after the revs were stopped when the damage occurred. The vessel often tended towards beam seas after forward speed was lost. Plots 10 through 12 show the RMS motion for the three duct arrangements at the 3 speeds tested. All three plots show a general reduction in the RMS roll motion after cross-flooding has completed in comparison with the no-duct case. The lowest motions for all ducts was at the 7 kts before and 7 kts afterwards due to the stabilisers working efficiently to reduce the roll motions. At the forward speed both the cross-flooded cases have lower RMS roll after damage compared to the non-cross-flooding case and are at a lower mean heel angle.
Page 35
Unclassified
Unclassified
Figures 13 through 21 also show the variation for each of the duct cases plotted for each speed to show how the speed affects the performance. Figure 18 shows how the time to cross-flood with the USCG Duct is effected by the heading and speed. The time to cross-flood can be seen to vary between 200 to 220 seconds (10%) due to heading and speed change in the same waves. Figure 21 shows that QinetiQ duct also varies by 14 seconds but cross-flooding completes in 100 to 114 seconds, which is close to twice the rate of the current USCG duct. The diameter of the QinetiQ duct is 0.25 m, which is smaller than the 0.32 m diameter of the current duct. The differences occur due to two factors. The pipe run in the QinetiQ system only contains one slight bend and the pipe run is also shorter. This ensures a much less restricted flow than the current design, which is both long and has many tight bends. The second reason is due to the double duct system flooding through both ducts when all of the ducts are below the water surface, which appears to be the case with this vessel as the ducts are low in the vessel. Figures 22 through 24 also highlights this with plots of the time to cross-flood of the two ducts at the three speeds and the different headings.
6.2
Run Set 2 - Variation with ship loading condition

In Run Set 2 the objective was to identify how the ship condition may change the performance of the ducts in typical wave conditions. Figures 25 through 27 show the plots of roll against time for the vessel in a light condition in sea state 4. Figures 28 through 30 show the same run condition but with the vessel in the deep condition. This shows an example of time history behaviour of the vessel with different ship conditions. The two ship conditions were tested in sea states 3, 4 and 5 at beam seas (damage opening towards and away from the waves) as well as in head seas at zero speed. Figures 31 through 33 show the transient roll response for the three duct variations in the deep condition in the three sea states. Similarly Figures 34 through 36 show the same plots but for a light condition. Comparing the plots of the transients in the sea state 3 shows transient rolls angles of between 22 and 25 degrees for both ship conditions while the ducts appear to make little difference initially on this heel angle. In the sea state 4 and 5 it shows that the ducts do start to reduce the transient roll, with the QinetiQ duct producing the lowest transient rolls in the sea state 5 at both conditions and at all the three headings. The condition 2 results indicate greater transient rolls in the three sea states tested when compared with the deep condition data. At all the headings both of the ducts show reduced transient rolls due to the rapid flooding performance of the ducts. The effect of the opening towards or away from the showed similar motions and the time to cross-flood was the same. Figures 37 through 39 show the transient roll, RMS roll and mean list angle respectively for the no-duct case in the deep condition. Each plot shows the performance of the vessel in sea states 3, 4 and 5. As expected the transient roll and RMS roll (after flooding completed) increases with sea state. Figures 40 through 42 show the same plots for the current USCG duct. The same pattern can be seen with the transient roll and the RMS roll increased with the higher sea states. In comparison to the no-duct case, Figures 37 through 39, the pattern is similar with the duct case but with lower transient roll angles.
Page 36
Unclassified
Unclassified
With the QinetiQ duct, Figures 43 through 45, a similar pattern can be seen as seen to that from the USCG duct. The transient heel angle does not vary as much as in the other two cases with the angle consistently below 25 degrees. The RMS roll for the three cases are shown in Figures 46 through 48 for the three seas states in the deep condition. The light condition is shown in Figures 49 through 51. These plots show that in both conditions the duct cases reduce the RMS roll after flooding as well as reducing the mean heel angle. The RMS roll of the QinetiQ duct is very similar to that of the USCG duct case, the QinetiQ duct cross-floods quicker, so producing a slightly different RMS value after cross-flooding. Figures 52 through 54 show the time to cross-flood of the USCG and QinetiQ ducts, at both conditions and the 3 sea states. The time to cross-flood for the USCG duct can be seen to increase slightly as the sea state increases (seen clearer in Figure 30), with head seas been the worst in each sea state for the time taken to cross-flood. Like the USCG duct the time to cross-flood is effected by sea condition with the time to cross-flood increased by 10 seconds in the sea state 5 conditions. The sea state 3 and 4 are very similar with a time to cross-flood of 101 seconds to cross-flood. The heading does not show much effect on the time to cross-flood of the QinetiQ duct as much as seen with the USCG duct. The two conditions clearly show only a small difference in the time to cross-flood, with the least difference shown in the higher sea states.
6.3
Run Set 3 - Variation with sea state

Run Set 3 was to extend the number of sea states and speeds in beam seas to identify performance trends. Figures 55 through 57 show the transient roll for the three cases in a number of sea states up to an extreme sea state 9 that causes capsize in the noduct case. The zero-speed cases show the increase in transient roll with sea state. Both the duct cases show that the transient roll does not increase as much with the duct operating. The QinetiQ duct produces the least difference in transient roll with the angle consistently below 25 degrees in all the sea states. At 12 kts before the damage and 0 kts after damage little difference is shown with the cross-flooding cases but the no-duct case is improved. For the 7 kts before and the 7 kts afterwards there is also a reduction in roll in the no-duct case that closes on the performance of the two duct cases. This is due to the active fins, which operate effectively at the forward speed and improve the roll performance after damage. Figures 58 through 60 show the comparison in the RMS roll response for the different duct arrangements in the sea states and at the three speeds. The duct cases have consistent lower RMS roll after damage. The 7 kts before and after damage again show the lowest RMS for all of the three cases, showing that the stabiliser fins are operating effectively. Figures 61 through 63 show the time to cross-flood as a function of sea state for the different speeds and headings. The three figures show that there is some variation in cross-flooding time at the different sea conditions, as previously discussed, with variation less than 20 seconds. This shows that the ducts continue to operate in even
Page 37
Unclassified
Unclassified
the most severe sea states. The different speeds made very little difference to the time both the cross-flooding designs took to complete cross-flooding.
6.4
Run Set 4 - Variation with position on wave at damage onset

Run Set 4 was completed to investigate the effect of ship position and point of damage on a wave to the transient behaviour. The results are shown in Figures 64 and 65. With the point of damage occurring with the ship on top of the wave the lowest transient rolls were produced, but in most cases it made little or no difference. The transient is more greatly affected by the motion at the point of damage rather than the point that it occurs on the wave. There was also only 2 to 3 degrees difference between seed numbers, which randomly changes the waves, showing that the transient roll was affected only slightly effected by the size and steepness of the irregular wave where damage occurred. The runs in sets 1 through 3 were all run and damaged at the same point in the same wave realisation so that better direct comparisons could be made between the runs.
6.5
Results of parametric variation

Overview of the results from the parametric variation study
Alternative QinetiQ Duct
Run Set 1
Parameter Ship Speed
Variation
No Duct
USCG Duct
Comment on Variation to Parameter The fin stabilisers are effective in reducing motions if the ship can maintain speed after damage as compared to dead in the water (assuming they are still operational). Time to cross-flood varies by up to 10%.
7 kts Before-0 kts After Highest 12 kts Before-0 kts After transient roll 7 kts Before-7 kts After
Ship Heading
Every 45 degrees
Time to cross-flood about 220 sec. Highest transient roll
Ship Heading
Every 45 degrees
Ship Heading
Every 45 degrees
Highest RMS Lower RMS roll roll
Ship Loading Condition
Deep Condition Light Condition
Time to cross-flood about 110 sec. Lowest 90 and 270 largest transient roll variation in transient roll and RMS roll 180 lowest transient generally - for No duct the 90 degree seas are worse transient and RMS than the 270 seas. Lower RMS Cross-flooded produces roll better RMS Roll at all headings - Lowest heading for RMS roll is 180 degrees. Transient roll, RMS roll and time to cross-flood all increase slightly as the loading condition moves towards light ship. For all intents and purposes, however, the effect is minimal.
Page 38
Unclassified
Unclassified
Run Set 2
Parameter Ship Loading Condition
Variation Damage Opening towards the Sea Damage Opening away from the Sea SS3 to SS9
No Duct
USCG Duct
Alternative QinetiQ Duct
Comment on Variation to Parameter
Sea State
Highest transient roll and RMS roll
Sea State
SS3 to SS10
Sea State
Wave Position
Damage Opening towards the Sea Damage Opening away from the Sea Trough Wave Slope Wave Crest
Time to cross-flood varies little with opening towards and away from the waves. Lowest Transient roll and RMS roll transient roll increase with increasing and RMS roll SS and the spread between systems increases with SS. Time to cross-flood is basically constant w.r.t. SS. Very little variation in time to cross-flood at different speeds and sea states. Time to cross-flood varies little with opening towards and away from the waves. No runs Very little variation in roll response between damage initiation in trough, on the wave slope or on the wave crest.
Table 6-1: Results from parametric variation
Page 39
Unclassified
Unclassified
Conclusions
Dynamic stability cross-flooding simulations allowed the effectiveness of the crossflooding ducts to be thoroughly investigated. This time-domain analysis allowed the performance of the cross-flooding to be assessed and the time taken to cross-flood to be calculated with the vessel motion taken into account. Previously, the method to determine time to cross-flood utilised purely static calculations, which assume calm water for the entire cross-flooding process. These static calculations are suitable for initial sizing of ducts and give an initial insight into the performance of the crossflooding but do not provide the complete picture of the performance. The timedomain simulations give a better insight into how the cross-flooding ducts operate at sea and their effect on the vessel during and after damage. Both the cross-flooding system developed using the guidance in this report and the existing system fitted on the 270-ft cutter pass the current criteria examined in this report. From IMO, the time to cross-flood is less than 15 minutes, where the USCG defines 5 minutes to cross-flood. The heel angle in the conditions tested also reduced the mean heel after damage to the order of 10 degrees, which also passes the current criteria. The duct design using the new methodology and time-domain simulation showed a time for cross-flooding almost half that of the current design (see Figure 6), though the pipe diameters were less than that of the current design. Two ducts were used in this system and in nearly every case both ducts contributed to the counter flooding, which decreased the time to complete cross-flooding. Due to the rapid flooding, the initial large transient rolls were also reduced in comparison to the no-duct case. The pipe run of the redesigned duct has only a sight curvature to it thereby allowing as free flow as possible, unlike the current design that incorporates multiple tight bends. In the situation of the ship with speed prior to the damage and zero speed afterwards, there appeared to be little or no difference as compared to the zero-speed case, as the speed was quickly lost and the control of heading was lost. The cases with the ship continuing on at 7 kts after damage showed an improvement in the transient and RMS motions after damage. This is due to the anti-roll stabilisers remaining effective and reducing the roll even after damage. The transient roll was often seen to be worse in head seas than in beam seas, probably due to the position of the wave trough at the point of damage. Once past the transient roll, the 7 kts into head seas case resulted in the lowest RMS roll motion after damage, for the duct and no-duct cases. The transient roll after damage depended more on the vessels response to the wave itself rather than the point on the wave where the damage occurred. An exploration of different damage initiation times within the same seaway showed variations of only 4 degrees in the transient roll angle. The run plan as presented above has shown to provide a suitable test matrix in which to evaluate the performance of existing and new designs. This ensures that the performance meets the requirements in wide selection of scenarios.
Page 40
Unclassified
Unclassified
Recommendations
It has been shown that following this methodology and using a suitable time-domain code that an effective cross-flooding arrangement can be designed to ensure an effective operation in all conditions and including all transient effects from the onset of damage through the point of equilibrium. It is therefore recommended that the guidelines and test plan described in this report should be adopted when considering fitting or replacing cross-flooding systems in the future. Even though the existing ducts were not as effective as the new duct design created using the described methodology, the existing duct system was seen to improve the vessel performance after damage over the no-duct case. Due to modifications to the loading conditions for the 270-ft WMEC class, this analysis was conducted for more unstable conditions than the vessel currently operates at. It is recommended that these ducts be kept operational as they have been shown to improve the mean damage list angle of the vessel where the initial mean roll angle without crossflooding is less than 20 degrees. The current duct cross-flooded between 200 and 220 seconds in all of the runs tested, which is within the current guidance.
Page 41
Unclassified
Unclassified
References
[1] CALHOUN, Capt C. Raymond, USN (ret.). Typhoon: The Other Enemy - The Third Fleet and the Pacific Storm of December, 1944, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1981. DE KAT, J.O. and PETERS, A.J. Model Experiments an Simulations of a damaged Frigate, Proceedings of the IMAM 2001 Congress, Crete, 2002. MARIN. FREDYN Users Manual Version 9.0, MARIN, 2002. McTAGGART, K. and DE KAT, J.O. Capsize Risk of Intact Frigates in Irregular Seas, Transactions SNAME, 2000. MOD Defence Standard 02-109 (NES 109), UK Ministry of Defence. Stability Standards for Surface Ships, Part 1, Conventional Ships, 2000. MOD. Stability of Surface Ships Part 1 - Conventional Ships, Sea Systems Publication No 24, UK Ministry of Defence, Stability Standards for Surface Ships, Part 1, Conventional Ships, 2000. PETERS, A.J. Cross-flooding of Frigate Sized Vessels, March 2001 - Commercialin-Confidence - USCG and the UKMOD. SARCHIN, T.H. and GOLDBERG, L.L. Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for US Naval Surface Ships, Transactions SNAME, 1962. SOLAS Consolidated Edition, 2001, International Maritime Organisation, London, 2001.
[2]
[3] [4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] SOLDA, G.S. Equalisation of Unsymmetrical Flooding - Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 1961. [11] US Navy, Naval Ship Engineering Center, Design Data Sheet - Stability and Buoyancy of US Naval Surface Ships, DDS 079-1, US Navy, currently Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC, 1 August 1975. [12] VAN t VEER, R. and DE KAT, J.O. Experimental and Numerical Investigation on Progressive Flooding and Sloshing in Complex Compartment Geometries, th Proceedings of the 7 International Conference on Stability for Ships and Ocean Vehicles, STAB 2000, Vol. A, Launceston, Tasmania, Feb. 2000, pp. 305-321.
Page 42
Unclassified
Unclassified
10
Tables
Sea State Wave Height and Period Sea State Sea State Three (SS3) Sea State Four (SS4) Sea State Five (SS5) Sea State Six (SS6) Sea State Nine(SS9) Table 1: Sea state wave heights and period Wave Height (m) 0.88 1.88 3.25 5.00 20.1 Modal Wave Period (s) 7.5 8.8 9.7 12.4 20
Page 43
Unclassified

Design Methodology For Cross-Flodding Connects On Naval Vessels

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Design Methodology For Cross-Flodding Connects On Naval Vessels

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Unclassified

Design methodology for crossflooding connects on Naval vessels

Mr A Peters; Mr M Galloway QinetiQ/FST/CR033339/1.0 January 2004

Copyright USCG Engineering Logistics Center [2004]

Record of changes Issue 1.0 Date January 2004 Detail of Changes

Sea state wave heights and period

Initial distribution list Report documentation page

Review of cross-flooding systems

Criteria for cross-flood systems

Current cross-flooding systems

Figure 2-4: Double duct - cross-section

Figure 2-5: Double duct - plan view

Current static based hand calculations

FREDYN and cross-flooding methodology

FREDYN and the extreme motions of damaged ship

Duct routing and sizing

Effects of through life growth

USCG 270-ft WMEC cutter

FREDYN and PARAMARINE model

Figure 4-1: Damage zone and cross-flooding duct location

Table 4-1: Damage region

CG270 model generation

Figure 4-2: PARAMARINE hullform

Figure 4-3: Stern of CG270

Cross-flooding modelling in FREDYN

Alternative duct design

Table 4-2: Run list

Run Set 1 - Variation with ship speed and heading

Run Set 2 - Variation with ship loading condition

Run Set 3 - Variation with sea state

Run Set 4 - Variation with position on wave at damage onset

Results of parametric variation

Parameter Ship Speed

Time to cross-flood about 220 sec. Highest transient roll

Highest RMS Lower RMS roll roll

Ship Loading Condition

Deep Condition Light Condition

Parameter Ship Loading Condition

Alternative QinetiQ Duct

Comment on Variation to Parameter

Highest transient roll and RMS roll

Table 6-1: Results from parametric variation

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen