Examination of The Intact Stability and The Seakeeping Behaviour of Container Vessels Within The Ballast Condition

Dezember 2010
SCHRIFTENREIHE SCHIFFBAU
Nicolas Rox
Examination of the intact stability and

the seakeeping behaviour of container
vessels within the ballast condition
DIPLOMARBEIT
fr Herrn cand. arch. nav. Nicolas Rox
Matr.-Nr. 25794
Examination of the intact stability and the seakeeping behaviour of

container vessels within the ballast condition
The scope of this thesis is to examine, if the ballast condition of container vessels is
supposed to be a seagoing condition or if there is an increased risk of accident in this
case due to the design of this specific ship type.
For this reason Nicolas Rox is asked to examine the intact stability and the
seakeeping behaviour of various sized container vessels within the ballast condition
for situations that have led to accidents with this ship type as is known. The
examination is supposed to be done based on computer models which exist at the
Institute of Ship Design and Ship Safety at the Hamburg University of Technology,
whereas the loading conditions should be according to the issued stability booklets.
Finally approaches to reduce the risk of accident shall be provided!
Beginn der Arbeit:

Abgabe der Arbeit:
04. August 2010

03. Dezember 2010
Hamburg, 04. August 2010

____________________
Prof. Dr.-Ing. S. Krger
Postanschrift:
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Krger
Inst. fr Entwerfen von Schiffen und Schiffssicherheit
Schwarzenbergstrae 95, Gebude C
D - 21073 Hamburg
Telefon:
++49 (40) 428 78 - 6105
Fax:
++49 (40) 428 78 - 6139
E-mail:
krueger@tu-harburg.de
www.ssi.tu-harburg.de
1st Examiner: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Krger

2nd Examiner: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud
December 2010
I hereby declare and conrm that this thesis is entirely the result of my own work. I did not
utilise any other sources and appliances than those specied in the bibliography.
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
1
VII
Introduction
1.1 Key data of the three examined accidents . . . . . .

1.1.1 Accident of the CMS Chicago Express [1]
1.1.2 Accident of a 2468 TEU container vessel [2]
1.2 Following objectives for the diploma thesis . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Theory
2.1 Description of the utilised seakeeping simulation method

2.1.1 Linear strip method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.1 Calculation model . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.2 Roll radius of inertia and roll period . .
2.1.1.3 Roll damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.4 Calculation settings . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.5 Typical RAOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2 Nonlinear seakeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2.1 Roll motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2.2 Surge Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Environmental conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1 Sea condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2 Wind condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data input
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
Main Dimensions . . . . . . . . . .
Lines of the ship . . . . . . . . . .
Lateral areas . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lightship distribution . . . . . . .
Loading condition . . . . . . . . . .
Free surface correction . . . . . . .
Intact stability . . . . . . . . . . .
Cross-curves of stability . . . . . .
Bilge keel dimensions . . . . . . . .
Bridge height . . . . . . . . . . . .
Size range of the examined vessels
Sea conditions to be examined . . .
Examination
4.1
Vessel No. 01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
2
2
3
5
5
5
6
6
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
13
13
13
13
14
14
15
15
15
16
17
18
18
19
19
I
Contents
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
5
Vessel
Vessel
Vessel
Vessel
Vessel
Vessel
Vessel
Vessel
Vessel
Vessel
Vessel
Vessel
Vessel
Vessel
No. 02
No. 03
No. 04
No. 05
No. 06
No. 07
No. 08
No. 09
No. 10
No. 11
No. 12
No. 13
No. 14
No. 15
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Evaluation
5.1 Results . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Consequences . . . . . .
5.3 Recommendations . . .
5.3.1 Stability . . . . .
5.3.2 Roll damping . .
5.3.3 Lines of the ship
5.3.4 Other . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Detailed examination
6.1 Variation of the GM values . . . . . . . . .

6.1.1 Small vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.2 Midsized vessel . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.3 Large vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.4 Comparison of the simulation results
6.2 Rolling behavior of the large vessels . . . . .
6.2.1 Large Vessel No. 15 . . . . . . . .
6.2.2 Large Vessel No. 11 . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
22
24
25
27
28
30
31
33
34
36
37
39
41
43
43
44
45
45
45
46
46
47
47
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Conclusions
57
Vessel data
59
II
A.1 Vessel
A.2 Vessel
A.3 Vessel
A.4 Vessel
A.5 Vessel
A.6 Vessel
A.7 Vessel
A.8 Vessel
A.9 Vessel
A.10 Vessel
A.11 Vessel
A.12 Vessel
A.13 Vessel
No. 01
No. 02
No. 03
No. 04
No. 05
No. 06
No. 07
No. 08
No. 09
No. 10
No. 11
No. 12
No. 13
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Contents
A.14 Vessel
A.15 Vessel
No. 14
No. 15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
73
Variation of the bilge keel area
75
Variation of the ship's speed
77
Bibliography
79
III
Contents
IV
List of Figures
2.1 Calculation model for the RAO determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Typical RAOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Jonswap spectrum for H1/3 = 7, 5 m and Tp = 11 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
8
11
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Lines plan of one of the examined vessels . . . . . . .

Lightship distribution of one of the examined vessels
Bilge keel area distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bridge height above ballast arrival waterline . . . . .
Vessels size range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
14
16
17
18
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25
4.26
4.27
4.28
4.29
4.30
Lines plan and lateral areas of Vessel No. 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transversal acceleration on the bridge of Vessel No. 01 in accident situation 3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
20
21
22
22
23
24
25
25
26
27
28
28
29
30
31
31
32
33
34
34
35
36
37
37
38
39
40
41
42
5.1 Transversal accelerations on the bridge against GMsolid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
List of Figures
6.1 Vessel No. 13 in ballast arrival oating condition: Variation of GMsolid . . . .

6.2 Vessel No. 01 in ballast arrival oating condition: Variation of GMsolid . . . .
6.3 Chicago Express in ballast arrival oating condition: Variation of GMsolid . .
6.4 Comparison of the stability inuence for the three vessels in accident situation 1
6.5 Vessel No. 15: Variation of GMsolid in CE alike loading condition . . . . . . .
6.6 Vessel No. 11: Variation of GMsolid in dierent loading conditions . . . . . . .
VI
Vessel No. 13
48
49
50
51
53
55
B.1
in ballast arrival loading condition; Variation of the bilge keel

area; Accident situation 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
C.1
Vessel No. 13 in ballast arrival loading condition; Variation of ship's speed; Sea
conditions of accident situation 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
List of Tables
3.1 Accident situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25
4.26
4.27
4.28
4.29
4.30
Main dimensions of Vessel No. 01 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results of the seakeeping calculation for Vessel No. 01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
20
21
21
22
23
24
24
25
26
27
27
28
29
30
30
31
32
33
33
34
35
36
36
37
38
39
39
41
41
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
Stability data for the small vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stability data for the midsized vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stability data for the large vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Loading condition of the Chicago Express during its accident . . . . .
Vessel No. 15: CE alike oating condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vessel No. 15: Transversal accelerations for CE alike loading conditions
Vessel No. 11: Chicago Express alike oating condition . . . . . . . .
Vessel No. 11: Transversal accelerations for CE alike loading conditions
Vessel No. 11: New oating condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
49
50
52
52
53
54
54
54
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
VII
List of Tables
6.10
Vessel No. 11:
Transversal accelerations for new loading conditions . . . . . . .
A.1 Detailed main dimensions, Vessel

VIII
No. 01
No. 02
No. 03
No. 04
No. 05
No. 06
No. 07
No. 08
No. 09
No. 10
No. 11
No. 12
No. 13
No. 14
No. 15
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
Nomenclature
Symbol
Unit
Meaning
ABK
at max
B
cB
D
4
g
GMcorrected
GMsolid
GZ
H1/3
KG
LOA
LP P
max
TD
TP
TS
v

m2
[m/s2 ]
[m]
[]
[m]
[t]
[m/s2 ]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[ ]
[m]
[s]
[s]
[kts]
Total bilge keel area

Maximum occurring transversal acceleration
Ship's breadth
Block coecient
Depth to freeboard deck
Displacement of the ship
Gravitational acceleration which is 9.81m/s2
Metacentric height with free surface correction
Metacentric height without free surface correction
Righting lever
Signicant wave height
Vertical center of gravity
Length over all
Length between the perpendiculars
Maximum occurring rolling angle
Design draft
Peak wave period
Signicant wave period
Ship's speed
Abbreviation
Meaning
a. B.L.
AP
BSU
bove baseline
After Perpendicular
Bundesstelle fr Seeunfalluntersuchung; Federal Bureau of Maritime
Casualty Investigation
Det Norske Veritas
A method database for ship design
Forward Perpendicular
Hamburgische Schibau- Versuchs Anstalt
International Maritime Organisation
International symposium on PRActical Design and other oating
Structures
Response Amplitude Operator
Twenty feet Equivalent Unit
Technische Universitt Hamburg-Harburg; Hamburg University of
Technology
DNV
E4
FP
HSVA
IMO
PRADS
RAO
TEU
TUHH
IX
List of Tables
1 Introduction
In the years 2008/2009 the world economic crisis caused a reduction in the number of transported
TEU, due to a signicant decrease in transported goods. Consequently a great number of container vessels had been laid up or were forced to operate with a small amount of cargo on board.
In this loading condition container vessels have a very high stability. In many cases their vertical
center of gravity is even located below the lightship condition's coordinate. This is due to large
amounts of ballast water in wing and double bottom tanks as well as no or only a small amount
of cargo located at cargo hold bottom. The high amount of ballast water is needed to obtain an
adequate hull and propeller immersion as well as a limitation of the longitudinal bending moments within the hull structure. In the typical loading conditions with higher amounts of cargo,
less ballast water is needed and the stability is lower. Under the described circumstances, several
accidents have happened to container vessels during the last years. The accidents caused not only
severe damages on ships but also heavily injured and even killed crew members. They have been
thrown through the bridge due to high transversal accelerations caused by heavy roll motions
of the ship. This highlights, that modern container ship designs face some problems concerning
insucient seakeeping behavior. Since several accidents have happened to ships sailing under
German ag, the BSU analyzed them by default. For three of the accidents, the seakeeping
behavior has been examined in detail by order of the BSU at the institute of ship design
and ship safety at the Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH) [1][2][3]. This
thesis shall examine the seakeeping behavior of several typical container vessels in equivalent
environmental conditions.
1.1 Key data of the three examined accidents
The examinations revealed signicant parallels between the accidents. They all happened under
comparable environmental and loading conditions.
All ships followed the standard procedure for heavy weather. This means, that they head
into the sea at slow speeds to minimize the risk of damaging the ship's bow structure due
to high slamming forces and green water on deck.
All ships encountered large rolling angles of more than 30 .

Due to the excessive stability and the therefore short roll periods of the ships, the high roll
angles resulted in transversal accelerations of up to 14 m/s2 .
In the following, an overview of the environmental conditions and several ship data for the
three examined accidents is given. More detailed information about the accidents and their
circumstances may be extracted from the respective investigation reports.
1.1.1 Accident of the CMS Chicago Express [1]
The accident happened on September 24th, 2008 during heavy weather in the South
China Sea
near Hong
Kong.
1 Introduction
During the accident the waves had a signicant period of approximately TS = 9 ... 10 s and
a signicant wave height of H1/3 = 7.5 m.
The encountering angle between the vessel and the waves was about 120 ... 150 (with 0
from astern).
The ship operated at low speeds of about v = 2 ... 4 kn.

The ship was lightly loaded, which resulted in KG = 15.647 m (free surface correction
included) and GMcorrected = 7.712 m.
The maximum rolling angle was about 35 .
The maximum transversal accelerations on the bridge exceeded 1.0 g .
One crew member was killed, one heavily injured and several slightly injured.
No noticeable damages to the vessel's hull.
The accident happened on September 15th, 2009 during heavy weather in the South
China Sea
near Hong
Kong.
During the accident the waves had a signicant wave period of TS = 8 ... 9 s and a signicant
wave height of about H1/3 = 7 m.
The encountering angle between the vessel and the waves was about 120 ... 150 .
The ship operated at low speeds of about v = 2 ... 3 kn.
The ship was lightly loaded which resulted in KG = 9.696 m (free surface correction
The documented longitudinal bending moment was higher than the admissible value.
One crew member was killed.
Heavy damages to the vessel's hull occurred.
The accident happened on October 16th, 2009 during heavy weather in the North Sea
near Borkum.
During accident the waves had a signicant wave period of TS = 9 ... 10 s and a signicant
wave height of about H1/3 = 7 m.
The encountering angle between the vessel and the waves was about 120 ... 130 .
The ship operated at low speeds of about v = 5 kn.
The ship was lightly loaded which resulted in KG = 10.45 m (free surface correction
1.2 Following ob jectives for the diploma thesis

One crew member was heavily injured.
No damages to the vessel's hull occurred.
1.2 Following objectives for the diploma thesis
Due to the many similarities between the above mentioned three accidents, the question arises,
whether other conventional container vessels also would encounter such high rolling angles and
accelerations on the bridge under the accident conditions named above.
According to the actual intact stability code IMO A.749(18)[4], an approved trim and stability
booklet for each ship has to contain some standard loading conditions. Of those, the ballast
arrival loading condition matches the loading condition of the ships in accident best. In this
loading condition the ship operates without cargo, with 10 % bunker and stores as well as enough
ballast water for sucient immersion of the hull. The propeller has to be immersed for adequate
propulsion. Additionally the fore ship has to be immersed suciently to reduce slamming forces
on the forward bottom shell. This results in a small KG and respectively a high GM.
Furthermore lled ballast water tanks in the fore or aft part of the ship cause high, longitudinal
bending moments to the ship's hull. The ship has to be ballasted, so the maximum allowed
bending moment is not exceeded.
Container ships in the ballast arrival loading condition operate always with a relatively high
negative trim. Negative means, the ship's draught at the aft perpendicular is higher. The ballast
arrival loading condition is mandatorily indicated to be a seagoing condition.
Therefore the scope of this thesis is to examine, if container vessels in ballast

arrival loading condition have an increased risk of accident in heavy seas due to the
design of this specic ship type.
For this reason a larger number of container vessels of various size is analysed in the ballast
arrival loading condition . The goal is to determine the seakeeping behavior for each vessel when
it is encountering the three aforementioned accident situations. So the maximum rolling angle
and the maximum transversal acceleration on the bridge are calculated, to estimate the risk
of accident. All needed calculations are performed with the ship design software E4, which is
available at Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH). A detailed description of the
utilised methods can be found in chapter 2. In addition approaches to reduce the risk of accident
shall be provided, examined and evaluated.
1 Introduction
2 Theory
For the determination of the seakeeping behavior, E4 includes a simulation method developed
by Sding in connection with the investigation of the capsizing accident of the E.L.M.A Tres
in 1987 [5]. The method has been further developed by Krger [6] and in the scope of several
research projects at the TUHH which led to the actual seakeeping method E4ROLLS. The
following explanations are based on Krger [7], Kluwe [8] and the investigation reports of
the three accidents [1][2][3] described in chapter 1.1.
The method is capable of simulating the motion of a ship within the time domain. At this all
six degrees of freedom of a ship are described. Further it is possible to enter regular or irregular,
as well as short or long crested seaways. The method is explained briey in the following chapter.
2.1.1 Linear strip method
In the E4 seakeeping method a linear RAO is determined for each of the six degrees of freedom.
The RAOs are calculated by means of a strip method in the frequency domain. Each set of six
RAOs applies for one vessel's speed. Therefore one set of RAOs has to be calculated for each
speed examined.
Four of the degrees of freedom, namely sway, heave, pitch and yaw are calculated linearly using
the respective RAOs. A link to the nonlinear motions is considered. It is assumed, that the
amplitudes of these four motions stay moderate and that the hydrodynamic inuences outweigh
the nonlinearities. Therefore it is adequate to incorporate them linearly. Due to the linearisation
of the sway and yaw motion, the method is not able to describe broaching in following sea, which
often causes high roll motions and implicates an enhanced danger of capsizing. For the same
reason the method overestimates the ship's motions in beam seas at low speeds. This is related
to an underestimation of the drift motion in beam direction.
2.1.1.1 Calculation model
The lightship weight and the deadweight distribution are represented by a cuboid for each analysed vessel. The cuboid and the ship have equivalent mass moments of inertia. Its height and
width shown in gure 2.1 are governed by the extension of the light-ship and the loading weight.
The cuboid and the hull form are then used to calculate the RAOs.
2 Theory
Figure 2.1: Calculation model for the RAO determination

2.1.1.2 Roll radius of inertia and roll period
Before calculating the respective RAO sets, the roll radius of inertia of the ship as well as the
roll period are calculated. The roll period applies for still water condition and small rolling
angles. For the roll radius of inertia two values are calculated based on the ship's weight with
and without the inuence of section added masses, which consider the inuence of the water,
surrounding the ship's hull. Normally the roll radius of inertia with the inuence of section added
masses shall not exceed values of about 0.45 B for container vessels.
For the examined vessels in ballast arrival loading condition, the dry roll radius of inertia
reaches a value between 0.33 B ... 0.37 B . The wet roll radius of inertia reaches values between
0.40 B ... 0.42 B . So the used models are reasonable. The estimated roll periods reach values
between 9.5 s ... 11 s.
2.1.1.3 Roll damping
It can be stated that the damping of a ship's roll motion is relatively small compared to e.g.
the damping of the heave or pitch motion. Therefore large roll angles may occur in a resonance
condition. This indicates that the assumption of a correct roll damping is mandatory. The
direct, theoretical calculation of the roll damping is not possible until now. Only the damping
due to wave radiation can be calculated with potential theory methods. But there are many
other highly nonlinear and also viscous eects to consider.
6
For this reason Blume [9] developed roll damping coecients, based on practical experiments
of ships in model scale. With these empirical coecients the roll damping can be corrected to a
more realistic value. At this the correction includes also the damping inuence of the bilge keels.
The roll damping in E4ROLLS is considered with these coecients of similar ships.
2.1.1.4 Calculation settings
The calculations for higher speeds (v > 18 kn) and short wave lengths lead to problems for the
surge, sway and yaw motion RAOs, which are reaching disproportionately high values or become
singular. Consequently the problematic short wave lengths are excluded for higher speeds.
2 Theory
2.1.1.5 Typical RAOs
Typical RAOs for the six degrees of freedom are shown in gure 2.2 for one of the examined
vessels. In the graphs the RAOs are plotted against the wavelength. Each curve represents one
encounter angle of the ship into the seaway. A number of seven encounter angles between 0
(waves from astern) and 180 (waves from ahead) is indicated in each graph.
Figure 2.2: Typical RAOs

2.1.2 Nonlinear seakeeping
The remaining two degrees of freedom, namely surge and roll are treated dierently. For instance
the link to the linear motions or the exciting hydrodynamic forces and moments for the roll
motion are considered linearly using a RAO. But due to factors such as the high amplitude of
8
the roll motion or the highly nonlinear restoring moments, the surge and roll motion have to
be simulated nonlinearly in the time domain. The linearisation of the roll motion for example,
would imply replacing the lever arm curve with a straight line having a gradient corresponding
to GM. It is easy to understand, that such a simplication is not permissible. Therefore the
roll and the surge motion are simulated nonlinearly in the time domain, based on the formulas
described in the following.
2.1.2.1 Roll motion
The roll motion is calculated in the time domain according to the equation of motion 2.1 shown
below:
Ixz
=
h

i

+ 2 cos + 2 sin m g hs
Ixx Ixz ( sin + cos )

MW ind + MSway&Y aw + MW ave + MT ank MD
+
Ixx Ixz ( sin + cos )
(2.1)
with
, and , the angles to describe roll, pitch and yaw as well as describing the heave
direction which coincides with z of the hull-bound coordinate system.
hs , the righting lever in seaway according to Grim's [10] equivalent wave method.
m is the mass of the ship and g is the gravitational acceleration.
MW ind , MSway&Y aw , MW ave and MT ank , the exiting roll moments due to wind, sway and
yaw, waves
and uid in
tanks
or ooded compartments.
MD , the nonlinear damping moment depends on ship's speed. It is determined by using
damping coecients according to Blume [9].
Ixx and Ixz are the moment of inertia and the centrifugal moment.
Before the simulation is started, the cross curves of the ship are calculated, to avoid the timeconsuming calculation of the actual righting lever in seaways for each time step of the simulation.
The actual value during simulation is interpolated from the pre-calculated righting levers using
Grim's [10] equivalent wave method.
2.1.2.2 Surge Motion
Finally, the surge motion is simulated based on the ship's resistance, speed, mass (including added
hydrodynamic mass) and surge-inducing wave forces. The wave force is calculated, assuming a
hydrostatic pressure distribution under the water surface at half of ship's draught. This means,
that at each frame the force of buoyancy is perpendicular to this line of equivalent pressure at
half draught. The surge motion is simulated based on the approach 2.2 below.

2R (v0 ) R (vo ) 2 4R
+ 2 +
=
v0 m
m
v0 m
(2.2)
with
R, representing the resistance curve in still water conditions
2 Theory
4R, the added resistance due to waves

v0 , the ship's mean speed
m , the ship's mass with a part of hydrodynamic mass
2.1.3 Conclusion
The described method has been evaluated and approved in the scope of various research projects
at the TUHH including extensive model test at the HSVA. In addition the accident examination
reports [1][2][3] prove, that it was possible to anticipate exactly the seakeeping behavior of the
vessels in the respective accident situations.
Due to the application of Grim's [10] equivalent wave, the method computes reasonably
fast. Therefore it is possible to obtain realistic results for the seakeeping behavior of ships in
various seaways within short calculation time. For the same reasons, the method has the named
limitations of simulating the seakeeping behavior in beam seas and of describing the broaching
in following seas. Considering these limitations, it is a very suitable method to calculate head
and following seas.
2.2 Environmental conditions
The seakeeping method of E4 is able to simulate various types of seaways with or without wind.
2.2.1 Sea condition
The most elementary seaway, which may be generated, is a seaway of regular waves. The waves
in this seaway have just one direction and a constant wave period. Such seaways do not exist
in nature and can only be generated in a model tank. Natural seaways are usually represented
by superposed regular waves of dierent frequencies and encounter directions. A frequency
distribution appearing in nature is respected by applying a wind sea spectrum like the PiersonMoskowitz 1 or the Jonswap2 spectrum. These spectra are based on extensive measurements
of real seaways. The encounter directions are calculated randomly according to a manually chosen
number of directions. This leads to a more realistic, random seaway with either short-crested or
long-crested waves, depending on a small or large number of encounter directions.
Another problem may be, that real seaways mostly consist of a wind sea part, generated by the
actual wind and a swell part, remaining from former wind conditions. Hence for examinations
in seaways containing a high swell part, it may be reasonable to generate a seaway based on a
so called multi-peak spectrum. Such a spectrum has two peaks in the frequency distribution.
One wide-band peak for the wind sea part and one narrow-band peak for the swell part of the
seaway.
But the following calculations are based on heavy seaways, where the wind sea part is essential.
Therefore it is decided to use a Jonswap-spectrum in combination with short-crested waves.
With a given signicant wave height H1/3 and a signicant wave period Ts a seaway is generated,
which is considered being matching best a natural wind sea seaway. The wave height H1/3 is
the average wave height (trough to crest) of the one-third largest waves, while the signicant
wave period Ts is the associated average wave period of the one-third largest waves. A typical
Jonswap spectrum for a constant signicant wave height of H1/3 = 7.5 m and a constant peak
1
2
A spectral form for fully developed wind seas proposed by Pierson and Moskowitz (1964)
A corrected Pierson Moskowitz spectrum with data from the
et al. (1973)
10
JOint North Sea WAve Project by Hasselmann
2.2 Environmental conditions
period of Tp = 11 s is shown in gure 2.3, where the energy density spectrum S () is shown
against the wave circular frequency .
Figure 2.3: Jonswap spectrum for H1/3 = 7, 5 m and Tp = 11 s

2.2.2 Wind condition
It is possible to consider the inuence of incoming wind on the seakeeping behavior. The governing factor for the wind induced rolling moments is the size of the lateral areas facing the wind.
The lateral area of a container vessel in the ballast arrival loading condition is relatively small,
because no containers are stowed on deck. The wave induced rolling moments are signicant
compared to the wind induced moments and the wind inuence can be neglected. Therefore it
is decided to determine the seakeeping behavior without wind in the scope of the thesis.
11
2 Theory
12
3 Data input
The thesis is written based on vessel data which are available at the institute of ship design
and ship safety. Overall 15 container vessels are examined in this thesis.
Before the calculations and simulations are started, extensive numerical models are generated.
For each vessel a general arrangement plan, a tank capacity plan and a stability booklet are
available. The lines of the ships for all vessels are also available. With these documents enough
technical data are available for the calculation of the seakeeping behavior. In detail, the following
data are entered and/or veried in the E4 software for each vessel which is examined.
3.1 Main Dimensions
All available main dimensions are entered into the system. These are geometrical dimensions
like the length between perpendiculars LP P , the length over all LOA , the breadth B , the depth
to freeboard deck D or the design draft TD . Further entered dimensions worth mentioning, are
the keel thickness and the shell plating factor, which are needed to calculate the cross-curves of
stability as described in chapter 3.8.
3.2 Lines of the ship
For the intended calculations, the utilized model needs to match the original with adequate accuracy. Therefore the available lines of the ship in E4 are checked and corrected where necessary.
A typical lines plan of one of the examined vessel is shown in gure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Lines plan of one of the examined vessels

3.3 Lateral areas
The front and side lateral areas also shown in gure 3.1 are entered to be able to include wind
eects in the seakeeping calculations. In addition the side lateral area is very useful to assess the
dimensions of the cuboid for the RAO calculations, as it is explained in chapter 2.1.1.1. Later
on it is decided, not to consider the inuence of the wind on the seakeeping behavior in the rst
step.
13
3 Data input
3.4 Lightship distribution
The cuboid for determining the RAOs is calculated, based on the respective vessel's lightship
weight and the deadweight distribution as well as their extensions. Normally a detailed lightship
distribution in longitudinal direction is not necessary for seakeeping calculations. A coarse lightship weight distribution is sucient, for the same reasons which are shown in chapter 2.1.1.1.
Anyhow, with regard to potential longitudinal strength calculations in later examinations, for
each vessel a detailed lightship weight distribution is used for further analysis. Such calculations are performed to ensure sucient structural strength. The ship's structure is loaded by
longitudinal bending moments as well as shear forces due to torsion of the hull. Therefore a detailed weight distribution is mandatory for longitudinal strength calculations. Picture 3.2 shows
a typical lightship weight distribution of one of the examined vessels.
Figure 3.2: Lightship distribution of one of the examined vessels
3.5 Loading condition
As stated at the beginning, this analysis is concentrated on the ballast arrival loading condition. It is transferred to the models according to the information stated in the stability booklet.
The ballast arrival displacement consists of the lightship weight and the respective deadweight,
whereas the deadweight includes the weight of the ballast water, bunker and freshwater. Worth
mentioning is the fact, that in the analysed loading condition no cargo is on board. For simplication, the deadweight is approximated as one weight item. Thus there is one specic center
of gravity and the weight item's extension over the whole ship. The reasons for this coarse
presumption are given in chapter 2.1.1.1.
14
3.6 Free surface correction
3.6 Free surface correction
When tanks are partly lled in a loading condition, the free surface of the containing uid
inuences the stability of the ship. The liquid's center of gravity moves when the ship heels.
This leads to an apparent reduction of the GM . The corrected GM is usually determined by
the formula 3.1 shown below
GMcorrected = GMsolid
X liquid i Itank i
i
(3.1)
for each partly lled tank i with the particular density of the liquid in tank liquid , the particular
moment of inertia of the free surface Itank and the displacement 4 belonging to the particular
loading condition .
For the quasi-static intact stability analysis, this procedure is permissible. But for the highly
nonlinear motions of a ship in seaways the correction is inaccurate, because the damping eect
of the sloshing uid in the tank is not considered. For example this eect is used intentionally
in roll damping tanks.
For the seakeeping calculations it has been gured out, that both eects (roll damping due to
sloshing and stability reduction due to the free surface) approximately compensate each other.
Therefore the seakeeping calculations in E4 are always performed with an uncorrected GMsolid .
3.7 Intact stability
The intact stability is calculated according to the intact stability code of the IMO [4]. It is
performed to determine the limiting intact stability criterion in the examined ballast arrival
loading condition. The following six criteria are considered:
1. The initial metacentric height GM0 (including free surfaces) shall not be less than 0.15 m.
(named in the following: Initial GM is 0.15 m)
2. The righting lever GZ shall be at least 0.2 m at an angle of heel equal to or greater than
30 . (named in the following: GZ is 0.2 at 30 )
3. The maximum righting lever shall occur at an angle of heel not less than 25 . (named in
the following: Max. GZ at 25 )
4. The area under the GZ curve shall not be less than 0.055 metre radians up to 30 angle
of heel. (named in the following: Area (0, 30) = 0.055 m rad)
5. The area under the GZ curve shall not be less than0.09 metre radians up to 40 angle
of heel. (named in the following: Area (0, 40) = 0.090 m rad)
6. The area under the GZ curve between the angles of heel of 30 and 40 shall not be less
than 0.03 metre radians. (named in the following: Area (30, 40) = 0.030 m rad)
3.8 Cross-curves of stability
Furthermore the cross-curves of stability of the hull for xed and free trim are calculated. The
resulting curves in E4 are compared to the curves derived from the stability booklet. The better
the curves match, the better the E4 calculation model matches the calculating model of the
shipyard. Thereby its assured, that the result of the calculations are applicable to the realized
vessel.
15
3 Data input
At this the cross-curves for small angles should have approximately equivalent values. For large
angles (> 60 ), the values may dier. This is due to the not considered hatchway coamings in the
calculation models. In the scope of the subsequent analysis, this simplied model is considered
to be applicable, because the vessels never reach higher rolling angles than 40 .
3.9 Bilge keel dimensions
During seakeeping calculation, the bilge keel dimensions have to be considered. They are needed
to determine their eect on the ship's roll damping. Because the bilge keel area is not given for
some ships, the value then has to be estimated. Therefore a mean value is calculated out of the
given bilge keel dimensions with equation 3.2 as follows:
n
mean value =
1 X Lpp i
= 5.36 [1/m]
n
ABK i
(3.2)
i=1
with the index for each ship i, the total number of ships with given bilge keel dimensions n, the
bilge keel area ABK and the length between perpendicular Lpp of the respective ship. According
to the mean value, the bilge keel area for ships without given value is estimated by:
ABK i =
Lpp i 2
m
5.36
(3.3)
Figure 3.3 shows the distribution of the respective bilge keel area against Lpp . The numbers
above the entries indicate the number of the examined vessel according to chapter 4.
100,00
11
Bilge keel area [m2]
90,00
80,00
15
70,00
14
estimated values
60,00
8
4
50,00
40,00
6
7
13
10
12
30,00
190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330
LPP [m]
Actual values of examined vessels
Mean value curve
Figure 3.3: Bilge keel area distribution

16
3.10 Bridge height
3.10 Bridge height
The severely and fatally injured crew members mentioned in the beginning, have been on duty
on the vessel's bridge when the accident occurred. Hence the transversal accelerations aecting
a human on the bridge are calculated in the further scope of this thesis. The transversal accelerations in seaways are calculated at one meter above the bridge deck. This value is assumed for
the vertical center of gravity of a human.
For the roll behavior of a ship in seaway it can be estimated, that its roll axis is located in
the proximity of the vessel's line of oatation according to Abdel-Maksoud [11]. This is why
the transversal accelerations are inherently higher on the bridge than on lower decks. In this
examination, the line of oatation is the ballast arrival loading condition waterline. The bridge
height above the ballast arrival waterline of the 15 vessels against LP P is shown in gure 3.4.
Height of bridge above ballast

arrival waterline [m]

42,0
41,0
40,0
39,0
38,0
37,0
36,0
35,0
34,0
33,0
32,0
31,0
30,0
200
14
11
15
2
3
1
6
12
7
4
9
13
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
Lpp [m]
Figure 3.4: Bridge height above ballast arrival waterline
17
3 Data input
3.11 Size range of the examined vessels
The smallest examined vessel is nearly 200 m whereas the largest vessel is more than 320 m
long. Figure 3.5 opposes the displacement to the length between perpendicular. To visualise the
dierences between the examined vessels, the lateral view of three of them is given. The detailed
ship data and main dimensions for each ship are given in the respective section of chapter 4.
130000
14
120000
11
15
110000
Displacement at Tdesign [t]
100000
2
90000
3
80000
9
70000
12
60000
5
7
6
50000
13
40000
10
30000
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
LPP [m]
Figure 3.5: Vessels size range

3.12 Sea conditions to be examined
According to the accident sea conditions named in chapter 1.1, the following situations are examined. As mentioned in chapter 2.2, the seaway is described by a signicant wave period TS and
a signicant wave height H1/3 . For each analysed vessel a speed v and a wave encountering angle
is assumed according to the respective accident situation. The encountering angle is measured
from astern, so 0 means the ship encounters a following sea.
Table 3.1: Accident situations
Accident
situation
Situation 1
Situation 2
Situation 3
18
Corresponds to the
accident of
Chicago Express
2468 TEU vessel
2500 TEU vessel
v [kts]
3
3
5
Encount.
angle [ ]
150
150
130
TS [s]
H1/3 [m]
9.5
8.5
9.5
7.5
7.0
7.0
4 Examination
For each vessel the seakeeping behavior during the three accident situations is determined. This
simulation extends to 20, 000 time steps, having a step size of 0.5 s each. This corresponds to a
total duration of the simulation in real time of 10, 000 s.
This chapter explains the data sets for all analysed vessels. The compilation contains a simplied lines plan including the lateral areas and a few main dimensions. A detailed list of all
main dimensions and the data for the respective ballast arrival loading condition can be found
in the appendix A. In addition, some specic characteristics of the ship are named. (e.g. the
quality of the calculation model or the hullform). At this the explanations concerning the ability
of passing the Panama Canal, apply on the canal before its enlarging, which will be completed
in the year 2014/2015. Further with the referenced cB value for each vessel, the neness of the
hull forms is described and can be compared to other vessels.
Furthermore the maximum rolling angles and maximum transversal accelerations on the bridge
are given, resulting from each of the three above named accident situations. For the worst scenario the statistical distribution of the occurring accelerations is given by a histogram, where the
maximum transversal acceleration is derived from. The mean value of the normalized amplitudes
and the associated standard deviation as well as the number of calculated periods in the simulation time of 10, 000 s are also shown in the histogram. It is to be noted, that the histograms
do not have the same scale on their x-axis. So the histograms of two dierent vessels can not be
compared directly. The order of the analysed vessels is randomly chosen.
4.1 Vessel No. 01
Figure 4.1: Lines plan and lateral areas of

Table 4.1: Main dimensions of
Vessel No. 01
Vessel No. 01
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
263.00
40.00
12.00
5,512
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
The rst analysed vessel has the geometric capacity to carry 5, 512 T EU . Having the main
dimensions according to table 4.1, this vessels must be classied as a smaller Post-Panamax
19
4 Examination
vessels. The following characteristics of
Vessel No. 01
are to be noted:
The lines of the ship shown in gure 4.1 have a cB value of 0.57 on design draft.
The documented bilge keel area is smaller than the mean value according to chapter 3.9.
The stability in the ballast arrival loading condition is very high resulting in
GMsolid = 10.43 m.
The limiting intact stability criterion (Max. GZ at 25 ) requires a GMmin = 1.89 m.
The calculated transversal accelerations on the bridge and the rolling angles for the three accident
conditions are listed in table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Results of the seakeeping calculation for Vessel

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
12.5
32
Situation 2
12.5
29
Situation 3
13.5
No. 01
34
The maximum acceleration occurs for accident situation 3. With at max = 13.5 m/s2 for accident
situation 3 the examination already starts with a signicant value. The statistical distribution
of the transversal accelerations in this situation is shown in gure 4.2.
Figure 4.2: Transversal acceleration on the bridge of
20
Vessel No. 01
in accident situation 3
4.2
Vessel No. 02
4.2 Vessel No. 02
Vessel No. 02
Vessel No. 02
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
292.00
40.00
12.00
6,500
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
The second analysed vessel has the geometric capacity to carry 6, 500 T EU . Having the main
dimensions according to table 4.3, it belongs to the medium sized Post-Panamax vessels. The
following characteristics of Vessel No. 02 are to be noted:
The lines of the ship shown in gure 4.3 have a cB value of 0.61 on design draft
The documented bilge keel area is signicantly smaller than the mean value according to
chapter 3.9.
The stability in the ballast arrival loading condition is very high resulting in
GMsolid = 9.88 m.

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
7.5
18
Situation 2
7.0
15
Situation 3
11.5
No. 02
28
The maximum acceleration occurs for accident situation 3. The accelerations for Vessel
in situation 1 and 2 are signicant smaller than for Vessel No. 01. The statistical
distribution of the transversal accelerations in this situation is shown in gure 4.4.
No. 02
21
4 Examination
Vessel No. 02
4.3 Vessel No. 03
Vessel No. 03
Vessel No. 03
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
263.00
40.00
12.50
5,762
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
The third analysed vessel has the geometric capacity to carry 5, 726 T EU . Having the main
dimensions according to table 4.5, it belongs to the smaller Post-Panamax vessels. It has exactly
the same main dimensions and an equivalent ballast arrival loading condition as Vessel No. 01.
In contrast Vessel No. 03 has a higher cB value and therefore is able to carry more TEU at a
slower design speed than Vessel No. 01. The following characteristics of Vessel No. 03 are to
be noted:
The lines of the ship shown in gure 4.5 have a cB value of 0.58 in design draft.
22
4.3
Vessel No. 03
The documented bilge keel area is signicantly higher than the mean value according to
chapter 3.9.
The stability in ballast arrival loading condition is very high resulting in a

GMsolid = 10.12 m.

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
10.5
26
Situation 2
11.0
23
Situation 3
11.0
No. 03
30
The maximum acceleration occurs for accident situation 3, but the accelerations are comparable for each accident situation.
Even though Vessel No. 01 and Vessel No. 03 are very similar, the values are smaller for
the Vessel No. 03. A possible reason for this dierence is the 60% larger bilge keel area of
Vessel No. 03 and therefore a higher roll damping, respectively. The accelerations in accident
situation 2 and 3 are the same. Therefore the situation of both with the higher rolling angle is
stated to be the worst situation. The statistical distribution of the transversal accelerations in
this situation is shown in gure 4.6.
Vessel No. 03
23
4 Examination
4.4 Vessel No. 04
Vessel No. 04
Vessel No. 04
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
280.75
32.26
11.00
4,402
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
Vessel No. 04 has the geometric capacity to carry 4, 402 T EU . Having the main dimensions
according to table 4.7, it complies with the maximum possible main dimensions to pass through
the Panama Canal. The vessel is the rst typical Panamax container vessel, analysed within
this examination. The following characteristics of Vessel No. 04 are to be noted:
The bilge keel area is not documented for this vessel and is estimated according to chapter
3.9.
The stability in ballast arrival loading condition is less high resulting in a GMsolid = 6.39 m.
The limiting intact stability criterion (Area (30, 40) = 0.030 m rad) requires a
GMmin = 0.16 m.
In general typical Panamax vessels with its large L/B ratio tend to small intact stability values.
For Vessel No. 04 this leads to a very small GM min in ballast arrival loading condition. The cB
value of 0.69 is the highest value of the analysed vessels. The calculated transversal accelerations
on the bridge and the rolling angles for the three accident conditions are listed in table 4.8.

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
9.0
21
Situation 2
8.0
18
Situation 3
12.0
No. 04
31
The maximum acceleration occurs for accident situation 3. As already for Vessel No. 02, the
occurring transversal accelerations for accident situation 1 and 2 are signicant smaller than for
24
4.5
Vessel No. 05
accident situation 3. The statistical distribution of the transversal accelerations in this situation
is shown in gure 4.8.
Vessel No. 04
4.5 Vessel No. 05
Vessel No. 05
Vessel No. 05
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
221.00
32.20
11.82
3,323
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
The 5th examined vessel has the geometric capacity to carry 3, 323 T EU . Having the main
dimensions according to table 4.9, it is also able to pass the Panama Canal, but it is shorter
than Vessel No. 04. The following characteristics of Vessel No. 05 are to be noted:
25
4 Examination
The documented bilge keel area matches the mean value according to chapter 3.9.
The stability in ballast arrival loading condition is moderately high resulting in a
GMsolid = 7.09 m.
GMmin = 0.53 m.

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
12.0
32
Situation 2
Situation 3
13.0
13.0
No. 05
36
35
For the seaways of accident situation 2 and 3, the same maximum transversal accelerations on
the bridge occur while the accelerations in accident situation 1 are also nearly as high. Because
the rolling angle of situation 2 is the highest, this situation is stated to be the most critical. The
statistical distribution of the transversal accelerations in this situation is shown in gure 4.10.
26
Vessel No. 05
4.6
Vessel No. 06
4.6 Vessel No. 06
Vessel No. 06
Vessel No. 06
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
244.51
32.25
10.00
4,253
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
Vessel No. 06
has the geometric capacity to carry 4, 253 T EU . Having the main dimensions
according to table 4.11, it is another midsized container vessel which may travel through the
Panama Canal. The following characteristics of Vessel No. 06 are to be noted:
3.9.

GMsolid = 7.47 m.

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
9.0
23
Situation 2
11.0
25
Situation 3
12.0
No. 06
29
The maximum acceleration occurs for accident situation 3. The statistical distribution of the
transversal accelerations in this situation is shown in gure 4.12.
27
4 Examination
Vessel No. 06
4.7 Vessel No. 07
Vessel No. 07
Vessel No. 07
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
256.20
32.20
10.00
4,252
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
according to table 4.13, the vessel is also a midsized, Panama canal capable container ship
very similar to Vessel No. 06. The following characteristics of Vessel No. 07 are to be noted:
The documented bilge keel area is slightly smaller than the mean value according to chapter
3.9.
28
4.7
Vessel No. 07

GMsolid = 7.00 m.
Compared to Vessel No. 06, the cB value of Vessel No. 07 is slightly larger and the GMmin
is slightly smaller. The calculated transversal accelerations on the bridge and the rolling angles
for the three accident conditions are listed in table 4.14.

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
10.0
29
Situation 2
10.0
24
Situation 3
12.0
No. 07
33
As for Vessel No. 06 the maximum acceleration occurs for accident situation 3. The accelerations in situation 1 and 2 are also in the same scope for both vessels. Furthermore the dierences
between the accelerations within their respective accident situations are not as high as for e.g.
Vessel No. 02 or Vessel No. 04. The statistical distribution of the transversal accelerations
in this situation is shown in gure 4.14.
Vessel No. 07
29
4 Examination
4.8 Vessel No. 08
Vessel No. 08
Vessel No. 08
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
283.20
32.20
11.00
5,041
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
according to table 4.15, it is a typical Panamax container vessel like Vessel No. 04. The
following characteristics of Vessel No. 08 are to be noted:
The documented bilge keel area is slightly larger than the mean value according to chapter
3.9.
GMmin = 0.40 m.
As for Vessel No. 04, the rst analysed Panamax vessel, the cB value is relatively high for a
container vessel and the GMmin is small. The calculated transversal accelerations on the bridge
and the rolling angles for the three accident conditions are listed in table 4.16.

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
11.0
27
Situation 2
9.0
18
Situation 3
13.0
No. 08
35
The maximum acceleration occurs for accident situation 3. The distribution of the highest
accelerations on the three accident situations is similar to the distribution of Vessel No. 04,
where the highest value also occurs for accident situation 3 while the lowest value occurs for
situation 2. The statistical distribution of the transversal accelerations in this situation is shown
in gure 4.16.
30
4.9
Vessel No. 08
Vessel No. 09
4.9 Vessel No. 09
Vessel No. 09
Vessel No. 09
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
277.00
32.25
12.20
4,318
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
Vessel No. 09
according to table 4.17, it is a typical Panamax container vessel like Vessel No. 04 and Vessel
No. 08. Due to its design draft of 12.2 m, the vessel is not able to pass the Panama Canal in
design loading condition, because in the canal the draft is limited to 12.04 m. Another loading
condition with a smaller draft has to be chosen for the passage. The following characteristics of
Vessel No. 09 are to be noted:
The lines of the ship shown in gure 4.17 have a cB value of 0.65 on design draft. Further-
more the slanted transom is unusual.
31
4 Examination
The documented bilge keel area is slightly smaller than the mean value according to chapter
3.9.
The stability in ballast arrival loading condition is less high resulting in the smallest GM
of the examination GMsolid = 5.09 m.
GMmin = 0.32 m.
Like the other Panamax vessels, also Vessel No. 09 has a relatively high cB value and a very
small GMmin . The calculated transversal accelerations on the bridge and the rolling angles for
the three accident conditions are listed in table 4.18.

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
12.0
38
Situation 2
7.5
22
Situation 3
14.0
No. 09
35
Until now the maximum transversal acceleration of 14 m/s2 in situation 3 is the worst value
calculated. As for Vessel No. 04 and Vessel No. 08, the highest acceleration value occurs for
situation 3, while the lowest is associated to situation 2. Notable is the fact, that the highest
value is twice as high as the lowest. The statistical distribution of the transversal accelerations
in this situation is shown in gure 4.18.
32
Vessel No. 09
4.10
Vessel No. 10
4.10 Vessel No. 10
Vessel No. 10
Vessel No. 10
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
195.40
29.80
10.10
2,478
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
according to table 4.19, it is the smallest analysed vessel. In addition it is the only vessel equipped
with cranes and a deck house located at the ship's aft end. The following characteristics of
Vessel No. 10 are to be noted:
3.9.
GMmin = 0.38 m.

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
12.0
32
Situation 2
Situation 3
14.5
12.0
No. 10
43
36
The maximum acceleration of 14.5 m/s2 occurs for accident situation 2 while the associated
rolling angle of 43 is the highest calculated value in the whole examination. The statistical
distribution of the transversal accelerations in this situation is shown in gure 4.20.
33
4 Examination
Vessel No. 10
4.11 Vessel No. 11

Vessel No. 11
Vessel No. 11
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
322.60
45.60
13.00
8,600
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
Vessel No. 11
according to table 4.21, it is the largest vessel analysed. It belongs to the class of large PostPanamax vessels. The following characteristics of Vessel No. 11 are to be noted:
The documented bilge keel area is much larger than the mean value according to chapter
3.9.
The stability in ballast arrival loading condition is extremely high resulting in a

GMsolid = 12.96 m.
34
4.11
Vessel No. 11
The ship is very ne with its cB value of 0.59. The stability values GMsolid and mainly GMmin
have a signicant higher order of magnitude, than the values of the previous analysed vessels.

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
4.0
11
Situation 2
3.5
8
Situation 3
5.5
No. 11
12
The maximum acceleration occurs for accident situation 3. But the calculated accelerations are
. The statistical distribution
of the transversal accelerations in this situation is shown in gure 4.22.
considerably smaller than for the previous analysed vessels
Vessel No. 11
35
4 Examination
4.12 Vessel No. 12
Vessel No. 12
Vessel No. 12
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
249.03
32.20
11.30
4,300
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
Vessel No. 12
according to table 4.23, it is another midsized container vessel which may travel through the
Panama Canal. The vessel is comparable to Vessel No. 07, which has nearly the same
dimensions, a slightly smaller cB value and therefore a ner hullform as well as a smaller geometric
TEU capacity. The following characteristics of Vessel No. 12 are to be noted:
The documented bilge keel area is signicant smaller than the mean value according to
chapter 3.9.

GMsolid = 7.18 m.

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
10.5
25
Situation 2
11.0
26
Situation 3
14.0
No. 12
35
The maximum acceleration occurs for accident situation 3. The maximum acceleration is
higher, than for the comparable Vessel No. 07. The statistical distribution of the transversal
accelerations in this situation is shown in gure 4.24.
36
4.13
Vessel No. 12
Vessel No. 13
4.13 Vessel No. 13

Vessel No. 13
Vessel No. 13
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
210.25
30.00
10.10
2,824
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
Vessel No. 13
according to table 4.25, it is the second smallest analysed vessel. The following characteristics
of Vessel No. 13 are to be noted:
The documented bilge keel area matches the mean value according to chapter 3.9.
GMsolid = 6.98 m.
37
4 Examination
GMmin = 0.65 m.

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
12.0
31
Situation 2
Situation 3
15.0
12.5
No. 13
36
32
The maximum acceleration occurs for accident situation 2. The transversal acceleration of
15m/s2 in accident situation 2 is the highest value that occurs in the scope of the simulations.
Mentionable is the fact, that all smaller vessels analysed in this chapter, are critical in accident
situation 2, while for the other vessels the critical situation is situation 3. Apparently the seaway
in situation 2 with a shorter signicant wave period of TS = 8.5 s stronger excites the small
vessels. The statistical distribution of the transversal accelerations in this situation is shown in
gure 4.26.
38
Vessel No. 13
4.14
Vessel No. 14
4.14 Vessel No. 14
Vessel No. 14
Vessel No. 14
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
319.00
42.80
13.00
8,600
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
according to table 4.27, it belongs to the class of the large Post-Panamax vessels. With Vessel
No. 14 the Chicago Express takes part of the analysis, which is the vessel involved in accident
situation 1. For the BSU accident report [1] it has already been examined, although referring to
a dierent loading condition. The following characteristics of the Chicago Express are to be
noted:
The documented bilge keel area is a little bit larger than the mean value according to
chapter 3.9.

GMsolid = 12.40 m.
Besides Vessel No. 11, the Chicago Express is the second vessel in the examination out
of the class of large Post-Panamax vessels. With a cB value of 0.66, the Chicago Express
has not such a ne shaped hull as Vessel No. 11. But the stability values GMsolid and most
notably GMmin also have a signicant higher order of magnitude, than the values for the smaller
analysed vessels. The calculated transversal accelerations on the bridge and the rolling angles
for the three accident conditions are listed in table 4.28.

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
3.0
7
Situation 2
Situation 3
3.5
3.0
No. 14
39
4 Examination
The maximum acceleration occurs for accident situation 2. As for the rst large vessel analyse, Vessel No. 11, the calculated accelerations are considerably smaller than for the previous
analysed vessels. Nevertheless in the accident condition of Vessel No. 11, the Chicago Express,
the transversal accelerations on the bridge exceeded 1.0 g (refer to BSU investigation report [1])!
The statistical distribution of the transversal accelerations in this situation is shown in gure
4.28.
40
Vessel No. 14
4.15
Vessel No. 15
4.15 Vessel No. 15

Vessel No. 15
Vessel No. 15
Main dimensions
Value
Unit
Lpp
B
TD
Containers
319.00
42.80
13.00
8,200
[m]
[m]
[m]
[TEU]
The last analysed vessel has the geometric capacity to carry 8, 200 T EU . Having the main
dimensions according to table 4.29, it belongs to the large Post-Panamax vessels. The vessel is
very similar to the Chicago Express as it has exactly the same main dimensions as well as an
equivalent ballast arrival loading condition. The following characteristics of Vessel No. 15 are
to be noted:
The lines of the ship shown in gure 4.29 have a cB value of 0.65 on design draft
The documented bilge keel area is larger than the mean value according to chapter 3.9
The calculated cross-curves in E4 coincide well with the ones stated in the trim & stability
booklet

GMsolid = 12.49 m
The limiting intact stability criterion (Max. GZ at 25 ) requires a GMmin = 4.77 m

Accident
at max m/s2
max [ ]
situation
Situation 1
4.5
11
Situation 2
4.0
8
Situation 3
5.0
No. 15
11
The maximum acceleration occurs for accident situation 3. Although Vessel No. 15 is very
similar to the Chicago Express, the accelerations dier. The statistical distribution of the
transversal accelerations in this situation is shown in gure 4.30.
41
4 Examination
42
Vessel No. 15
5 Evaluation
Based on the determination of the seakeeping behavior in the previous chapter, the following
sections summarize and explain the results, highlight the consequences and give recommendations
for further detailed examinations also carried out in the scope of this thesis.
5.1 Results
The examination includes only container vessels, which are altogether rather similar in terms of
hull form and ship design. This is due to the necessity to carry as much containers as possible
on a vessel in combination with relatively high speed requirements (> 20 kts). All vessels have,
more or less, a distinctive bow are and a ne shaped hull form compared to other ship types
(e.g. bulkers or tankers). This is expressed by cB values in a scope of 0.57 ... 0.69.
The results show, that the transversal accelerations on the bridges are correlated with the
respective rolling angles. Therewith it is not implied, that one explicit rolling angle always
causes one explicit acceleration. But it can be stated, that high accelerations only occur in
combination with large rolling angles.
Summing up the results of the examination of the single ships in the ballast arrival loading
condition reveals:
In their ballast arrival loading condition all examined ships have, more or less, a GM value,
which is signicantly higher than the required minimum GMmin according to the rules of
the IMO[4]. It can be stated, that all vessels considered have a very high stability.
Most vessels experience large rolling angles up to 40 and high transversal accelerations on
the bridge up to 15 m/s2 , depending on the examined accident situation named in chapter
3.12.
To get an overview of the examination, all calculated transversal acceleration on the bridge
against their respective GMsolid are plotted in gure 5.1. The numbers in gure 5.1 represent
the respective vessels in chapter 4. At this, the maximum transversal acceleration is plotted for
each of the three accident situations. For better comparison of the occurring accelerations, two
of the vessels in accident are considered, too. The Chicago Express (abbreviated with CE)
and the 2468 TEU Vessel in their respective accidental loading condition are added to the
graph for each of the three analysed accident situations.
43
Transverse acceleration on the bridge in

ballast arrival loading condition [m/s2]
5 Evaluation
16
13 12
5
14
10
12
3
2468 TEU in
accident
10
6
4
8
CE in accident
6
15
11
4
14 = CE
2
0
4
10
12
14
GMsolid [m]
Accident situation 1
Figure 5.1: Transversal accelerations on the bridge against GMsolid

5.2 Consequences
Normally it is expected that large vessels with a length of over 200 m or even 300 m are relatively
safe in heavy sea and do not experience an exceptional seakeeping behavior. But the analysis
reveals, that most of the considered container vessels apparently have signicant problems with
their seakeeping behavior in combinations of certain loading and environmental conditions.
In exception to the above stated the three largest vessels, namely Vessel No. 11, Vessel
No. 14 and Vessel No. 15, experience smaller rolling angles and accelerations during the examination (see gure 5.1). Simply looking at this result, it could be concluded, that these large
vessels generally do not have problems in the considered seaways. But with Vessel No. 14,
the Chicago Express takes part of the examination, being the vessel in accident, which is described with accident situation 1 (refer to table 3.1). During this accident very high rolling angles
and transversal accelerations on the bridge occurred in a dierent loading condition (compare
BSU report [1]).
The examined ballast arrival condition diers from the accident loading condition. The
Chicago Express now has a smaller displacement and GM as well as a dierent trim. This
implies that the other large vessels, Vessel No. 11 and Vessel No. 15 may also be endangered
to experience equally high high transversal accelerations in a dierent loading condition. This
assumption is analysed further in chapter 6.2.
The problems in the seakeeping behavior occur due to the following reasons: The shaped hull
form and the signicant bow are of the analysed vessels favours the impact of direct, exciting
heeling moments through the heavy sea. On the other hand, the excessive stability causes high
restoring moments of the heeled vessel. This results in signicant transversal accelerations (see
[8] for more details).
Furthermore the examination shows that the problem of excessive rolling angles and transversal
44
5.3 Recommendations
accelerations seems not to be a pure stability problem. Rather high accelerations occur for a
wide scope of examined GMsolid values (see gure 5.1).
Regarding the occurring maximum transversal accelerations, a comparison with an usual value
for the dimensioning of the container lashing equipment is interesting, since a reference value
for the maximum transversal accelerations acting on humans on the bridge does not exist. For
example according to the DNV rules [12], the transversal dynamic acceleration taking eect on
container lashings on deck, shall be taken not smaller than 0, 5 g . The calculated accelerations
on the bridge partly exceed the triple of that value. In the same time the normalized mean value
of the occurring acceleration amplitudes mostly exceeds a value of 0, 5 g (refer to the respective
histograms in chapter 4). Such high transversal accelerations are considered being denitely not
acceptable.
5.3 Recommendations
The simulation results show, that the ballast arrival loading condition of container vessels is
not a safe seagoing condition. The risk of encountering excessive rolling angles and very high
transversal accelerations on the bridge in heavy sea is increased signicantly. Based on the
simulation results, the following approaches to reduce the risk of accidents can be exemplied.
5.3.1 Stability
Concerning the stability of the vessels, no universally valid GM value, which reduces the risk of
accidents, can be derived from the analysis. The seakeeping behavior of a ship apparently has
a lot of important additional inuence factors. For instance two of the factors which have to
be considered, are the ship's trim and the hull form. Altogether the factors can form a critical
ship situation consisting of the ship's stability, the ship's trim, the ship's hull form and so on.
To identify such critical situations for each loading condition, seakeeping calculations have to
be done with adequate methods for each vessel individually. A general prediction of a critical
situations is not possible until now. For three of the vessels in ballast arrival loading condition,
the most critical situation is determined in chapter 6.1.
5.3.2 Roll damping
The enlarging of the roll damping, no matter how the damping is done, reduces the roll motions
and transversal accelerations on the bridge. There are dierent ways to increase the roll damping
of a ship. According to Abdel-Maksoud [11] the following possibilities t for this purpose:
Enlarge the bilge keel area roll damping by ow separation at the bilge keels
Increase the ship's speed at low speeds roll damping by shear stress on the hull, angular
incoming ow on the rudder and immersed transom
Integrate a roll damping tank roll damping by e.g. a sloshing uid
For a vessel already in service, the bilge keels could be modied easily. Though such a modication would not have a deciding inuence on the transversal accelerations. In appendix B.1 a
graph can be found, where the bilge keel area is changed for Vessel No. 13, being the vessel
with the highest occurring transversal acceleration value during the examination. In the graph
the vessel in ballast arrival condition encounters the seaway of accident situation 2. it follows,
that the enlarging of the bilge keel area by 50 %, just provides a reduction of the transversal
accelerations of about 10 %. A general advantage of bilge keel is, that they also function with
zero speed.
45
5 Evaluation
Furthermore the increase of the ship's speed always reduces the roll motion. But at rst the
vessel has to be able to signicantly increase the speed, which is not self-evident due to the high
wave forces slowing the ship with each wave. On the other hand a higher ship's speed in heavy
seaway causes high slamming loads on the ship's bow structure, when heading into the waves.
This eect may cause severe damages on the structure, especially for vessels with a large bow
are. At last with a higher speed and heading into the waves, the vessel may be endangered of
encountering a critical 2:1 resonance. Therefore the augmentation of the ship's speed to improve
the roll damping is suitable to only a limited number of cases. The inuence of ship's speed is
also determined for Vessel No. 13. The associated graph in appendix C.1 shows that the ship's
speed has not a signicant inuence, too. For this analysis, the vessel in ballast arrival condition
encounters again the seaway of accident situation 2.
At last the integration of a roll damping tank has the advantage, that it also functions with
zero ship's speed. But it reduces the ship's payload due to the used space for the tank and
reduces the intact stability due to the free surface of the tank.
5.3.3 Lines of the ship
The design of the lines of the ship has a strong inuence on the seakeeping behavior. As mentioned before, the shape of the frames or rather the shape of the bow are in combination with
the wide transom, governs the induced rolling moments. Already during the very early design
phase, the following compromise has to be determined. On one hand the vessel is intended to
carry as much cargo as possible which results in aring hull forms. On the other hand this often
contradicts with the demand of a good seakeeping behavior.
5.3.4 Other
The operating behavior of the crew has also an inuence. Besides the increase of the ship's speed,
the risk of accident can be reduced by placing the vessel parallel to the main wave direction at
zero speed. In beam sea a lot of the wave energy induced into the ship is transformed into a
drift motion in beam direction. Therefore the roll motions of the vessel are reduced. A problem
in this position can be, that the ship's stern turns into the waves due to the poor course keeping
ability at zero speed. When this happens to container vessels with their wide and at transom,
the stern experiences often high slamming loads. Furthermore drifting in beam sea is obviously
not advisable inshore.
46
6 Detailed examination
The evaluation discussed in chapter 5 discloses, that further investigations are necessary for the
better understanding of the high transversal acceleration problem. For this reason the following
detailed examinations are carried out.
At rst, the inuence of the ship's stability on the transversal accelerations is analysed. Furthermore it has to be examine, if the large vessels, Vessel No. 11 and Vessel No. 15, are also
endangered to encounter high acceleration and rolling angle values in a loading condition similar
to the one of Vessel No. 14 (Chicago Express) when it experienced severe ship motions in
accident.
6.1 Variation of the GM values
In this chapter the inuence of the initial stability (namely GM ) on the occurring transversal
acceleration for three out of the 15 examined vessels is determined. In order to consider the
probable inuence of the ship's size, a small, a mid-sized and a large vessel are chosen.
Based on the ballast arrival loading condition, the value of GMsolid is varied by changing the
vertical center of gravity KG of the vessel. The calculations are performed without considering
the inuence of free surfaces, for the reasons named in chapter 3.6. The displacement as well as
the ship's trim of the analysed ballast arrival condition are kept constant. For each GM value
all three accident situations according to chapter 3.12 are simulated.
In addition it is estimated, if such a GMsolid or respectively KG value is achievable from a
technical point of view. For instance a total ship's center of gravity KG at height of the inner
bottom is not realistic. The feasible minimum KG depends on the light ship's vertical center of
gravity, the position and lling of the ballast water and fuel oil tanks in the lower part of the
ship as well as cargo in the holds.
A shifted GM directly aects the seakeeping behavior. Hence to represent well the dierences,
a new set of transfer functions (RAOs) according to chapter 2.1.1 has to be calculated for each
GM value.
6.1.1 Small vessel
Vessel No. 13
was chosen as smallest vessel for the detailed stability analysis. Its relevant data
are listed in table 6.1. More main dimension data of this vessel can be found in the appendix A.13
on page 71. The GM is varied around the ballast arrival GMsolid = 6.98 m within a range of
about GM
= 3 ... 12 m.
In gure 6.1 the resulting transversal accelerations on the bridge are shown related to the
dierent GMsolid values. All three accident situations result in a comparable curve slope. In
accident situation 1 and 2 the highest accelerations occur for the GM value of the ballast arrival
loading condition. In accident situation 3 the highest acceleration occurs for a higher GM of
about 8 m. With a higher or a lower stability the vessel would experience signicantly smaller
accelerations. Though just a GMsolid value of 8 ... 9 m is realistically reachable for this vessel by
e.g. lling ballast water in tanks in low positions. Higher values in this simulation can only be
reached by decreasing the vertical center of gravity of the lightship weight, which is considered
being impossible for an existing vessel.
47
Table 6.1: Stability data for the small vessel

Ballast arrival loading
Value
condition
Unit
15.46 [m]
8.48 [m]
6.98 [m]
KM
KG
GMsolid
Light ship
Value
Unit
12.18 [m]
vcgLSW
16
12
10
Ballast arrival loading condition
Maximum transverse acceleration on the bridge [m/s 2]
14
0
2
10
12
14
16
GMsolid [m]
Figure 6.1: Vessel
No. 13
in ballast arrival oating condition: Variation of GMsolid
6.1.2 Midsized vessel
The midsized vessel for the detailed stability analysis is Vessel No. 1. Its relevant data are listed
in table 6.2. More main data of this vessel can be found in the appendix A.1 on page 59. The GM
is varied around the ballast arrival GMsolid = 10.43 m within a range of about GM
= 5 ... 13 m.
varied GMsolid values. All three accident situations result in a comparable curve slope. On
average the highest accelerations occur for a GM in the range of the GMsolid within the ballast
arrival loading condition. It is very mentionable, that the vessel would also experience lower
transversal accelerations on the bridge, even when the stability is further increased. Though just
a GMsolid value of about 11 m is realistically reachable for this vessel by e.g. lling tanks in
low positions. Again, higher GM values are only realisable by changing the vertical center of
gravity of the lightship weight. When reducing the stability by decreasing GM , the transversal
48
6.1 Variation of the GM values
accelerations also decrease signicantly to values of about 3 m/s2 .

Table 6.2: Stability data for the midsized vessel
Value
condition
Unit
21.45 [m]
11.02 [m]
10.43 [m]
KM
KG
GMsolid
Light ship
Value
Unit
15.13 [m]
vcgLSW
16
12
10
14
0
2
10
12
14
16
GMsolid [m]
Figure 6.2: Vessel
No. 01
6.1.3 Large vessel
The large vessel for the detailed stability analysis is the Chicago Express. Its relevant data
are listed in table 6.3, while more detailed data can be found in the appendix A.14 on page 72.
The GM is varied around the ballast arrival GMsolid = 12.40 m in both directions within a range
of about GM
= 5 ... 15 m.
varied GMsolid values. For all three accident situations it follows a comparable curve slope. This
time no signicant transversal accelerations occur in the ballast arrival loading condition. With
a higher stability, than in the ballast arrival loading condition, the behavior of the vessel does
not change. Furthermore all analysed GMsolid values up to 14 m are realistically reachable for
49
this vessel by e.g. lling ballast water in tanks in low positions. When reducing the GM of the
ballast arrival loading condition, the transversal accelerations increase signicantly up to 10 m/s2
for a GM around 8.5 m. Then they go down again to uncritical accelerations around 2 m/s2 .
Mentionable is the fact, that the accident of the Chicago Express occurred in a loading
condition with the same GM = 8.54 m. (refer to BSU report [1]).
Table 6.3: Stability data for the large vessel
Value
condition
Unit
25.64 [m]
13.24 [m]
12.40 [m]
KM
KG
GMsolid
Light ship
Value
Unit
15.62 [m]
vcgLSW
16
12
14
10
0
2
10
12
14
16
GMsolid [m]
Figure 6.3: Chicago
Express
6.1.4 Comparison of the simulation results
In gure 6.4 the curves of the three vessels are compared for the accident situation 1. For the
other accident situations, the curve shape is comparable. It can be identied, that each vessel has
a unique critical condition, where an exciting seaway in combination with the ship's hull form,
the ship's trim and the GM value, result in very high transversal accelerations on the bridge.
50
6.2 Rolling behavior of the large vessels
16
14
12
10
0
2
10
12
14
16
GMsolid [m]
Small Vessel no.13
Midsized Vessel No.01
Large Vessel No.14 = CE
Figure 6.4: Comparison of the stability inuence for the three vessels in accident situation 1
As mentioned in chapter 5.2 the large vessels, analysed in the ballast arrival loading condition,
Vessel No. 11, Vessel No. 14 (Chicago Express) and Vessel No. 15 neither experience
high rolling angles nor high transversal accelerations on their bridges. But the Chicago Express is denitely endangered to experience very high transversal accelerations, as e.g. when
it encountered accident situation 1 and high transversal accelerations of up to 10 m/s2 occurred
(refer to BSU report [1]). The data of the loading condition during the accident is shown in
table 6.4. Therefore it is presumed, that the other two large vessels also reach high transversal
accelerations, when they operate in such a loading condition. This presumption shall examined
in the following.
For this reason the seakeeping behavior of the two other large vessels is determined for several of
such comparable loading conditions. To achieve more clarity, the results of this investigation are
only shown for accident situation 1, being the Chicago Express accident situation. (compare
section 3.12)
51
Table 6.4: Loading condition of the
Chicago Express
Main
Value
dimensions
66649
9.07
7.08
-1.99
23.36
14.82
8.54
4
TAP
TF P
T rim
KM
KG
GMsolid
during its accident
Unit
[t]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
6.2.1 Large Vessel No. 15
Firstly Vessel No. 15 is analysed, of which the main dimensions can be found in appendix A.15.
This vessel is very similar to the Chicago Express (CE) in its main dimensions and hull form.
The oating condition which is set for the investigation is shown in table 6.5. The KG and
therefore the GMsolid are varied in the scope of the GMsolid CE of the Chicago Express during
the accident, while the displacement, the drafts and the trim are kept constant. These values
comply with the displacement, drafts and trim from the Chicago Express in its accident.
Subsequently the seakeeping behavior is determined for this compilation of loading conditions,
consisting of the mentioned oating condition and a varied GM value.
Table 6.5: Vessel
No. 15: CE
Main
dimensions
4
TAP
TF P
T rim
KM
KG
GMsolid
alike oating condition

Value
66649
9.19
7.20
-1.99
23.19
variable
variable
Unit
[t]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
Table 6.6 species the resulting transversal accelerations on the bridge and the respective
GMsolid values in accident situation 1. The GMsolid is randomly varied in the analysed scope.
The associated curve is shown in gure 6.5. For comparison, the transversal acceleration according to the GMsolid CE for the Chicago Express in its accident loading condition is included in
the gure.
The results prove the initial hypothesis to be correct. Vessel No. 15 is also endangered to
suer high transversal acceleration on its bridge in a slightly dierent loading condition, than
the ballast arrival loading condition.
52
Table 6.6: Vessel
No. 15:
Transversal accelerations for CE alike loading conditions
conditions
GMsolid
[m]
at max

m/s2
CE Accident
8.54
10.0
Loading
6.05
7.79
9.05
9.78
10.72
11.66
no. 15 V1
no. 15 V2
no. 15 V3
no. 15 V4
no. 15 V5
no. 15 V6
2.5
9.5
7.0
6.5
5.5
5.0
12
10
0
5
10
11
12
GMsolid [m]
Vessel No.15 in CE accident condition
Figure 6.5: Vessel
No. 15:
CE in accident
Variation of GMsolid in CE alike loading condition
6.2.2 Large Vessel No. 11
Subsequently Vessel No. 11 is analysed in the same way. Its main dimensions can be found in
appendix A.11. The oating condition shown in table 6.7 is set for Vessel No. 11. The KG
and therefore the GMsolid are again randomly varied in the range of GMsolid CE of the Chicago
Express during the accident. The displacement, drafts and trim in this oating condition are
kept constant. They also comply with the values of the Chicago Express in its accident .
The resulting compilation of loading conditions, consisting of the mentioned oating condition
and a varied GMsolid value, is then used to determine the respective seakeeping behavior.
53
Table 6.7: Vessel
No. 11: Chicago Express

Main
Value
dimensions
66649
9.07
7.08
-1.99
24.30
variable
variable
4
TAP
TF P
T rim
KM
KG
GMsolid
alike oating condition

Unit
[t]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
The results listed in table 6.8 show, that Vessel No. 11 at rst does not experience excessive
transversal accelerations . However for GMsolid = 9.28 m a slightly maximum for the transversal
acceleration of 5.5 m/s2 is already considered to be noticeable. So for this specic sea condition
within accident situation 1, a GMsolid value of about 9 m leads to the highest, but insignicant
accelerations.
Table 6.8: Vessel
No. 11:
Transversal accelerations for CE alike loading conditions
conditions
GMsolid
[m]
at max

m/s2
CE Accident
8.54
10.0
Loading
6.28
8.02
9.28
10.01
10.95
11.89
no. 11 V1
no. 11 V2
no. 11 V3
no. 11 V4
no. 11 V5
no. 11 V6
3.5
4.5
5.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
Following from this result, another compilation of displacement, trim and GM should be
determined, where the constant excitation of the seaway results in high accelerations. For this
reason the vessel is immersed slightly deeper. The new oating condition shown in table 6.9 is
set. A new compilation of loading conditions is then created by varying GM in the same scope
as before.
Table 6.9: Vessel
No. 11:
Main
New oating condition

Value
Unit
dimensions
4
TAP
TF P
T rim
KM
KG
GMsolid
The results listed in table 6.10 show, that

54
80,000
10.68
8.69
-1.99
23.53
variable
variable
[t]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
Vessel No. 11
in accident situation 1 now expe-
riences signicant higher transversal accelerations on the bridge up to 10 m/s2 , than within the
loading condition summarized in table 6.7. As in the CE alike loading condition, the maximum
value occurs for a GMsolid of about 9 m. The associated curves for both loading conditions are
shown in gure 6.6. For comparison, the situation of the Chicago Express in its accident
loading condition is also shown.
The results prove the given presumption for Vessel No. 11 to be correct, too. A rather slight
variation of the oating condition leads the vessel to the risk of experiencing very high transversal
accelerations on its bridge. Therefore all vessels, including the large vessels have an increased
risk of accident in the examined seaways.
Table 6.10: Vessel
No. 11:
Transversal accelerations for new loading conditions
Loading condition
GMsolid
[m]
at max

m/s2
CE Accident
8.54
10.0
6.23
7.97
9.24
9.96
10.90
11.84
no. 11 V7
no. 11 V8
no. 11 V9
no. 11 V10
no. 11 V11
no. 11 V12
3.5
5.5
10.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
Maximum transverse acceleration on the bridge [m/s2]
12
10
0
5
10
11
12
GMsolid [m]
Vessel No.11 in CE accident condition
Figure 6.6: Vessel
No. 11:
Vessel No.11 in new condition
CE in accident
Variation of GMsolid in dierent loading conditions
In addition, the curves in gure 6.6 conrm the statement, already given in chapter 5.2. This
examination clearly shows, that the problem of high accelerations on the bridge is denitely not
a pure stability problem. Here the dierences between the two loading condition sets, listed
55
in tables 6.7 and 6.9, are a higher displacement and therefore a higher draft of about 1.6 m
for the second loading condition set. For a vessel of this size, these dierences do not seem
remarkable. Nevertheless for one of the rst loading conditions, a moderate maximum transversal
acceleration of 5.5 m/s2 occurs, while for one of the second loading conditions, the value becomes
signicantly higher, reaching an extremum of 10 m/s2 . These maximum accelerations occur for a
GMsolid
= 9.25 m in both cases.
The analysis reveals that signicantly dierent accelerations may occur for similar GM values
and just slightly dierent oating conditions. Thus a simple way to decrease the risk of accidents,
like the determination of a single upper limit for the GM for example, to limit the excessive
stability and decrease the occurring transversal accelerations is not a feasible approach.
56
7 Conclusions
Summing up the results from the thesis can be done by stating: All examined container vessels
have a signicant problem with their seakeeping behavior in the ballast arrival loading condition.
Within this examination, all vessels reach very high transversal accelerations on their bridges.
This problem with excessive accelerations occurs for loading conditions, where the vessels have
no or only few cargo on board resulting in rather small drafts and thus high stability values. For
twelve of the analysed vessels the ballast arrival loading condition is most critical while for the
three largest vessels the most critical condition occurs at higher drafts at the FP.
Further, this thesis proves that the named problem is not caused by the high stability values
only. Other factors like the ship's trim or the ship's hull form also have a great inuence on the
seakeeping behavior. Therefore a simple approach like the determination of a single upper limit
for the GM does not seem to be a feasible approach to avoid such accidents in the future.
Particularly due to distinctive nonlinear eects, mainly on the roll motion, the seakeeping
behavior can denitely not be calculated with simple linear approaches. Therefore it is recommended, that the seakeeping behavior for each single loading condition should be evaluated
during the early design process by the application of numerical methods, which are capable to
simulate these nonlinearities. In this way it can be identied, whether a ship's ballast arrival
loading condition should be stated to be a seagoing condition or if there is an increased risk
of accident. With such methods, it is possible to reproduce the behavior of the ships during
real accidents very well (refer to the accident reports [1][2][3]). Thus the seakeeping calculations
performed for this thesis, also represent well the real seakeeping behavior of the analysed vessels
and are adequate to estimate the risk of encountering an accident.
Having gained this knowledge, it becomes obvious that there is a need for establishing mandatory regulations for the determination of the seakeeping behavior and to increase the safety on
the bridges for the crew.
Furthermore, since the excessive stability alone is not responsible for the accidents, the operating could be considered as main cause. This is not reasonable, because the crew of all vessels
within the analysed accident situations [1][2][3] followed a good seamanship for the behaviour
in heavy seas. This behavior, which consists mainly of heading into the waves at slow speeds,
is the result of long lasting experiences on vessels in heavy sea. Following this procedure it is
ensured, that vessels keep their manoeuvrability and do not face high slamming loads on the
bow structure as well as green water on deck. These eects can cause severe damages on the
ship's hull structure and on the stowed containers on deck.
Concluding, it has to be stated, that container vessels facing the described circumstances
generally have a highly increased risk of encountering accidents and it is strongly recommended
to perform reliable calculations during the ship design and the approval process in order to
identify operational constraints and thus prevent probable accidents.
57
7 Conclusions
58
A Vessel data
A.1 Vessel No. 01
Table A.1: Detailed main dimensions, Vessel

General main dimensions
Length over all

Length between perpendiculars
Breadth
Design draft
Full scantling draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Block coecient at TD
Service speed
Number of containers
Maximum ballast water capacity
Height of the bridge above baseline
Ballast arrival condition data
Ballast arrival displacement

Used water ballast capacity
Draft at after perpendicular
Draft at forward perpendicular
Trim (negative trimming aftwards)
Height of bridge above ballast arrival waterline
Vertical center of gravity a. B.L.
Metacentric height without free surface corr.
Minimum metacentric height
Limiting intact stability criterion acc. to IMO
Symbol
No. 01
Value
Unit
274.60
263.00
40.00
24.20
12.00
14.00
23110
73792
0.57
26.6
5512
14349
42.50
46.50
Symbol
Value
Unit
37276
12077
9.05
4.87
-4.18
36.1
11.02
10.43
1.89
[t]
3
m
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
TAP
TF P
KG
GMsolid
GMreq.
max. GZ at
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
25
59
A Vessel data
A.2 Vessel No. 02

Length over all

Breadth
Design draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Service speed

60
Symbol
No. 02
Value
Unit
303.76
292.00
40.00
24.20
12.00
14.00
27200
87893
0.61
26.4
6500
21594
44.70
48.36
Symbol
Value
Unit
46392
17219
9.08
5.10
-3.98
38.3
11.97
9.88
2.18
[t]
3
m
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
TAP
TF P
KG
GMsolid
GMreq.
max. GZ at
25
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
A.3
Vessel No. 03
A.3 Vessel No. 03

Length over all

Breadth
Design draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Service speed

Symbol
No. 03
Value
Unit
276.31
263.00
40.00
24.30
12.50
14.00
24414
78861
0.58
24.5
5762
14694
67.80
47.51
Symbol
Value
Unit
38448
10836
8.79
5.47
-3.32
37.7
12.00
10.12
2.63
[t]
3
m
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
TAP
TF P
KG
GMsolid
GMreq.
max. GZ at
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
25
61
A Vessel data
A.4 Vessel No. 04

Length over all

Breadth
Design draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Service speed

62
Symbol
No. 04
Value
294.00
280.75
32.26
21.50
11.00
12.00
21225
69065
0.69
25.2
4402
21812
52.43
43.05
Symbol
Value
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
41571
18909
8.83
5.17
-3.66
33.5
10.02
6.39
0.16
Unit
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
Unit
[t]
3
m
TAP
[m]
TF P
[m]
[m]
[m]
KG
[m]
GMsolid
[m]
GMreq.
[m]
Area (30, 40) = 0.030 m rad
A.5
Vessel No. 05
A.5 Vessel No. 05

Length over all

Breadth
Design draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Service speed

Symbol
No. 05
Value
232.03
221.00
32.20
19.50
11.82
11.82
13901
54728
0.63
22.0
3323
12038
42.00
40.28
Symbol
Value
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
Unit
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
Unit
24807
9668
8.33
3.92
-4.41
30.9
9.39
7.09
0.53
[t]
3
m
TAP
[m]
TF P
[m]
[m]
[m]
KG
[m]
GMsolid
[m]
GMreq.
[m]
Area (30, 40) = 0.030 m rad
63
A Vessel data
A.6 Vessel No. 06

Length over all

Breadth
Design draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Service speed

64
Symbol
No. 06
Value
Unit
260.02
244.51
32.25
19.30
10.00
11.00
16442
49674
0.61
24.5
4253
11642
45.66
44.51
Symbol
Value
Unit
27382
9409
8.22
3.95
-4.27
35.2
9.91
7.47
1.33
[t]
3
m
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
TAP
TF P
KG
GMsolid
GMreq.
max. GZ at
25
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
A.7
Vessel No. 07
A.7 Vessel No. 07

Length over all

Breadth
Design draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Service speed

Symbol
No. 07
Value
Unit
268.71
256.20
32.20
19.20
10.00
11.00
18037
52540
0.62
24.3
4252
13008
42.07
44.00
Symbol
Value
Unit
30264
10674
8.63
3.95
-4.68
34.3
9.98
7.00
0.90
[t]
3
m
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
TAP
TF P
KG
GMsolid
GMreq.
max. GZ at
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
25
65
A Vessel data
A.8 Vessel No. 08

Length over all

Breadth
Design draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Service speed

66
Symbol
No. 08
Value
294.05
283.20
32.20
21.80
11.00
13.55
20414
66587
0.65
23.5
5041
16904
57.00
45.22
Symbol
Value
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
35650
12887
8.93
4.06
-4.87
35.1
10.43
6.23
0.40
Unit
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
Unit
[t]
3
m
TAP
[m]
TF P
[m]
[m]
[m]
KG
[m]
GMsolid
[m]
GMreq.
[m]
Area (30, 40) = 0.030 m rad
A.9
Vessel No. 09
A.9 Vessel No. 09

Length over all

Breadth
Design draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Service speed

Symbol
No. 09
Value
292.08
277.00
32.25
21.70
12.20
12.20
20679
70761
0.65
24.2
4318
17950
46.40
42.25
Symbol
Value
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
Unit
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
Unit
37112
14387
8.93
4.85
-4.07
32.4
10.62
5.09
0.32
[t]
3
m
TAP
[m]
TF P
[m]
[m]
[m]
KG
[m]
GMsolid
[m]
GMreq.
[m]
Area (0, 40) = 0.090 m rad
67
A Vessel data
A.10 Vessel No. 10

Length over all

Breadth
Design draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Service speed

68
Symbol
No. 10
Value
207.34
195.40
29.80
16.40
10.10
11.40
10689
38001
0.63
22.0
2478
9417
36.49
38.90
Symbol
Value
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
19124
7681
7.55
3.93
-3.62
31.1
8.98
5.95
0.38
Unit
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
Unit
[t]
3
m
TAP
[m]
TF P
[m]
[m]
[m]
KG
[m]
GMsolid
[m]
GMreq.
[m]
Area (0, 40) = 0.090 m rad
A.11
Vessel No. 11
A.11 Vessel No. 11

Length over all

Breadth
Design draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Service speed

Symbol
No. 11
Value
Unit
339.60
322.60
45.60
24.60
13.00
14.50
35364
115125
0.59
27.0
8600
25112
90.00
51.98
Symbol
Value
Unit
57564
19076
10.12
4.65
-5.47
40.4
13.21
12.96
4.20
[t]
3
m
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
TAP
TF P
KG
GMsolid
GMreq.
max. GZ at
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
25
69
A Vessel data
A.12 Vessel No. 12

Length over all

Breadth
Design draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Service speed

70
Symbol
No. 12
Value
Unit
264.21
249.03
32.20
19.50
11.30
12.75
17080
61498
0.65
25.0
4300
13173
35.77
44.30
Symbol
Value
Unit
27520
8889
8.22
3.33
-4.89
34.8
10.23
7.18
1.28
[t]
3
m
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
TAP
TF P
KG
GMsolid
GMreq.
max. GZ at
25
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
A.13
Vessel No. 13
A.13 Vessel No. 13

Length over all

Breadth
Design draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Service speed

Symbol
No. 13
Value
221.71
210.25
30.00
16.80
10.10
12.00
11971
40845
0.62
24.0
2824
11340
39.27
39.10
Symbol
Value
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
Unit
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
Unit
21454
8567
7.41
4.52
-2.89
31.2
8.48
6.98
0.65
[t]
3
m
TAP
[m]
TF P
[m]
[m]
[m]
KG
[m]
GMsolid
[m]
GMreq.
[m]
Area (30, 40) = 0.030 m rad
71
A Vessel data
A.14 Vessel No. 14

Length over all

Breadth
Design draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Service speed

72
Symbol
No. 14
Value
Unit
334.16
319.00
42.80
24.50
13.00
14.61
35320
119709
0.66
25.0
8600
28051
64.20
51.62
Symbol
Value
Unit
55963
17128
9.73
4.13
-5.60
40.4
13.24
12.40
4.92
[t]
3
m
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
TAP
TF P
KG
GMsolid
GMreq.
max. GZ at
25
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
A.15
Vessel No. 15
A.15 Vessel No. 15

Length over all

Breadth
Design draft
Lightship weight
Displacement at TD
Service speed

Symbol
No. 15
Value
Unit
334.07
319.00
42.80
24.60
13.00
14.50
33500
117609
0.65
25.3
8200
25855
71.00
51.25
Symbol
Value
Unit
54704
17478
9.57
4.26
-5.32
40.3
13.01
12.49
4.77
[t]
3
m
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
Loa
Lpp
B
D
TD
TF S
LSW
4design
cB
vS
ABK
4BallArr
TAP
TF P
KG
GMsolid
GMreq.
max. GZ at
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[t]
[t]
[kts]
[T
EU
]
3
m2
m
[m]
25
73
A Vessel data
74
B Variation of the bilge keel area
18
16
14
12
10
0
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Bilge keel area [m2]

Vessel No.13
Original value Vessel No. 13
Figure B.1: Vessel No. 13 in ballast arrival loading condition; Variation of the bilge keel area;
75
B Variation of the bilge keel area
76
C Variation of the ship's speed
16
14
12
10
0
0
10
12
Ship's speed [kts]

Vessel No.13
Accident situation 1 & 2
Figure C.1: Vessel No. 13 in ballast arrival loading condition; Variation of ship's speed; Sea
conditions of accident situation 2
77
C Variation of the ship's speed
78
Bibliography
[1]
BSU;
Federal Bureau of Maritime Casualty Investigation (2009): Untersuchungsbericht

510/08 Tdlicher Personenunfall an Bord des CMS CHICAGO EXPRESS
[2]
BSU;
[3]
BSU;
[4]
IMO;
[5]
Sding, H. (1982):
[6]
Krger, P.
[7]
Krger, S.
[8]
Kluwe, F. (2009):
[9]
Blume, P. (1979):
Federal Bureau of Maritime Casualty Investigation: Report will be published in 2011;

see www.bsu-bund.de for more information
Federal Bureau of Maritime Casualty Investigation: Report will be published in 2011;
see www.bsu-bund.de for more information
5117-7
International Maritime Organisation (2002): Code on Intact Stability; ISBN 92-801-
Gutachten ber die Belastung des Schies E.L.M.A. Tres durch Seegang
am Vormittag des 26.11.1981; Schrift Nr. 2327 Institut fr Schibau Universitt Hamburg
(1987): Simulation der Rollbewegung von Schien im Seegang; Bericht Nr.
473 Institut fr Schibau Universitt Hamburg
and others (2010): Stability Accidents in Ballast/Laid-Up Conditions - A new
phenomenon?; Conference paper for PRADS conference 2010
Development of a Minimum Stability Criterion to Prevent Large Amplitude Roll Motions in Following Seas; Bericht Nr. 648 Schriftenreihe Schibau; ISBN
978-3-89220-648-4
Experimentelle Bestimmung von Koezienten der wirksamen Rolldmpfung und ihre Anwendung zur Abschtzung extremer Rollwinkel; Schistechnik Band 26
[10] GRIM, O. (1961): Beitrag zu dem Problem der Sicherheit des Schies im Seegang; 316.
Mitteilung der Hamburgischen Schibau-Versuchsanstalt; Schi und Hafen 1961 Heft 6
[11]
Skriptum zur Vorlesung Seeverhalten von Schien; Technische Universitt Hamburg-Harburg

Abdel-Maksoud, M. (2010):
[12] DNV; Det Norske Veritas (2010): Rules for classication of ships July 2010; Pt.5 Ch.2 Sec.6
G300
79

Examination of The Intact Stability and The Seakeeping Behaviour of Container Vessels Within The Ballast Condition

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

Examination of The Intact Stability and The Seakeeping Behaviour of Container Vessels Within The Ballast Condition

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Dezember 2010

Examination of the intact stability and

Examination of the intact stability and the seakeeping behaviour of

Beginn der Arbeit:

04. August 2010

Hamburg, 04. August 2010

1st Examiner: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Krger

1.1 Key data of the three examined accidents . . . . . .

2.1 Description of the utilised seakeeping simulation method

6.1 Variation of the GM values . . . . . . . . .

Variation of the bilge keel area

Variation of the ship's speed

Lines plan of one of the examined vessels . . . . . . .

Lines plan and lateral areas of Vessel No. 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.1 Transversal accelerations on the bridge against GMsolid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.1 Vessel No. 13 in ballast arrival oating condition: Variation of GMsolid . . . .

in ballast arrival loading condition; Variation of the bilge keel

Main dimensions of Vessel No. 01 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stability data for the small vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vessel No. 11:

Transversal accelerations for new loading conditions . . . . . . .

A.1 Detailed main dimensions, Vessel

Total bilge keel area

All ships encountered large rolling angles of more than 30 .

The ship operated at low speeds of about v = 2 ... 4 kn.

1.2 Following ob jectives for the diploma thesis

The maximum rolling angle was about 30 .

1.2 Following objectives for the diploma thesis

Therefore the scope of this thesis is to examine, if container vessels in ballast

Figure 2.1: Calculation model for the RAO determination

2.1 Description of the utilised seakeeping simulation method

2.1.1.5 Typical RAOs

Figure 2.2: Typical RAOs

2.1 Description of the utilised seakeeping simulation method

Ixx Ixz ( sin + cos )

direction which coincides with z of the hull-bound coordinate system.

MD , the nonlinear damping moment depends on ship's speed. It is determined by using

damping coecients according to Blume [9].

4R, the added resistance due to waves

JOint North Sea WAve Project by Hasselmann

2.2 Environmental conditions

Figure 2.3: Jonswap spectrum for H1/3 = 7, 5 m and Tp = 11 s

Figure 3.1: Lines plan of one of the examined vessels

3.4 Lightship distribution

Figure 3.2: Lightship distribution of one of the examined vessels

3.5 Loading condition

3.6 Free surface correction

3.6 Free surface correction

Bilge keel area [m2]

Mean value curve

Figure 3.3: Bilge keel area distribution

3.10 Bridge height

3.10 Bridge height

Height of bridge above ballast

Actual values of examined vessels

Figure 3.4: Bridge height above ballast arrival waterline

3.11 Size range of the examined vessels

Displacement at Tdesign [t]

Figure 3.5: Vessels size range

Figure 4.1: Lines plan and lateral areas of

vessels. The following characteristics of

Figure 4.2: Transversal acceleration on the bridge of

4.2 Vessel No. 02

6.1 Vessel No. 13 in ballast arrival oating condition: Variation of GMsolid . . . .

damping coecients according to Blume [9].

incoming ow on the rudder and immersed transom

Integrate a roll damping tank roll damping by e.g. a sloshing uid

in ballast arrival oating condition: Variation of GMsolid