EU project FLOODSTAND Overview

FLOODSTAND project overview a lunchtime presentation in connection to SLF54 International Maritime Organization 4, Albert Embankment London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom January 18 th, 2012 EU project FLOODSTAND Overview INTEGRATED FLOODING CONTROL AND STANDARD FOR STABILITY AND CRISES MANAGEMENT Coordinator: Aalto University, School of Engineering Department of Applied Mechanics Marine Technology group / Marine Technology Research Unit FLOODSTAND - Overview / 18.1.2012

Contents Introduction - The coordinator (Aalto University) - The project FLOODSTAND Main objectives - Main objectives of the project Results of the project - Project results achieved so far in the project, but concentrating mainly in the work in WP2: Flooding progression modeling Final workshop & Contact data - Information of the final public workshop/seminar - Contact data Page 2

Introduction of the project coordinator (1) Aalto University Aalto University was created in the merge of three older universities in Finland: Helsinki University of Technology University of Art and Design Helsinki Helsinki School of Economics Aalto University Aalto University started 1 January 2010 Aalto University statistics for 2010: * Students: 19 516 * Professors: 338 Page 3a

Introduction of the project coordinator Aalto University School of Engineering Department of Applied Mechanics Mr, Lic.Sc. (Naval Architecture), is the Coordinator of EU-project FLOODSTAND. Marine Technology His experience includes 10 years of R&D and ship design duties (incl. cruise ships) in marine industry and over 20 years of research and education in Marine Technology/Ship Laboratory in Aalto University (ex. Helsinki University of Technology) carrying out the duties of project manager, senior/research scientist and laboratory manager. Page 3b

Introduction of the project coordinator (3) Marine Technology Marine Hydrodynamics Prof. Jerzy Matusiak Ship Stability Ship Dynamics Marine Traffic Safety Prof. P. Kujala; Head of the group Ship Hydrodynamics Prof. J. Matusiak Naval Architecture Acting Prof. J. Romanoff Ship Machinery (Ship Systems Eng.) Prof. N.N. Senior staff: 6 Full time doctoral students: 14 Support staff: 10 In total: ~ 40 persons Hydroelasticity Propulsion CFD Main facilities: a 130 m long towing tank and a 40m x 40m manoeuvring & seakeeping tank, suitable for model tests in ice Naval Architecture and Ship Structures Prof. Petri Varsta (acting professor Jani Romanoff) Structural Safety in Accidents Design of Advanced Ship Structures Fatigue Strength of Marine Structures Safety of Marine Transport and Winter Navigation Prof. Pentti Kujala Risk analysis of marine traffic in open water and in ice Collisions Groundings Structural risks in ice Specific operations Probability Accident s consequences Pareto2(9009.10; 1.90) Shift=+3.04 X > 34485 5.0% 2,0E-04 1,5E-04 Collision energy 1,0E-04 5,0E-05 0,0E+00 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 Spill size [t] Page 3c

FLOODSTAND Introduction (1) Why was research project FLOODSTAND initiated? It was established to get the missing data for the validation of time-domain numerical tools for the assessment of passenger ship* survivability as a reply to the recognized need reported in SLF47/INF.6** and (see next slide)... * The focus in project FLOODSTAND (218532), merged from two EU-project proposals (Floodcontrol and Istand), is in passenger cruise ships and ropax-vessels ** See SLF47/INF.6 Survivability investigation of large passenger ships Page 4

FLOODSTAND Introduction (2) Why was research project FLOODSTAND initiated?... and to develop a standard for decision* on abandonment during flooding crises situation - reflecting the stochastic nature of damaged ship stability in waves - based on first-principles modeling - reflecting foundering as a process (loss of flotation/stability) - considering risk-based decision making The project FLOODSTAND (218532) is a merge of two EU-project proposals (Floodcontrol and Istand) or, a standard approach focusing the original objective: "to develop a standard for a comprehensive measure of damaged ship stability addressing the flooding risk". Each incident has its individual features. Thus, there may be several limitations to such a standardized approach. However, the key issue is: How to improve the availability and reliability of the information that the most reasonable decisions require. The idea behind such a standard can be characterized as an aim to support the master's decision-making with sufficient information. The information should be reliable and reasonably obtainable. However, when making a decision, all relevant aspects should be considered. The Administrations, IMO and its Sub-Committees must consider these matters with the support from the scientific community. Page 5

FLOODSTAND Introduction (3) Courtesy of Pekka Ruponen Thus, research project FLOODSTAND was created with the focus on passenger cruise ships and ropax-vessels as follows Page 6

FLOODSTAND Introduction (4) Research topics within the project WP1 Task 1.1 Basic design uncertainty uncertainty WP2 WP3 Flooding Flooding simulation progression and measurement modelling on board WP4 WP6 Stochastic ship Conditional response modelling risk WP5 Rescue modelling WP1 Task 1.2 Effect on ship design WP7 Demonstration uncertainty Page 7a

Introduction (5) uncertainty Research topics within WP1 Task 1.1 Basic design WP2 Flooding progression modelling WP4 Stochastic ship response modelling WP3 Flooding simulation and measurement on board WP6 Conditional risk WP1 Task 1.2 Effect on ship design WP7 Demonstration the project WP5 Rescue modelling WP-leaders: WP1: STX Finland WP2: AALTO WP3: NAPA WP4 & WP6: SSRC WP5: BV WP7: NTUA uncertainty uncertainty Page 7b

Introduction (6): FLOODSTAND FLOODSTAND, a 3-year collaborative research project - focused on: Safety and security by design and Crisis management and rescue operations - FLOODSTAND was started in March 2009 and it will end in February 2012 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 2012/1 - it has a planned project staff effort of almost 400 person months - it has a total budget of over 4 M with nearly 70% EC contribution Page 8

FLOODSTAND Consortium: Who we are? FLOODSTAND Consortium consists of 17 beneficiaries located in 10 European countries: classification societies, maritime administration, research organisations, shipyards, SMEs, universities etc. Aalto University (coordinator), STX Finland, CNRS, CTO, DNV, BMT Limited, MARIN, MEC, Meyer Werft GmbH, Napa Ltd, SSPA, SF-Control*, National Technical University of Athens, Bureau Veritas, S@S, MCA and University of Strathclyde (SSRC) * merged to Rosemount Tank Radar AB since 2011/01 Page 9

FLOODSTAND: Who are our advisors? FLOODSTAND Advisory Committee consists of 8 members*: - STA (chairman), TraFi (member), USCG (member), IMO (member), GL (member), CAR (member), RCCL (member) NMRI (member) => maritime administrations, classification societie(s), ship operators, research institute * DNV was a member of AC during the first half of the project but acts now as a beneficiary Page 10

FLOODSTAND Objectives (1) The main objectives of FP7 project FLOODSTAND (218532): 1. Modelling of leaking and collapsing of non-watertight structures 2. Finding out pressure losses (discharge coefficients) in typical openings 3. Simplified modelling of complex compartments 4. Flooding detection and damage estimation Passenger Cruise Ships & Ropaxes Page 11a

FLOODSTAND Objectives (2) and 5. Stochastic ship response modelling 6. Rescue process modelling 7. Standard for decision making in crises 8. Demonstration Passenger Cruise Ships & Ropaxes Page 11b

Research topic: WP1 Design and Application Development of basic design of passenger ships Responsible partners: STX Finland Oy, MW => Work completed with D1.1a & D1.1b Above: Large Post-Panama sized cruise ship: 125000 GT, L = 327 m, B = 37.4 m, T = 8.8 m, and Below: Handy-size i.e. medium sized cruise vessel: 63000 GT, L = 238 m, B = 32.20 m, T = 7.4 m Analysis of the real flooding effects on design Responsible: STX Finland Oy and MW, DNV, AALTO => Work completed Page 12a

Research topic: WP1 Design and Application Analysis of the real flooding effects on design Responsible: STX Finland Oy and Meyer Weft GmbH, DNV, AALTO => D1.2 available A number of design alternatives were investigated: Investigation of cross-flooding ducts Flooding through fire doors for assessment of intermediate stages Fire doors on tank top cause instantaneous flooding Fire doors are assumed to withstand pressure head on bulkhead deck Cold rooms are assumed to withstand flooding Design modification to achieve a minimum vulnerability For details, see D1.2 Page 12b

Research topic: WP1 Design and Application Analysis of the real flooding effects on design Responsible: STX Finland Oy and Meyer Weft GmbH, DNV, AALTO => D1.2 available SUMMARY: Main focus was on the application of the results of the full scale flooding tests & simulations in WP2, but the design targets presented in WP6 have also been considered. It can be shown, that the results found in these work packages do not have a significant influence on the global design of cruise ships, as many of the assumptions defined in the explanatory notes of SOLAS could be confirmed in this project However, The results obtained in project FLOODSTAND give more precise input data and thus, more reliable basis for time domain flooding simulations used for stability studies and assessments. Significant details in the design of the watertight subdivision of cruise ships can now be improved to enhance safety and to consider the physical behavior of the ship. A number of items have been identified, which need to be addressed to the Regulatory Bodies to improve the SOLAS convention and its explanatory notes For more details, see D1.2 Page 12c

Research topic: WP2 Flooding progression modelling Experiments with leaking and collapsing structures => Work completed Responsible: CTO S.A.; Other participants: STX Finland, MEC, MW, AALTO - Semi-watertight doors, fire doors (sliding and hinged), cabin walls etc. - Measured: water pressure and flow rate through the leakages during the structural deformation and collapse Photographs of doors with the frames sent from the shipyard to the testing facility at CTO in Gdansk, Poland, where these tests with stepwise increased water pressure head were carried out in 2010 Page 13a

Research topic: Different door types in category A, see D2.2b: WP2 Flooding progression modelling Page 13a.2

Research topic: WP2 Flooding progression modelling Figure 1: Distributions of pressure and assumed flow velocity for assessment of leakage area ratio A photograph of experiments in full scale in 2010 at CTO in Gdansk, Poland Page 13b

Research topic: WP2 Flooding progression modelling A photograph of experiments in full scale in 2010 at CTO in Gdansk, Poland Page 13c

Research topic: WP2 Flooding progression modelling Photographs of experiments in full scale in 2010 at CTO in Gdansk, Poland Page 13d

Research topic: WP2 Flooding progression modelling For more photogaphs, details & results, see D2.1b (D2.1a) and SLF53/Inf.2 and SLF54/Inf.8 Rev. A photograph of experiments in full scale in 2010 at CTO in Gdansk, Poland Page 13e

Research topic: Numerical modeling and criteria for leaking and collapsing structures => Work completed (see D2.2a & D2.2b) Responsible: MEC; Other Participants: CTO, NAPA, STX - Focus on failure mechanisms for doors and structural components - Numerical simulations; explicit FEM code WP2 Flooding progression modelling - Specific data obtained also on -- the leakage pressure, i.e. when the structure looses watertight integrity and -- the collapse pressure gets it to collapse. - Computations will be validated with experiments => criteria for leakage and collapse of doors etc. Page 14a

Result from WP2 / Task 2.2: Based on this work rough guidelines for modelling leakage and collapse of various A- and B-class doors etc. for flooding simulations could be given => D2.2b These guidelines have been provided for IMO's use: Research topic: SLF54/INF.8/Rev. Modelling of leaking and collapsing of closed non-watertight doors. 28 October 2011. Submitted by Finland. WP2 Flooding progression modelling => Table 1: Rough guidelines for modelling doors and boundaries for flooding simulation, the values marked with an asterix (*) are estimations that are not based on experimental or FEM results (Ruponen and Routi, 2011) Type direction H leak (m) A ratio H coll (m) Notes Light watertight door A-class sliding A-class hinged A-class double leaf Cold room sliding door B-class joiner door into 8.0* minimal leaking at lower pressures, full collapse likely for out 8.0 H > 8 m; note that only direction out was tested into 0.0 0.025 1.0 almost constant leakage area ratio out 0.0 0.025 1.0 into 0.0 0.02 H eff 2.5 A ratio depends on the gap size out 0.0 0.03 H eff 2.5 A ratio depends on the gap size into 0.0* 0.025* 2.0* Not tested! Assumed to be independent on direction Collapsing could not be tested out 0.0 0.025 2.0 due to high leaking, value based on FEM into 0.0 0.01 H eff 3.5 Only one direction tested; collapsing pressure height out 0.0* 0.01 H eff * 3.5* assessed with numerical methods into 0.0 0.03 H eff 1.5 out 0.0 0.03 1.5 panels around the door will fail first, A ratio expression is very approximate door is distorted, A ratio increases slowly Windows > 18 can be excluded in simulations Page 14b

Research topic: Experimental studies on pressure losses => Work completed (see D2.3) Responsible: AALTO; Others: STX Finland, Meyer Werft GmbH - Hydraulic experiments on specific configurations encountered in floodings - Manholes (1:1, 1:2 & 1:3) and cross-flooding arrangements: cross-ducts (1:3) - Results: Discharge coefficients etc. WP2 Flooding progression modelling => First results submitted to IMO in SLF53/Inf.2 & SLF 53/INF.2/Corr.1 Photographs of model construction and tests carried out at AALTO Page 15

Research topic: WP2 Flooding progression modelling Computational studies & RANSE CFD => Work completed (see D2.4a) Responsible: CNRS; Other Participants: CTO, STX Finland - Objective: to determine the ability of CFD RANSE solvers to improve the numerical prediction of the pressure loss for a typical opening in different flooding conditions Computational flooding through openings visualised by CNRS Page 16a

Research topic: An example of results: Flow in a cross-duct WP2 Flooding progression modelling Sub-Task 2.4.1 Responsible: CNRS Status: Completed For more details, see D2.4a Page 16b

Research topic: Results: WP2 Flooding progression modelling. Page 17b

Research topic: An example of results: Flow in a cross-duct Sub-Task 2.4.1 Responsible: CNRS (& CTO) Status: Completed WP2 Flooding progression modelling For more details, see D2.4a Page 16c

Research topic: WP2 Flooding progression modelling Results: The method of successive openings (with C d = 0.6 for each manhole) results in slightly smaller effective discharge coefficient for the whole duct than the model tests or CFD results. So it can be deduced that the method of successive openings is slightly conservative. The regression equation (that is currently recommended in the Resolution) gives notably higher (about +30%) values for the discharge coefficient. Thus the use of the regression equations may cause a significant under-estimation of the cross-flooding time. Table 1: Comparison of discharge coefficients Cross-duct design: Model test or CFD Successive openings Regression equation FLOODSTAND: L duct = 6 m 0.442 0.397 0.582 FLOODSTAND: L duct = 12 m 0.342 0.318 0.451 FLOODSTAND: L duct = 18 m 0.287 0.273 0.382 Case Study 2 (CFD) 0.308 0.296 0.37.. 0.39 => A related document has been now submitted to IMO: SLF54/4. Page 17a

Research topic: WP2 Flooding progression modelling An example of results: Pressure losses in air pipes and openings Sub-Task 2.4.2 Responsible: CTO Status: Completed For more details, see D2.4b Page 16d

Research topic: WP2 Flooding progression modelling Model tests for complex compartments in MARIN s vacuum tank => Completed, see D2.5b Responsible: MARIN; Other: STX, MW, NAPA - Objectives: to collect validation material for simulation tools to show the effect of air pressure on the flooding process to show the effect of level of detail Sensitivity of the simulation model Responsible: AALTO & NAPA => Deliverable D2.6 completed Flooding model test starting at MARIN - Objectives: to conduct simulations with a typical layout of ship to vary input parameters of the simulations systematically to prepare guidelines for the preferred accuracy of the input data with simple error estimations Page 18a

Research topic: An example of results of Task 2.6: WP2 Flooding progression modelling Sensitivity analysis Task 2.6 Responsible: AALTO & NAPA Status: Completed For more details, see D2.6 Page 18b

WP3 Flooding Simulation and Measurement Onboard - Development of flood sensors data interpreter Responsible: NAPA; Other participants: STX Finland, RTR Status: Completed => D3.1 An example of flooding status in compartments described by Napa Ltd - Impact of ship dynamics Responsible: AALTO, Other participants: NAPA Status: Completed => D3.2 - Design of flood sensor systems Responsible: NAPA, Other participants: STX Finland, DNV, RTR Status: Completed => D3.3 Page 19

Research topic: WP1-WP2 and WP3 For additional information related to WP1 - WP2 - WP3, see the following reports (deliverables) of the project: - D1.1a, D1.1b and D1.2 - D2.1a, D2.1b, D2.2a, D2.2b, D2.3, D2.4a, D2.4b, D2.5b, D2.6 - D3.1, D3.2 and D3.3 These documents, covering WP1-WP3 are now completed Page 20

Research topic: WP4 Stochastic ship capsize modelling (WP4) - Objectives: Requirements and uncertainty bounds on methods for predicting the time it takes a ship to capsize or sink after damage - Benchmark data on time to capsize, ttc (model tests) Responsible: SSPA, Participants: SSRC Completed (D4.1) - Test/develop analytical time to capsize model Responsible: SSRC, Participants: SaS, NTUA Completed soon - Test/develop numerical time to capsize model Responsible: NTUA, Participants: SSRC, SSPA, SaS Completed (D4.3) - Test/develop hybrid time to capsize model Responsible: SSRC, Participants: SaS, NTUA Completed soon - Establish uncertainty bound on ttc models Responsible: SSRC, Participants: BMT, SaS, NTUA, MCA Completed soon Capsize tests in model scale at SSPA Page 20a

Research topic: An example of results of WP4: WP4 Stochastic ship capsize modelling Establishing uncertainty bounds on ttc models Task 4.5 Responsible: SSRC, BMT, SaS, NTUA, MCA Status: D4.5 expected to be completed soon Page 20b

Research topic: WP5 Rescue process modelling Objectives: Test /develop M-A-R-models (Mustering-Abandonment-Rescue) - requirements & uncertainty bounds - required detail of representation etc. - Benchmark data on mustering / abandonment / rescue Responsible: BV, Participants: SSRC, BMT Status: Completed => D5.1 - Test/develop mustering model (M) Responsible: BMT, Participants: SSRC, SaS, BV Status: Completed => D5.2 - Test/develop abandonment model (A) Responsible: BV, Participants: SSRC, BMT, SaS Status: Completed => D5.3 - Test/develop rescue model (R) Responsible: BV, Participants: SSRC, BMT, SaS Status: Completed => D5.4 - Establish uncertainty bounds on M-A-R models Responsible: SSRC, Participants: BMT, SaS, BV, MCA Status: To be completed soon Page 21

Research topic: WP5 Rescue process modelling One result from WP5/Task 1: M-A-R-model (Mustering-Abandonment-Rescue) Page 21b

Research topic: WP5 Rescue process modelling One result from WP5: The list of obstacles in the M-A-R -model Source: D5.3 Report on validation and sensitivity testing of methods for assessing effectiveness of abandonment process Page 21c

Research topic: WP6 Standard for decision making in crises (WP6) Objectives Loss function and likelihood for integrated standard Reflecting the societal concerns pertinent to a large loss in a balanced way Conditional probability (likelihood) reflecting the requirements on the methods to be used for generating basic information on stability, evacuation and rescue process as well as the associated uncertainty - Loss function to be explored: Responsible: SSRC, Participants: NTUA, MCA Status: Expected to be completed soon - Likelihood function Responsible: SSRC, Participants: NTUA, MCA Status: Expected to be completed soon Page 22a

Research topic: Demonstration (WP7) Objectives: - Test effectiveness of the standard in rating decisions for various casualty cases (hypothetical & real-life, historical scenarios) in working environment - Test the approach in design process - Feedback for modification, improvements/fine-tuning of the proposed standard - Benchmark data on casualty mitigation cases Responsible: NTUA, Participants: SSRC, BMT, MCA Status: Completed => D7.1 - Demonstration of a casualty mitigation standard Responsible: BMT, Participants: SSRC, SaS, BV, MCA, NAPA Status: To be completed soon => D7.2a, D7.2b - Demonstration for use as a design standard Responsible: NTUA, Participants: SSRC, SaS, BV, MCA Status: To be completed in the end of the project => D7.3 Page 23

Research topic: WP4-WP6 and WP7 for additional information related to WP4 - WP5 - WP6 and WP7, see the following reports (deliverables) of the project: - D4.1 and D4.3, D5.1, D5.2, D5.3, D5.4 and D7.1 (all available) and - D4.2, D4.4 and D4.5 - D5.5, - D6.1 and D6.2 - D7.2a, D7.2b and D7.3 which should be soon available, and Appendix 1 Page 23b

Results Some conclusions made by the AC: General comment: The current project research is related to the SOLAS 2009 regulatory standard and the design of future passenger ships Many of the results and general conclusions from WP2 relate to intermediate stage of flooding and progressive flooding. This information could be helpful in the work underway at SLF to refine the current intermediate stage flooding guidance in the Explanatory Notes, resolution MSC.281(85). (e.g. B-class divisions have [no] impact on progressive flooding; A-class doors ; etc) WP3 relates to SOLAS regulation 22-1 Flooding detection systems for passenger ships, and the guidelines for these systems in MSC.1/Circ.1291. Information and results from WP3 could be used to update the MSC.1/Circ.1291guidance for sensors and their arrangements, locations, types, etc. Page 24a

Results Some conclusions made by the AC: continued from previous page... Parts of WP4 relate to SOLAS regulation 22.4 and the provision to allow certain watertight doors to remain open during navigation. If the results from this WP indicate a potential dramatic impact on ship survivability then this could provide a basis for SLF to reconsider regulation 22.4 WP5 regarding muster, abandonment, and rescue processes relate primarily to the Ship Design & Equipment (DE) Sub-Committee at IMO. The focus of WP6 on development of a standard for decision making in flooding crises relates to SOLAS regulation 19.5 and providing stability guidance to the master. This is an area that SLF has struggled with under the new SOLAS 2009 probabilistic stability standard. The results from this WP could be very helpful to SLF in this area. Page 24b

Results are reported in public reports (deliverables), articles etc.. Now available at http://floodstand.aalto.fi/info/public_download.html as follows: Page 24c

Results of project FLOODSTAND will also be presented in A final one-day public Workshop/Seminar related to project FLOODSTAND and its results will be arranged by AALTO on February 7th, 2010 in Finland, Espoo, Otaniemi So, if you are interested to attend, get the program and more information from our web page: http://floodstand.aalto.fi and confirm your participation in the Workshop to Ms Seija Latvala ( seija.latvala@aalto.fi ) Page 25

FLOODSTAND contacts at AALTO Coordinator: and SC chairman: Secretary: (risto.jalonen@aalto.fi) Prof. Pentti Kujala (pentti.kujala@aalto.fi) Ms. Seija Latvala (seija.latvala@aalto.fi) Note! Most of the project reports (e.g. D2.2b, and many more) are available at our web-site, see: http://floodstand.aalto.fi Note! The project ends in the end of February 2012 Thank you! Questions? Page 26

Appendix 1 Page 27