4.4 Article

A comparative method for scaling SOLAS collision damage distributions based on ship crashworthiness - application to probabilistic damage stability analysis of a passenger ship

期刊

SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
卷 17, 期 7, 页码 1498-1514

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2021.1932023

关键词

Passenger ships; crashworthiness; collisions; damage stability; super-element method

资金

  1. European Union project FLooding Accident REsponse (FLARE) [814753]
  2. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [814753] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper discusses a method to account for collision-based crashworthiness on ship damage distributions, showing that damage reduction can be quantified through statistical analysis and simulation of collision scenarios. It is demonstrated that adding a double hull or reinforcing the deck can reduce damage, with the conclusion that installing a double hull on vulnerable ship zones leads to increased A-index.
SOLAS2020 damage stability regulations are based on probabilistic damage distributions. Those originate from the pooled analysis of collision accidents across a fleet with bias towards cargo ships. This paper introduces a method that accounts for collision-based crashworthiness on ship damage distributions. The method reshapes statistical SOLAS damage distributions for a given ship or structural details for a reference ship section and her reinforced version. Damage reductions may differ depending on ship characteristics and operational scenarios. To mitigate this, a high number of collision scenarios was simulated using the super-element method. It is shown that risk control in terms of damage reduction over the whole range of damages is possible by adding a double hull or by deck reinforcement. Damage reduction is quantified by damage stability analysis of a cruise vessel. It is concluded that installing a double hull on ship vulnerable zones leads to increased A-index.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据