Liquefaction Risk Management

University of Strathclyde 5th Year Group Project Department of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Marine Engineering

Liquefaction Risk Management

Travis Ang Chee Seng Oliver Ayris Andrzej Czerwonka Emma McCrossan Preslav Petrov Gary Russell

Advisers

Prof Dracos Vassalos Dr Evangelos Boulougouris

March 31, 2017

Abstract In this project, a design approach for the mitigation or reduction of liquefaction risk is adopted in an attempt to tackle the liquefaction of dry bulk cargo, an issue that has led to the loss of a great number of lives and ships at sea in the past 30 years. A brief research into past incidents and the current state of the bulk carrier market conclude that an attractive solution would be one that could be retrofitted onto existing vessels, as well as new ones. A project vision is naturally derived, and the objectives and ultimate aims of the project are established, along with a project management scheme, in order to ensure smooth and controllable cooperation. After the determination of basic parameters such as regulations of interest, suitable classification society, appropriate shipyard and the target audience of the end product, the solution methods are divided into three distinct categories: mechanical, structural and chemical. Research, concept design, discussion and external feedback eventually led to favouring the chemical approach as the most effective, from a financial and logistical point of view. Subsequently, a basis vessel was selected, modelled in Maxsurf Modeler and Rhino, and subjected to a standard set of stability tests, using Maxsurf Stability, and powering estimations, using Maxsurf Resistance. Simultaneously, preliminary chemical experiments were completed, as well as the design of further, extensive and controlled experiments. With the results at hand, a concept design for a chemical storage and distribution system was produced, alongside with in-depth experimental evidence on the effectiveness of the risk management solution. The positive and negative consequences of the on-board system were explored from a structural, stability, financial and safety perspective. The vessel did not suffer notable performance reductions, and the chemical selected was deemed to be safe. However, the implementation of this solution does not seem financially viable, taking into account the current state of the bulk carrier trade. An alternative solution for an on-shore facility is proposed, along with recommendations for future work, in order to improve the potential of a chemical intervention for mitigating the risk of bulk cargo liquefaction.

iii

iv

Acknowledgements The authors wish to convey their gratitude for the assistance, advice, and guidance provided by our project supervisor Prof. Dracos Vassalos. Thanks also go to Dr Evangelos Boulougouris, Mr David Clelland, and Dr Gerasimos Theotokatos for their input, advice and patience, without which this project would be significantly diminished. Thanks also go to Mr John Carlin and his technical staff at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Laboratory for providing free access to their equipment, tools, and expertise. The experiments undertaken in the course of this project would not have been possible without their help. Thanks also go to the staff at Transmit Ceramics Studio in Bridgeton, for allowing use of their kiln on multiple occasions for sample preparation, and for storage of materials between experimental sessions.

v

vi

Contents Abstract

iii

Acknowledgements

v

Table of Contents

vii

List of Figures

xi

List of Tables

xv

Nomenclature xix Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi 1 Introduction

1

2 Business Case 2.1 Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Bulk Carrier Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 3 3

3 Project Vision

7

4 Project Management 4.1 Project Objectives . . . . . 4.2 Team Culture . . . . . . . . 4.3 Management Risks and their 4.4 Advisory Staff Members . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mitigation . . . . . . .

5 Design Iterations 5.1 Concept Ideas . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Chemical Solution Approach . . 5.3 Regulations, Classification, Yard 5.4 Basis Ship Design . . . . . . . . 5.5 Basis Ship Stability . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Tank Definition . . . . . 5.5.2 Hydrostatics . . . . . . . 5.5.3 Cross Curves of Stability 5.5.4 Loading Conditions . . . 5.6 Scantlings . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1 Midship Properties . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Owner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

9 9 9 11 13

. . . . . . . . . . .

14 14 15 18 19 19 19 20 20 22 24 24

5.7 5.8

Basis Ship Powering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chemical Storage and Distribution . . . . . . . . . 5.8.1 The Iterative Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8.2 Storage, Piping and Pumping Calculations . 5.8.3 System weight calculations . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 On-Shore Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10 Effect of the On-Board Solution on Stability . . . . 5.11 Three-Cargo Hold Structural Analysis . . . . . . . 5.11.1 Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11.2 Software and Analysis Type . . . . . . . . . 5.11.3 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11.4 Numerical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.12 Chemical Tank Structural Analysis . . . . . . . . . 5.12.1 Modelling, Meshing & Boundary Conditions 5.12.2 Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.12.3 Convergence Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.12.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Chemical Experiments 6.1 First Stage Experiments . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 Representative Cargo . . . . . . . . 6.1.2 Chemicals to be Tested . . . . . . . 6.1.3 Experimental Sample Preparation . 6.1.4 Experimental Procedure . . . . . . 6.1.5 First Stage Experimental Results . 6.1.6 Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . 6.2 Second Stage Experiments . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Representative Cargo . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Additive Concentration . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Cargo Homogeneity . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4 Sample Preparation . . . . . . . . . 6.2.5 Experimental Procedure . . . . . . 6.2.6 Second Stage Experimental Results 6.2.7 Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . 6.3 Combined Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Third Stage Experiments . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 Sample Preparation . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2 Experimental Procedure . . . . . . 6.4.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Technological Safety and Risk Assessment 7.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Basis for Qualification . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Technology Development and Qualification Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Technology Qualification . . . . . . . . . . viii

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26 26 26 27 37 39 40 44 44 45 45 46 53 59 59 59 62 62

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65 65 65 65 66 67 67 69 70 70 70 70 70 71 71 72 73 74 74 74 74 75 76

77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

7.4.1 7.4.2 7.4.3 7.4.4 7.4.5 7.4.6 7.4.7 7.4.8 7.4.9 7.4.10 7.4.11 7.4.12 7.4.13 7.4.14

Technology Description . . . . . . . . Performance Description . . . . . . . Technology Assessment . . . . . . . . System Functionality . . . . . . . . . Identification of Main Challenges and Technology Categorisation . . . . . . Technology Composition . . . . . . . Threat Assessment . . . . . . . . . . Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . Consequences of Failure . . . . . . . Probability of Failure . . . . . . . . . Qualitative Probability Classes . . . Experimental Methods . . . . . . . . Performance Assessment . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78 81 81 82 82 84 85 85 85 87 87 87 87 88

8 Cost Benefit Assessment 89 8.1 Baseline Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 8.2 Operating Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 8.3 Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 9 Conclusions

96

10 Future Work Recommendations

98

References

99

Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix

A B C D E F G H I J K

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

ix

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

99 100 102 106 107 108 110 165 201 202 204 207

x

List of Figures 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) from 2006 to 2016. . . . Order book versus actual deliveries due to cancellation ments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average scrapping age of vessels, from 2011 to 2016. . New-build versus second-hand prices in 2016. . . . . .

4.1 4.2

Project management flow chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Risk rating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5.1

Comparison of sand and water mixture with Sodium Polyacrylate (SP) (left), and a simple sand and water mixture (right). . . . . . . Concept of sprinkler distribution system for chemical application. . Possible layout of the sprinkler system output in the cargo holds. . Basis ship hull form in Rhino. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The created surfaces that are used for the water ballast tank and heavy fuel oil tank definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basis ship as finalised in Rhino. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basis ship plan view in Rhino. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basis ship profile view in Rhino. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resultant holds and tanks of the basis ship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upright hydrostatics of the basis ship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KN curves of the basis ship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basis ship powering curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution system iterative process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution system iterative process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moody diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pressure drop components. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moody diagram selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chemical tank support illustration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On-shore storage and distribution system illustration. . . . . . . . . Extent of the analysed model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steel type legend. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Web frame (left) and ordinary frame (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . . Body plan and isometric view of bulkhead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Isometric view of three-cargo hold model (port side). . . . . . . . . Profile view of one cargo hold model, with the hatch coaming visible at the top (looking port). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . View of inner bottom of midship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hatch coaming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27

xi

. . . . . . . . . and postpone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 5 6 6

. . . .

16 17 17 20

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 21 21 21 21 22 22 27 28 29 33 34 36 39 41 46 47 47 48 49

. 49 . 50 . 50

5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.38 5.39 5.40 5.41 5.42 5.43 5.44 5.45 5.46 5.47 5.48 5.49 5.50 5.51 5.52 5.53 5.54 5.55 5.56

SHELL181 (left) and BEAM188 (right) elements. . . . . . . . . . Edges assigned to the remote point. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Symmetry boundary conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC9 Total deformation (m). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC13C Total deformation (m). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC9 von-Mises stresses (Pa). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC13C von-Mises stresses (Pa). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC13C Cargo Hold 3 von Mises stresses (Pa). . . . . . . . . . . . Close-up of the maximum von-Mises stress area for LC13C (Pa). . LC13C isometric view showing von-Mises stress distribution (Pa). LC9 von-Mises stresses on the web frame (Pa). . . . . . . . . . . . LC13C von-Mises stresses on the web frame (Pa). . . . . . . . . . LC10 Total deformation (m). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC14C Total deformation (m). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC10 von-Mises stresses (Pa). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC14C von-Mises stresses (Pa). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC10 von-Mises stresses on the web frame (Pa). . . . . . . . . . . LC14C von-Mises stresses on the web frame (Pa). . . . . . . . . . Isometric views of chemical tank and its support. . . . . . . . . . Tank support profile view (left) and cross-section view (right). . . Tank plan view (looking at the bottom). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tank profile view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Isometric view of the meshed model (coarse mesh). . . . . . . . . Boundary conditions at the supports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application of hydrostatic pressure inside of the tank. . . . . . . . Mesh size convergence study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total deformation results (m). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Von-Mises results (Pa). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Safety factor results (Pa). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50 51 52 54 54 54 55 55 55 56 56 57 57 57 57 58 58 58 59 59 60 60 61 61 62 62 63 64 64

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6

Cylindrical steel moulds on shaking table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental stage 1 results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental stage 2 results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of particle size and SP concentration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Density against moisture content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ratio of volume increase of the 1% SP sample over added water volume, as the number of experiments increase. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

67 68 71 73 75

. 76

7.1

Technology qualification process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

8.1 8.2 8.3

Vessel age distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vessel Dead Weight Tonnage (DWT) distribution. . . . . . . . . . . Cost-benefit ratio of on-board solution, against SP concentration and price. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cost-benefit ratio of shore based solution, against SP concentration and price. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8.4

. 90 . 91 . 94 . 94

A.1 Semester 1 Gantt chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 A.2 Semester 2 Gantt chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

xii

B.1 Cargo holds with variable sizes and shapes for reducing the free surface effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 B.2 Cargo holds with variable length for optimising the free surface between cargoes of different densities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 B.3 Permanent longitudinal bulkhead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 B.4 Containerisation of cargo in open top containers. . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 B.5 Cylindrical cargo hold for reduction of the effect of sloshing. . . . . . 104 B.6 Self-offloading concept with conveyor belt underneath the baffled bottom.104 B.7 Temporary corrugated longitudinal bulkhead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 B.8 Concept of a bulk carrier with move-able transverse bulkheads for optimum cargo hold sizing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 F.1 LC1 longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 F.2 LC1 righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 F.3 LC1 dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 F.4 LC2 longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 F.5 LC2 righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 F.6 LC2 dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 F.7 LC3 longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 F.8 LC3 righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 F.9 LC3 dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 F.10 LC4 longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 F.11 LC4 righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 F.12 LC4 dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 F.13 LC5 longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 F.14 LC5 righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 F.15 LC5 dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 F.16 LC6 longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 F.17 LC6 righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 F.18 LC6 dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 F.19 LC7 longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 F.20 LC7 righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 F.21 LC7 dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 F.22 LC8 longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 F.23 LC8 righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 F.24 LC8 dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 F.25 LC9 longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 F.26 LC9 righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 F.27 LC9 dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 F.28 LC10 longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 F.29 LC10 righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 F.30 LC10 dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 F.31 LC11 longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 F.32 LC11 righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 F.33 LC11 dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 F.34 LC11C longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 F.35 LC11C righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 F.36 LC11C dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 F.37 LC12 longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 xiii

F.38 F.39 F.40 F.41 F.42 F.43 F.44 F.45 F.46 F.47 F.48 F.49 F.50 F.51 F.52 F.53 F.54 H.1 I.1 I.2 I.3 I.4 J.1 J.2 J.3 J.4

LC12 righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC12 dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . LC12C longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . LC12C righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC12C dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . LC13 longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC13 righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC13 dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . LC13C longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . LC13C righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC13C dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . LC14 longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC14 righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC14 dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . . LC14C longitudinal strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . LC14C righting lever (GZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC14C dynamic stability (GZ area). . . . . . . . . Midship section scantlings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1st chemical distribution and storage system design. 2nd chemical distribution and storage system design. 3rd chemical distribution and storage system design. 4th chemical distribution and storage system design. General arrangement with distribution system. . . . Chemical system piping diagram. . . . . . . . . . . View of chemical system below deck. . . . . . . . . View of chemical system above deck. . . . . . . . .

xiv

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

149 149 152 152 152 155 155 155 158 158 158 161 161 161 164 164 164 201 202 202 203 203 204 205 206 206

List of Tables 2.1

List of vessels over 10,000 DWT lost since 1999 due to liquefaction. .

4.1 4.2

Management hazards and risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Management risk control measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5.1 5.2 5.3

LC0: Lightship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sodium polyacrylate tank, pump and pipe specifications. . . . . . . Schedule 40 Steel Pipe sizes & dimensions according to ASME/ANSI B36.10/19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schedule 80 Steel Pipe sizes & dimensions according to ASME/ANSI B36.10/19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pipe specifications in SI units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final sodium polyacrylate tank, pump and pipe specifications, 3-inch nominal diameter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASME/ANSI B36.10/19 pipe specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chemical storage and distribution system weight summary. . . . . . Silo models and specifications by Hengxin Silo Equipment. . . . . . LC0 New: Lightship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cargo redistribution due to the addition of SP. . . . . . . . . . . . Properties of NVA steel for ship construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . Boundary conditions at the end sections and centre plane. . . . . . Maximum vertical bending moment per load case. . . . . . . . . . . Properties of steel for chemical tank construction. . . . . . . . . . . Boundary conditions of the tank and supports. . . . . . . . . . . . . Numerical results of mesh size convergence study. . . . . . . . . . .

5.4 5.5 5.6

4

. 23 . 35 . 35 . 35 . 36 . . . . . . . . . . . .

38 38 40 41 43 44 46 52 53 60 60 63 82 82 83 84 84 85

7.8 7.9

Critical level hazards and risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical risk control measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Medium level hazards and risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Medium risk control measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology categorisation table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top down assessment of the chemical storage and distribution system. Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) — Threat assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FMECA — Risk assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industry standard probabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8.1 8.2 8.3

Case studies considered in cost-benefit analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Liquefaction risk and financial exposure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Journey details. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7

xv

86 86 88

C.1 D.1 E.1 E.2 F.1 F.2 F.3 F.4 F.5 F.6 F.7 F.8 F.9 F.10 F.11 F.12 F.13 F.14 F.15 F.16 F.17 F.18 F.19 F.20 F.21 F.22 F.23 F.24 F.25 F.26 F.27 F.28 F.29 F.30 F.31 F.32 F.33 F.34 F.35 F.36 G.1 G.2 G.3 G.4 G.5 G.6 G.7 G.8

Tank and hold abbreviation in Maxsurf Stability . . . . Maxsurf Stability input for holds and tanks. . . . . . . Tabulated results of cross curves of stability. . . . . . . Tabulated results of upright hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . LC1: Light Ballast (Departure 100%) . . . . . . . . . . LC1 equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC2: Light Ballast (Arrival 10%) . . . . . . . . . . . . LC2 equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC3: Heavy Ballast (Departure 100%) . . . . . . . . . LC3 equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC4: Heavy Ballast (Arrival 10%) . . . . . . . . . . . . LC4 equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC5: Cargo of ρ = 1.35 t/m3 (Departure 100%) . . . . LC5 equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC6: Cargo of ρ = 1.35 t/m3 (Arrival 10%) . . . . . . LC6 equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC7: Cargo of ρ = 3 t/m3 (Departure 100%) . . . . . . LC7 equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC8: Cargo of ρ = 3 t/m3 (Arrival 10%) . . . . . . . . LC8 equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC9: Sand of ρ = 2.0447 t/m3 (Departure 100%) . . . LC9 equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC10: Sand of ρ = 2.0447 t/m3 (Arrival 10%) . . . . . LC10 equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC11: Sand-SP of ρ = 1.598 t/m3 (Departure 100%) . LC11 equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC11C: Sand-SP of ρ = 1.598 t/m3 (Departure 100%) LC11C equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC12: Sand-SP of ρ = 1.598 t/m3 (Arrival 10%) . . . . LC12 equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC12C: Sand-SP of ρ = 1.598 t/m3 (Arrival 10%) . . . LC12C equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC13: Sand-SP of ρ = 1.5413 t/m3 (Departure 100%) . LC13 equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC13C: Sand-SP of ρ = 1.5413 t/m3 (Departure 100%) LC13C equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC14: Sand-SP of ρ = 1.5413 t/m3 (Arrival 10%) . . . LC14 equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC14C: Sand-SP of ρ = 1.5413 t/m3 (Arrival 10%) . . LC14C equilibrium hydrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LC1 tabulated stability criteria check. . . . . . . . . . . LC2 tabulated stability criteria check. . . . . . . . . . . LC3 tabulated stability criteria check. . . . . . . . . . . LC4 tabulated stability criteria check. . . . . . . . . . . LC5 tabulated stability criteria check. . . . . . . . . . . LC6 tabulated stability criteria check. . . . . . . . . . . LC7 tabulated stability criteria check. . . . . . . . . . . LC8 tabulated stability criteria check. . . . . . . . . . . xvi

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

106 107 108 109 110 112 114 115 117 118 120 121 123 124 126 127 129 130 132 133 135 136 138 139 141 142 144 145 147 148 150 151 153 154 156 157 159 160 162 163 165 167 169 171 173 175 177 179

G.9 LC9 tabulated stability criteria check. . . G.10 LC10 tabulated stability criteria check. . G.11 LC11 tabulated stability criteria check. . G.12 LC11C tabulated stability criteria check. G.13 LC12 tabulated stability criteria check. . G.14 LC12C tabulated stability criteria check. G.15 LC13 tabulated stability criteria check. . G.16 LC13C tabulated stability criteria check. G.17 LC14 tabulated stability criteria check. . G.18 LC14C tabulated stability criteria check. K.1 All hazards and risks. . . . . . . . . . . . K.2 All risk control measures. . . . . . . . . .

xvii

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

181 183 185 187 189 191 193 195 197 199 207 208

xviii

Nomenclature Symbols Ain B Btank c CD csp Cb cm Cw d Din Dout F Fairw fD fsp Fspw fr g g h Htank IyR−gr Ina Ixx k kg kn kW L Lpipeline Ltank M m mcargo

pipe inner cross sectional area moulded breadth sodium polyacrylate tank breadth damping coefficient drag coefficient sodium polyacrylate concentration block coefficient centimetre water-plane coefficient days pipe inner diameter pipe outer diameter force gas-to-wall friction force per unit volume Darcy-Weisbach friction coefficient solid-to-wall friction factor solid-to-wall friction force per unit volume reduction factor related to service area notation gram gravitational acceleration hours sodium polyacrylate tank height minimum moment of inertia at midship second moment of area about the neutral axis second moment of area about the x-axis material factor kilogram knots kilo Watt waterline length length of the chemical system pipeline sodium polyacrylate tank length mass meters cargo mass xix

meters2 meters meters — — — — — — — meters meters Newtons Pascal/meter — — Pascal/meter — — meters/second2 — meters m4 m4 m4 — — — — meters meters meters kilograms — tonnes

msp m ˙ cargo m ˙ sp m ˙ sptotal mg Msw Mwv N pf Qair Qsp r Reair Resp s S t tpipe tsupport ttank Uair Usp Vsp y yna yr Zgr ZyR−gr ∆p  θpipe µair ρ ρ0.25%SP ρ0.5%SP ρ1%SP ρair ρcontrol ρsp σ χsp

sodium polyacrylate mass cargo flow rate sodium polyacrylate flow rate total sodium polyacrylate flow rate miligrams still water bending moment vertical wave bending moment Newton probability of failure air flow rate sodium polyacrylate volume flow rate solid-to-total flow rate ratio air Reynolds number single particle Reynolds number seconds actual section modulus tonnes pipe thickness chemical tank support thickness chemical tank plating thickness air velocity sodium polyacrylate velocity sodium polyacrylate volume distance along the y-axis neutral axis vertical distance from baseline years minimum section modulus along the length of the girder minimum section modulus at midship pressure head void fraction gas-to-wall friction force per unit volume dynamic viscosity of air density density of 0.25% sodium polyacrylate concentration sample density of 0.5% sodium polyacrylate concentration sample density of 1% sodium polyacrylate concentration sample density of air density of control sample sodium polyacrylate density stress sodium polyarcylate solid particle size

xx

tonnes tonnes/hour tonnes/hour tonnes/hour — kNm kNm — — meters3 /s meters3 /s — — — — m3 — meters meters meters meters/second meters/second meters3 m m — 3 m m3 Pascal — degrees Pascals*seconds tonnes/meter3 kilograms/meter3 kilograms/meter3 kilograms/meter3 kilograms/meter3 kilograms/meter3 tonnes/meter3 Nt/m2 meters

Abbreviations ANSI AODD APDL ASME BC BDI CAD CFD CGT CH DNV-GL DOF DWT FEA FMECA FMP FOS FSA FSM GM GPM GRG HAZID IMDG IMO IMSBC LC LPM MGN MP MSC MSDS NFPA NTQ OPEX P PPE RP S SI SOLAS SP TML TQB USD

American National Standards Institute Air-Operated Double-Diaphragm ANSYS Parametric Design Language American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boundary Condition Baltic Dry Index Computer Aided Design Computational Fluid Dynamics Capital Gain Tax Cargo Hold Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd Degrees Of Freedom Dead Weight Tonnage Finite Element Analysis Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis Flow Moisture Point Factor Of Safety Formal Safety Assessment Free Surface Moment Metacentric Height Gallons Per Minute Generalised Reduced Gradient Hazard Identification International Maritime Dangerous Goods International Maritime Organization International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes Load Case Litres Per Minute Marine Guidance Notes Moisture Point Maritime Safety Committee Material’s Safety Data Sheet National Fire Protection Agency Novel Technology Qualification Operational Expenditure Port side Personal Protective Equipment Remote Point Starboard side Syst`eme International d’unit´es Safety of Life at Sea Sodium Polyacrylate Transportable Moisture Limit Technology Qualification Basis United States Dollar

xxi

Chapter 1 Introduction Twenty four vessels have capsized between 1988 and 2014 due to suspected bulk cargo liquefaction and the 177 lives lost at sea have proven that liquefaction needs to be addressed with the seriousness it deserves.[1] The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has recognized the severity of this issue and, as a result, has amended the International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes (IMSBC) Code, in order to push forward stricter regulations regarding liquefiable bulk cargo. Classification societies have furthered the initiative by releasing their guidance and recommendations on how to deal with the phenomenon. In order to deal with liquefaction, the source of the problem itself must be understood first. Bulk cargo undergoes certain changes due to various agitations from the ship, resulting into a loss of its shear strength and cohesiveness, hence adopting a fluid-like behaviour. The free surface effect, often combined with the constant rolling motion that the ship might develop due to this fluid-like behaviour of the cargo, pose a serious risk to the stability of the ship. Moisture, fine particles in the bulk cargo and external excitation forces must be present for liquefaction to occur, and it can present itself in two separate forms — that of granular materials and that of very fine, non-granular materials.[2] In the typical granular material cargo that may liquefy, there is a mix of small and large granular particles, with air and water in between them. In its dry solid state, the particles will be in contact with each other, with the frictional forces from that contact producing the shear strength and cohesiveness of the cargo. The vibrations, ship motions and other agitations that occur during the voyage compress the cargo. As a result, the water pore pressure rises and forces the granular particles apart from each other, removing the frictional forces between them. At this point the cargo has lost its shear strength and has taken on a viscous behaviour. This process can occur shortly after loading and may, in some cases, only cover a part of the bulk cargo. The liquefaction of granular materials is a transient state and once the moisture content has decreased, the cargo is restored to its previous dry, solid-like state.[2] Liquefaction of fine non-granular cargoes, such as some nickel ores, is due to fatigue of the material, rather than pore water pressure. The resultant fluid-like behaviour and subsequent risk to the stability of the ship are the same as that of the first case, nonetheless. The fine particles of the cargo endure a series of cyclic motions coming from the ship, which lower the shear strength of the cargo. At some point, the cohesiveness of the particles reduces significantly, which results into the

1

liquid behaviour of the cargo. Since a large number of stress cycles is required, the transformation can take effect several days after the ship departure. Additionally, this case of liquefaction usually occurs for the whole cargo, unlike with granular materials where partial liquefaction is more common.[2] Regulating the moisture content of cargoes transported in bulk is one of the first tasks in preventing liquefaction from occurring. The IMSBC Code has approved three different methods for testing the moisture content — the flow table test, the Proctor/Fagerberg test and the penetration test. Furthermore, classification societies have advised ship masters to perform a can test if suspicious of the cargo’s documentation or condition.[2] Nevertheless, this test is not considered as a valid way of determining if the cargo is safe, and the previously mentioned test must be undergone.[3] It should be noted that the moisture point at which liquefaction can occur differs not only between types of materials, but also between cargoes of the same type. Hence, each cargo needs to be presented with its own moisture content and Flow Moisture Point (FMP). The latter is the point at which liquefaction may occur. The IMSBC has created the Transportable Moisture Limit (TML), which is taken as 90% of the FMP, and considered as the maximum moisture content that a cargo can possess for safe carriage.[2] Apart from a list of potentially liquefiable cargoes, strict testing procedures and provided limits for safe cargo carriage, the IMSBC does not suggest any solutions to the problem. In addition, it has been acknowledged that the testing methods themselves are not enough for eliminating the occurrence of the phenomenon. It has also been recognised that it might not always be possible to perform the proper laboratory testing due to the lack of equipment, personnel experience or complexity of the testing procedures. Cargo seller pressure, improper cargo documentation or even sudden changes of weather and cargo condition can also contribute to circumventing the imposed regulatory system.[3] For this reason, classification societies encourage various other means of tackling the problem, that go beyond the testing procedures. Excessive Metacentric Height (GM) values should be avoided, cargo trimming should be performed regularly during loading, the draining and cleaning of the bilge system should be thorough, cargo over-stowing is sometimes suggested, and extensive route and loading planning are some of the options the ship masters have for dealing with liquefaction. In addition, rules and recommendations have been prepared for designing specially constructed and equipped vessels.[2] Taking the approach of designing a vessel for mitigation of the phenomenon looks more appealing, since both the cargo owner and ship owner have more control over the risks that the cargo and the vessel are subjected to. There are a multitude of approaches that can be taken in designing a bulk carrier that mitigate the problem, however, not all prove efficient and versatile. In addition, the recent market crisis due to oversupply has made new-build vessels highly unappealing. Expensive, complicated and non-retrofit-able solutions will encounter resistance from the market and will not be materialised. Hence, a careful examination of the possible means of tackling liquefaction needs to be made in order to prove the best solution is safe, effective, efficient and retrofit-able.

2

Chapter 2 Business Case 2.1

Case Studies

Initially, the phenomenon of liquefaction of dry bulk cargoes did not receive much media attention. However, liquefaction is now seen as a major hazard for bulk carriers. The topic is receiving increasing attention from industry stakeholders and from the media. There are some distinct and disturbing features of accidents caused by cargo liquefaction. Firstly, the accidents happen very fast. The period of time from when liquefaction is detected, if it is detected at all, until the vessel has capsized, could in some cases be only a few minutes. This leaves very little time for reactive measures. It also leaves very little time for safe evacuation of the ship, and such accidents are often associated with tragic losses of crew members. Secondly, it has been observed that an accident on one vessel is often followed by a new accident or near-accident of another vessel that has loaded similar cargo at a terminal in the same area. The best known example is the loss of the bulk carriers Jian Fu Star, Nasco Diamond and Hong Wei, which occurred within a six week period in the rainy season of autumn 2010. All of them were carrying nickel ore from Indonesia, which is a cargo known to be prone to liquefaction. In total, 44 lives were lost.[2] Figure 2.1 lists ships of more than 10,000 DWT lost since 1999, where it is suspected that cargo liquefaction was the cause. It is worth noting that most of the vessels were less than 10 years old and, presumably, in good condition. It is also noticeable that there is a strong link to the rainy season in South-East Asia. During this study it had been concluded that, from 1988 to 2015, there had been 24 suspected liquefaction incidents reported, which resulted in 164 casualties and the loss of 18 vessels. The Handymax class of vessels was observed to be the most prone to liquefaction as shown in Table 2.1.[4]

2.2

The Bulk Carrier Market

It is of great importance to identify the potential market of our design project before devising solutions to mitigate liquefaction; this dilemma can be divided into retrofitting or designing a new-build vessel. Overcapacity issues and low freight rates in many of the major shipping segments are burdening the shipbuilding industry. The number of transportation contracts

3

Table 2.1: List of vessels over 10,000 DWT lost since 1999 due to liquefaction. Vessel name Padang Hawk Hui Long Asian Forest Black Rose Jian Fu Star Nasco Diamond Hong Wei Vinalines Queen Sun Spirits Harita Bauxite Trans Summer Bulk Jupiter

Date of incidents

Class

Cargo type

26th July 1999 Handymax Nickel Ore 20th May 2005 Handysize Fluorspar 17th July 2009 Handysize Iron Ore Fines 9th Sept 2009 Handymax Iron Ore Fines 27th Oct 2010 Handymax Nickel Ore 9th Nov 2010 Handymax Nickel Ore 3rd Dec 2010 Handymax Nickel Ore 25th Dec 2011 Handymax Nickel Ore 22nd Jan 2012 Handysize Iron Ore Fines 16th Feb 2013 Handymax Nickel Ore 14th Aug 2013 Handymax Nickel Ore 2nd January 2015 Handymax Nickel Ore

Casualties/lives lost

Departure port

0 0 0 1 13 21 10 22 0 15 0 18

New Caledonia Indonesia India India Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Philippines Philippines Indonesia Indonesia Malaysia

Figure 2.1: The BDI from 2006 to 2016. declined significantly in many shipping segments during 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, and a large number of existing orders were either cancelled or postponed.[5] The dry bulk industry has been overwhelmed by the increasing number of vessels entering the market, after being ordered in the upward cycles of the shipping economy. The fact that the industry has depended on China as the primary source of demand for such a long time has left it susceptible, now that China is rebalancing its growth model towards consumption and services, and away from construction and manufacturing. In 2015, the BDI peaked at around 1070 in August, however it has been decreasing ever since. By February 2016 a new all-time low of just under 300 was recorded, where the previous lowest BDI was recorded on February 2015 at about 510. (Figure 2.1) The low freight rates affected most bulk carrier owners, who are burning liquidity to keep operations going; hence the conditions of the market have made it unappealing for delivery of new vessels. This has caused owners to either scale back or delay new-building plans. In 2015, this led to around 11 million DWT being cancelled, 28 4

Figure 2.2: Order book versus actual deliveries due to cancellation and postponements. million DWT postponed, and the actual deliveries were 49 million DWT, which was around 56% of the total order-book. (Figure 2.2) Besides cancellation and postponement of deliveries, a lot of vessels were also sent for scrapping in order to limit the growth of the fleet. The scrapping activity led to a sizeable decline in the average scrapping age, from 27 years in 2014 to 25 in 2015. [5] In 2015, the average scrapping age for Capesize, Panamax, Handymax and Handysize dropped to 21, 22, 27 and 28 respectively. (Figure 2.3) During the first quarter of 2016, scrapping ages declined even further for Capesize, Panamax, Handymax vessels. Even though there were attempts to cut down the immense number of orders and curb the influx of new vessels through order cancellations, postponements and extensive scrapping, fleet growth continued to outpace demand growth and oversupply worsened. During 2015, the second-hand values of these vessels declined so much that it was more reasonable to buy second-hand compared to new build ships. According to Clarkson Research, up until December 2014, a buyer had to pay a premium for purchasing a Capesize resale contract instead of placing a new order. [5] However, in 2015, this changed as the resale value of a Capesize contract tumbled below the new-build price. By March 2016, the resale price in comparison to new-build price for Capesize, Panamax, Handymax and Handysize were 10, 5, 4 and 2 million United States Dollar (USD) lower. (Figure 2.4) This was exactly what the market was waiting for: an incentive for buying old vessels instead of new, which would affect the market positively. It is evident from the adverse state of the dry bulk market that there is no motivation for building new ships in the near future, therefore, a design to mitigate liquefaction that can be retrofitted is more attractive.

5

Figure 2.3: Average scrapping age of vessels, from 2011 to 2016.

Figure 2.4: New-build versus second-hand prices in 2016.

6

Chapter 3 Project Vision The project vision underwent a process of gradual evolution since project inception. This continuous evolution was driven by various factors, including: • Feedback from scheduled presentations • Discussions with, and advice from the project advisors • Data and information obtained from research performed by the project team • Assessment of current market conditions • Pursuit of novelty Each of these drivers of change in vision were discussed within the context of the changes that each inspired. It should be noted that the core of the project vision remained unchanged since project inception, that being the goal of prevention, or reduction of loss of life, by the study of the liquefaction phenomenon; although, the ideas, goals, and project scope applied in the pursuit of this core goal did change over time. In the study of the evolution of the project vision, this central theme becomes evident. In addition to this central aspect of the project vision, several other key goals remained throughout the project iterations. Prior to determination of the project topic by the team, a series of conditions and aims for project selection were defined. These comprised: • Unknown Answer • Personal Challenge • Novelty • Real-World Application “Unknown Answer” meant that the ideal project topic would have no immediately obvious solution. By enforcing this stipulation, a degree of management, or project risk can be ensured. This lead inevitably to the group’s second condition, “Personal Challenge”. This condition was in place to ensure that the chosen topic provided opportunities for the team to learn new skills, and crucially to ensure project level risk by introducing the chance of failure, i.e. a solution may not be found, or 7

exist. It was important that the chosen topic was not something that the group knew immediately and could achieve using their current skill set. “Novelty”, and “Real-World Application” are perhaps self-explanatory. It was decided that these factors must be present in a topic in order for it to be chosen by the group. Although several project topics were considered by the group, they were each discarded for failing to meet all of the above criteria. The topic of liquefaction risk management met all of the imposed conditions, and was decided to be the best topic for the group to tackle, in order to achieve both personal, and academic goals.

8

Chapter 4 Project Management 4.1

Project Objectives

The project objectives are driven by the need to realise a feasible solution to the problem of liquefaction in bulk cargoes. This shall be achieved by engineering a solution which prevents liquefaction through chemical means. The goals of the project are set out as follows: 1. prevention of loss of life due to liquefaction, 2. avoidance of loss of ship due to liquefaction, 3. engineering of a feasible solution to the problem of liquefaction, 4. designing of a system whereby the solution can be implemented, 5. risk minimisation of the solution through a risk-based approach. These are the overarching project goals all of which point to a common theme: Safety.

4.2

Team Culture

This section of the report aims to describe the project management structure and how this is utilised in the successful execution of the project. In consideration of the project vision and objectives, a high level of organisation between team members is required to ensure tasks and goals are achieved within the given time constraints; consequently, a traditional top-down project management structure was deemed incompatible with the team dynamic. Therefore, a more orbicular construct — where roles and responsibilities feed into one another — was deemed to be a more appropriate construct. A map representing the team members and roles can be seen in Figure 4.1. The benefit to this system is that it creates a culture of feedback and continuous improvement, ensuring the advancement of the project. The roles assigned are the primary focus of said member, although the roles are not static and all team members are able to diversify into the various subject areas covered in this project. This also helps to create redundancy on the team, as a solution to the project risk of member’s unavailability. 9

Chemical system design

Vessel design

Oliver Ayris

Report compiling

Structural analysis

Team leader

Andrzej Czerwonka

3D modelling

Business case

Stability

Chemical system design

Liquefaction Risk Management

Preslav Petrov

Travis Ang Chee Seng

Chemical Experiments Project risk

Stability

Emma McCrossan

Novel technology qualification

Cost benefit analysis

Gary Russell

Safety and risk assessment

Project vision

Chemical research and experiments

Figure 4.1: Project management flow chart.

10

Chemical system design

Having six team members allowed for completion of the tasks on three levels. The first level, where all team members contributed, involves tasks such as general research and brain-storming. The latter was used in places where the project could significantly benefit from innovation, including concept ideas for combating liquefaction and chemical type research. Another ongoing task completed on the first level is Hazard Identification (HAZID). The second level tasks were identified as those were the risk of failing that particular part of the project was unacceptable, such as the design of the distribution system, as well as those that would benefit from more than one team member. Finally, on the third level, each team member oversaw a specific part of the project. The tasks were distributed based on personal interest as much as possible, and where it wouldn’t considerably affect the team’s overall performance. Where no special interest for completing of the task was expressed, it was assigned on an agreement basis. Owing to the interconnection of several tasks, such as the Novel Technology Qualification (NTQ) and distribution system design, or stability and structural analysis, it was crucial for the team to interact between the different levels.

4.3

Management Risks and their Mitigation

In tandem with the project management structure, the project timeline and objectives, an element of risk within the team construct was also considered. This proactive approach was taken to ensure any obstacles to the progression of the project are identified quickly, and a framework for avoiding, transferring, mitigating, or accepting the risk was in place. For this purpose, a risk matrix was devised which uses expert judgement to qualify the risk and put in place counter measures. To do this, a system to assess the likelihood and impact of potential risks had to be developed. The most commonly used technique is to assign a risk rating by giving the likelihood of an event occurring a measure between 1 and 5; the same value range is then applied to the impact of said event occurring. Taking the product of the multiplication of these two values gives an indication of the severity i.e. the risk rating. The framework for the application of the risk rating can be seen in Figure 4.2. Using the above criteria, a HAZID meeting was held by the team to identify the project risks. The result of this meeting can be seen in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. From the risk matrix, it can be seen that the highest risk in terms of execution of the project towards the goals set out is in the communication category; this is due to potential misunderstanding of responsibilities. In order to mitigate this risk, a control measure was put in place to implement accurate recording of meetings and to encourage 360 degree feedback between team members. With the introduction of the control measure, the risk rating was lowered to the acceptable region with a condition to monitor the situation through the use of project scheduling tools. The high-medium level risks were identified as the unavailability of NAPA, which was addressed and the risk avoided by switching to the Maxsurf design software. Another issue at this level was sourcing of proper facilities for conducting experiments. This has been dealt with by inter-departmental communication and organising the use of facilities in the chemical engineering faculty. Medium-low level risks are identified as

11

Figure 4.2: Risk rating. Table 4.1: Management hazards and risks. ID

Hazard

Risk

Probability Impact

Risk index

1

Unavailability of team mem- Tasks not completed or running 2 bers (illness etc.) behind schedule

4

8

2

Problems sourcing proper facili- Unable to conduct the experi- 3 ties for conducting experiments ments needed to prove project object

5

15

3

Unavailability of lab for con- Unable to obtain useable re- 4 ducting experiments sults and therefore project running behind schedule

5

20

4

Unavailability of NAPA Soft- Unable to complete design and ware analysis to project timescales

3

5

15

5

Non-efficient communication Unclear responsibilities and 4 on the team project objectives not being met sufficiently

4

16

Table 4.2: Management risk control measures. ID

Control measure

Probability Impact

Risk index

1

Ensure redundancy in key project areas

2

2

4

2

Speak to our department to see if they can resolve this issue regarding access to relevant equipment

1

2

2

3

Speak to the civil engineering department to arrange 2 some lab time in the near future

2

4

4

Ensure IT resolve the issue by installing the relevant 2 software

3

6

5

Implement meeting agendas, take minutes, use feedback 2 to improve

3

6

12

setting of unrealistic timescales and team member unavailability. The risk rating here is lowered by encouraging better communication and role diversification respectively. The risk matrix is an extremely useful tool for monitoring, assessing and controlling the potential hazards encountered in the undertaking of this project.

4.4

Advisory Staff Members

Professor Dracos Vassalos and Dr Evangelos Boulougouris kindly agreed to serve as the advisors for this project. The feedback received with regards to the initial ideas for the liquefaction mitigation ideas. Ultimately led the team to take the advice to use a chemical to prevent liquefaction from occurring. Thus, the initial idea of mitigation of the consequences was overwritten. The advisors were also consulted with regards to the approach taken for specific sections of the project including risk-based design, chemical experiments, distribution system design and structural analysis of the vessel.

13

Chapter 5 Design Iterations 5.1

Concept Ideas

The initial proposed solution was to design a new-build bulk carrier, such that either the liquefaction of its cargo was prevented, or the risk associated with liquefaction was mitigated. This was to be achieved either by the structural design of the ship, or by the introduction of a mechanical system or piece of machinery. Various designs were proposed and investigated by the group. Some of these included: • move-able hatch covers (to compress or contain cargo) • resizing of cargo holds such that holds are always full • permanent subdivision of cargo holds to reduce developed list • open-top containerised bulk cargoes • cylindrical hold to reduce impact of free surface effect • self-offloading vessel, with baffles throughout the cargo holds. • fast ballast switching system for the reduction or prevention of vessel roll motion. Several concept model images of these ideas can be found in Appendix B. After investigation and discussion by the group, the most promising of these ideas was felt to be the self-offloading concept. Although requiring complex machinery, the conveyor-style offloading system afforded the opportunity to forgo unloading via crane and grabs. This allowed the deployment of baffles throughout the cargo holds, which may reduce the impact of liquefaction should it occur. There were some foreseen issues with this concept which would have to be addressed, namely the maintenance of watertight bulkheads and the durability of baffles given the cargo being loaded on top. Ultimately, however, these issues became irrelevant as another issue came into focus for this, and indeed all of the ideas listed above, that being, the current state of the bulk carrier market. Feedback received from the presentation of these ideas, and subsequent discussion during question and answer sessions focused on the current market conditions for bulk carriers. Doubt was quite rightly expressed on the willingness of ship owners to construct new bulk carriers in today’s market conditions, let alone a vessel of 14

novel and unproven design. Subsequent meetings with project advisors brought this concern into focus, and market analysis provided confirmation of this critical issue. This advice and feedback was taken on board by the team, and this prompted the first evolution of the project direction. After group discussion, the project scope was narrowed to focus on mainly retrofitable solutions, with the target market shifting from new build vessels, to those bulk carriers currently in service. Although chemical solutions were considered at this time, the focus remained squarely on structural modifications and cargo hold retrofitting for the mitigation of the resultant risk from liquefaction. At the following presentation, the presented project ideas consisted of several permanent and temporary methods for subdivision of cargo holds. Chief among these were both permanent and temporary longitudinal bulkheads. These concepts were not received well, and resulted in feedback that the project had become completely lacking in novelty since the preceding presentation. This was further valid, valuable feedback, and the team agreed that the novelty of the project had been lost in the pursuit of a structural solution. The project direction then underwent a further refinement and evolution process.

5.2

Chemical Solution Approach

This feedback from the presentation question and answer session, and subsequent discussions with project advisors resulted in the focus of the project settling finally on a chemical solution. The previous research done on the topic was expanded with further, more detailed investigation. Several classes of chemical were investigated: • Coagulants • Desiccants • Gellants • Super-absorbent polymers Research on both coagulants and super-absorbent polymers proved particularly promising, especially a polymer named SP. A small quantity of SP was obtained by the team from an online supplier and used to perform a crude initial test of its efficacy. This initial test proved to be extremely promising. Two identical samples of wet sand were placed in bottles, and a small amount of the chemical was placed in one bottle. Upon applying an external excitation, liquefaction occurred in the sample without the added chemical only. The cost and toxicity analyses of the chemical also proved to be encouraging, being both relatively inexpensive, and non-toxic. These initial analyses solidified the decision of the team to continue down this path. At the following presentation, the results of this preliminary experiment were displayed, and propositions for more formal, rigorous testing were put forward. These consisted of: • Testing of a ship model with dry cargo, and providing an external excitation force in the form of waves (sufficient to cause liquefaction were moisture present) 15

Figure 5.1: Comparison of sand and water mixture with SP (left), and a simple sand and water mixture (right). • Testing the same model with cargo with an unacceptable moisture content, and recording the effects of the subsequent liquefaction on stability • Testing of the same model with the introduction of the chemical to the moist cargo, such that the benefit of its introduction may be quantified. This presentation also introduced several ideas for the application of the chemical to the cargo. The most promising of these being based on dry chemical fire suppression systems, introducing the chemical using a sprinkler system. The feedback received at this presentation was largely positive, and gave confidence that the project was progressing in a positive direction, and that the evolution of the project scope had been worthwhile. Critical feedback was received, however, with regards to the proposed model tests. This was on the basis that the performance of model tests was premature. The group was advised to conduct more formal laboratory tests to reliably ascertain the efficacy of the chemical, and to test further chemicals. The team agreed that although the tests on SP had been promising, the decision to proceed directly to model testing with this chemical was indeed imprudent. The feedback from presentations, advisors, and internal research over the course of the first semester was considered as a whole in the establishment of the team’s final project path. The evolution described above can be seen to converge on the current direction, in that the refinements and updates become ever smaller and more precise as the project matures. The Civil and Environmental Engineering department kindly allowed the team to have access to their testing equipment, which included two shaking tables and a Proctor/Fagerberg testing apparatus. The use of this equipment allowed the excitation applied to the samples for testing to be standardised, and ensured that all samples received the same excitation force. 16

Figure 5.2: Concept of sprinkler distribution system for chemical application.

Figure 5.3: Possible layout of the sprinkler system output in the cargo holds.

17

The project objective then was to design an experimental procedure to apply for the chosen chemicals, in order to determine their efficacy in a sound way. Then, to propose a system design for the application of the most suitable chemical to the dry bulk cargo. This could be an on-board, or a shore side solution, and would be justified based on the outcome of research and experimentation. A proposal method for the application and introduction of this technology to the dry bulk market worldwide could then be made. These proposals would be backed up by quantifiable, objective data resultant from the performed laboratory tests, and the research and expertise of the project team. The project aims to demonstrate a quantifiable benefit to the use of the solution, both in terms of the reduction of the financial implications of liquefaction risk, and in the prevention of loss of human life at sea. The use of the Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd (DNV-GL) NTQ process is a key factor in achieving the long term project goal of adoption of dry bulk cargo treatment for liquefaction risk reduction by class societies and shipowners globally.

5.3

Regulations, Classification, Yard and Owner

This project must take into consideration certain lateral aspects that affect the concept presentation of a modern vessel. Starting from statutory regulations, the essence of the rules that constrain this particular project are the IMSBC and the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Reg. XII/1.1. In addition, new-build vessels must comply with the rules and regulations of the classification society that is selected by the shipowner. Since DNV-GL are the most active and prominent classification society to research and make suggestions for the reduction of risk of liquefaction, it seemed appropriate to consider them the best choice. The Marine Guidance Notes (MGN) concerning storage and use of chemicals and other materials on-board ships can be found in [6]. There, the importance of proper storage of dangerous goods, chemicals and materials is emphasised. SP, the substance used in the first experiment, is not listed in the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) code, and it is not considered as a hazardous chemical according to Material’s Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), however a low level hazard is present; the substance becomes extremely slippery when wet. Additionally, it expands considerably when in contact with water. For this reason, as stated in the MGN, a risk assessment should be completed, with the following points to consider: • Arrangement: storage areas should be arranged so that any spillage/contamination is contained locally, • Accommodation: storage areas should not be located in proximity to accommodation, • Access routes: storage areas should not be located in corridors and any other walkway and should not obstruct access routes, • Segregation: storage areas should not be located near materials with which a chemical reaction might occur,

18

• Safe stowage: the chemical should be securely stowed, • Tidiness: storage areas must be kept tidy, • Stock control: plan deliveries to keep the amount of material stored on-board to a minimum. Per this research, the process for storing the chemical, from the point of view of a dangerous substance, is not particularly complicated. Therefore, provided that the amount to be stored on the vessel is not unreasonable, this approach can be taken. In case the amount is not reasonable, the option for in-port storage will be selected. As far as a potential shipyard in which the ship produced by this project could be eventually be built, the Oshima Shipbuilding Co. Ltd. was deemed to be a good choice. They are located in Japan, where about 60% of the world’s bulk carriers have been built, rendering them bulk carrier specialists. They also have an extensive portfolio of past Handymax vessels, appropriately sized dry-docks, and an almost exclusive cooperation with DNV-GL in the past. Finally, this vessel has quite a wide range of prospective owners due to the flexibility of the chemical system that is being designed.

5.4

Basis Ship Design

With the focus of the project shifting to exploring the possibility of tackling the problem of liquefaction using a chemical, the design of a novel bulk carrier form is not a primary concern. As a starting point, a basis ship was to be selected that would act as the building ground, on which a solution would be implemented. The vessel design that was ultimately chosen was the Diamond 53, as it was implemented on the M/S Spar Scorpio, a Handymax bulk carrier with a DWT capacity of 56,419. With the availability of the stability booklet for the particular vessel, the general arrangement plans were exploited and translated to lines in AutoCAD. Subsequently, the lines were imported into Rhino Computer Aided Design (CAD) software in order to generate the hull surfaces. The model was then exported from Rhinoceros and imported into Maxsurf Modeler, where the frames of reference were set appropriately, in order to provide the hydrostatics of the model.

5.5 5.5.1

Basis Ship Stability Tank Definition

Maxsurf Modeler is used to create the internal surfaces that define the cargo holds, water ballast tanks and heavy fuel oil tanks. The latter is required in order to ensure that there are cofferdams between the outer shell of the vessel and the internal heavy fuel oil tanks. In addition, the deck, aft, hatches, superstructure and the funnel have also been included as hull surfaces that will be used in the stability analysis for the calculation of the windage area. This is done by taking the aft and fore draughts for each load case, and using them to approximate the profile projected area in Rhino, of the area above the respective waterline. The moment arm of this windage area is derived by taking the distance from half the draught of each case, to the centroid of 19

Figure 5.4: Basis ship hull form in Rhino.

Figure 5.5: The created surfaces that are used for the water ballast tank and heavy fuel oil tank definitions. the windage area. Further details about the positions, sizes and capacities of the holds and tanks can be found in Appendix D.

5.5.2

Hydrostatics

Maxsurf Stability is used to obtain the hydrostatics of the vessel in the upright hydrostatics analysis mode. The lightship draft (2.65 m) is set as the initial draft and the draft corresponding to 85% of the vessel depth (14.875 m) is set as the final draft in the draft range menu. The resulting hydrostatics are shown below in Figure 5.10.

5.5.3

Cross Curves of Stability

In order to obtain the cross curves of stability, the initial displacement is taken as the lightweight displacement (11248 t), and the final displacement is taken as that 20

Figure 5.6: Basis ship as finalised in Rhino.

Figure 5.7: Basis ship plan view in Rhino.

Figure 5.8: Basis ship profile view in Rhino.

Figure 5.9: Resultant holds and tanks of the basis ship.

21

Figure 5.10: Upright hydrostatics of the basis ship.

Figure 5.11: KN curves of the basis ship. corresponding to draft equal to 85% of the vessel’s depth (79485 t). The results from the analysis are shown in Figure 5.11. Tabulated results for the hydrostatics and the cross curves of stability can be found in Appendix E.

5.5.4

Loading Conditions

LC0: Lightship Table 5.1 depicts the various loads that comprise the lightship, each having its own centre of gravity, mass and load distribution (forward and aft limits). This provides a more accurate depiction of the lightweight than just a single load and centre of mass input. This was required for the longitudinal strength calculations and stability for every single load condition. For every departure condition (Departure 100%) in every load-case the levels of the service tanks are taken on the following assumptions: • Freshwater tanks are fully filled (no expansion of the water is expected),

22

Table 5.1: LC0: Lightship Item name

Quantity Unit mass (tonnes)

Total mass (tonnes)

Long. arm (m)

Aft Limit (m)

Fwd. Limit (m)

Trans. Vert. arm arm (m) (m)

MACHINERY PIPING FOREPEAK FCLE BHD CH1 >CH2 BHD CH2 >CH3 BHD CH3 >CH4 BHD CH4 >CH5

1 1 1 1 1 1

95 320 182 198 198 182

95 320 182 198 198 182

21 177.6 144.4 115.6 86.8 58

12.8 174 143.2 114.4 85.6 56.8

27.2 184.8 145.6 116.8 88 59.2

0 0 0 0 0 0

8.05 14 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5

CARGO SECTION MACHINERY SECTION CASING FUNNEL ACCOMMODATION

1 1 1 1

5600 1070 80 320

5600 1070 80 320

101.15 13.47 8 20

27.2 -4 5.6 14.4

175.2 27.2 12 28

0 0 0 0

6.9 11 25 26.5

CRANE 1 CRANE 2 CRANE 3 CRANE 4 HATCHES HATCH COAMING

1 1 1 1 1 1

57 57 57 57 880 205

57 57 57 57 880 205

144.4 115.6 86.8 58 99.3 100.4

144 115.2 86.4 57.6 32 32

144.8 116 87.2 58.4 167.2 167.2

0 0 0 0 0 0

32 32 32 32 19.5 18.9

OUTFIT FORE OUTFIT MID OUTFIT AFT

1 1 1

220 200 500

220 200 500

178.3 95.5 0

174.4 28 -16.5

186 174.4 28

0 0 0

20.5 18.5 21

1 1 1 1

18 18 18 18

18 18 18 18

144.4 115.6 86.8 58

143.2 114.4 85.6 56.8

145.6 116.8 88 59.2

0 0 0 0

25 25 25 25

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

12 12 25 6 15 220 28 17 38 80 115 130

12 12 25 6 15 220 28 17 38 80 115 130

58 115.6 34.8 20 24 17.5 8 2.6 4.7 11.8 14.3 67.2

56 113.6 4 16 20 12 4 1.6 1.6 -1.6 1.6 -4

60 117.6 72 24 27.2 23.2 12 4 8 24.8 25.6 186

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19.45 19.45 15.5 32 14.3 5.9 3.5 3.5 13.5 14.5 12.7 16

11248

83.512

0

11.704

CRANE CRANE CRANE CRANE

PEDESTAL PEDESTAL PEDESTAL PEDESTAL

1 2 3 4

DECK HOUSE FR.72 DECK HOUSE FR.144 ELECTRICAL BRIDGE EQUIPMENT TOOLS AND SPARES MAIN ENGINE SHAFTS PROPELLER AUXILIARY ENG MACHINERY COMP MACHINERY EQUIP PAINT AND CATH Total Loadgroup FS correction VCG fluid

0.002 11.706

23

• All the heavy fuel oil, diesel oil and lube oil are assumed to be filled to 98% of the tank’s capacity (instead of 100%) due to the possibility of fluid expansion when transitioning to warmer weather and boil-offs, • All miscellaneous water and oil tanks are assumed empty, since the departure condition is taken as the condition of leaving port, meaning that all those tanks are cleaned and emptied for the trip ahead. For every arrival condition (Arrival 10%) in every load-case the levels of the service tanks are taken on the following assumptions: • Freshwater tanks are filled up to 10%, • All heavy fuel oil deep tanks are taken as empty and all heavy fuel oil service and settling tanks are assumed 98% full. The reason for 98% instead of 100% is due to boil-offs and fluid expansion requirements. • Similarly, the diesel oil deep tank and one (out of two) of the diesel oil service tanks are taken as empty. The settling tank as well as other service tank are assumed filled up to 75% and 50% respectively. All the lube oil tanks are assumed to be at 10% capacity • Due to the trip, the miscellaneous water and oil tanks are now assumed partially filled. All but the stern cooling water tank are at 50% volume where the former is at 100%. Water ballast tanks are used if it is necessary to adjust the trim and draft of the vessel to the appropriate levels. A maximum trim of ±0.75 m was considered acceptable. The stability results for all eight cases can be found in Appendix F. Regarding the stability, Maxsurf Stability criteria check was used to ensure that the vessel operates well in all of the loading conditions that it will be subjected to. In every load-case the GZ curve, area under GZ curve and longitudinal strength of the ship are presented. Regarding the criteria check for stability, Appendix G shows the tabulated results from Maxsurf. Note that variables such as projected windage area of the vessel above the waterline and its centre of gravity are found using Rhinoceros and then input to the criteria in Maxsurf for every loading condition.

5.6 5.6.1

Scantlings Midship Properties

Moment of Inertia The minimum rule required gross moment of inertia about the horizontal axis at the midship of the vessel shall not be less than: IyR−gr = 3 ∗ Cw ∗ L3 ∗ B ∗ (Cb + 0.7) ∗ 10−8 ⇒ IyR−gr = 9.1265 m4 [7] Hand calculations were performed to determine the actual moment of inertia at the midship part of the vessel. For convenience, the midship components were split 24

into two parts: plating and stiffeners. Only one side of the midship was considered owing to symmetry. In the first step the location of the elastic neutral axis was determined by calculating the total area of components and the first moment of area about the bottom axis. sum(A ∗ y) ⇒ yna = 6.32 m sumA Next, the second moment of area around the bottom axis was computed: yna =

Ixx = 159.04 m4 The Ixx value was multiplied by 2, to account for the previously mentioned symmetry, and a transformation was carried out to determine the second moment of area about the neutral axis. Ina = 2 ∗ Ixx − (A ∗ yna 2 ) ⇒ Ina = 180.19 m4 Comparing the rule and calculated value: 180.19 > 9.13 m4 Section Modulus The minimum rule required section modulus at deck and the bottom shall not be less than:

ZR−gr = k ∗ (

1 + fr ) ∗ Cw ∗ L2 ∗ B ∗ (Cb + 0.7) ∗ 10−6 ⇒ ZR−gr = 1.25238671 m3 [7] 2

where the material factor for NV32 steel is k = 0.78 [8] [9], and fr is a reduction factor related to service area notation. For no defined restrictions, fr = 1 can be used. The section modulus related to deck or bottom along the length of the ship shall comply with: Zgr =

|Msw + Mwv | ∗ 10−3 [7] σperm

The required still water bending moment and vertical wave bending moment are calculated according to [10] as:

Hogging: Mwvh = 162131.4821 kN m

Mswhmin = 133732.4202 kN m

Sagging: Mwvs = −176939.7631 kN m

Mswsmin = −101085.5184 kN m

The section modulus values calculated for hogging and sagging are: Hogging: Zgrh = 1.319 m3 Sagging: Zgrs = 1.239 m3 Thus, the maximum of the values shall be satisfied. 25

Actual Section Modulus The actual section modulus can be calculated using: S=

Ina y

Therefore, the section modulus at the bottom is: Sbottom =

Ina ⇒ Sbottom = 28.49 m3 yna

and the section modulus at the deck is: Sdeck =

Ina ⇒ Sdeck = 15.3 m3 yd

Comparing the rule and calculated value: 15.3 > 1.319 m3 . The midship section satisfies the requirements of the minimum section modulus at the deck and bottom, calculated explicitly for the midship part, as well as the minimum section modulus for the midship section with the calculation considering the full length of the hull girder. The derived midship scantlings can be seen in Appendix H.

5.7

Basis Ship Powering

To ensure that the basis ship has been reproduced accurately, a powering analysis is performed and compared to the power requirements of the basis ship. The analysis was completed using Maxsurf Resistance, using Holtrop’s method and taking into account the appendage and frontal area of the vessel. The results, which can be seen in Figure 5.12, agree with the powering requirements at the vessel’s service speed of 14.2 knots, 9300 kW.

5.8

Chemical Storage and Distribution

This section will present the followed procedure for the design of the storage and distribution system of the chemical. It is divided into two parts — the iteration procedure and the calculations procedure for determining the specifications of the components of the system.

5.8.1

The Iterative Process

The general procedure in coming up with the specifications of the system are shown in Figure 5.13. The first step involves the identification of the cargo hold loading rate and the amount of chemical required for one trip. The first is determined by the de-ballasting to load rate ratio of the basis ship, while the latter is derived from the results of the laboratory test experiments performed, as will be explained in a following chapter. Several liquefaction test experiments were performed in order to determine the FMP for sand, with various particle sizes and concentrations of the chemical. From these experiments it was concluded that a chemical concentration of

26

Figure 5.12: Basis ship powering curve. 0.5% is enough for significantly delaying the FMP from being reached, for liquefaction to not occur in sensible conditions. The second step consists of the determination of the chemical injection rate to the cargo hold, the propellant gas quantity and storage capacity for the chemical. The calculations of the chemical injection rate and storage are very straightforward, however, obtaining the propellant gas volume flow rate is much harder. Normally, in two phase flows, the propellant gas to solid ratio is determined from experiments, which, in our case, were not able to be performed. The last step includes calculating the pipe and pump specifications, along with storage specifications. It should be noted that the determination of the storage location is closely linked to the piping and pumping calculations, which, along with other issues during the design procedure, requires an iterative loop between the two tasks. The various designs that were considered are detailed below in Figure 5.14 and rough diagrams of their layouts can be seen in Appendix I. Many of these designs were discarded due to high power requirements, lack of flexibility, high complexity of design or high implementation/retrofitting costs. In the final iteration, more details on the calculations for storage, piping and pumping will be given in the next section.

5.8.2

Storage, Piping and Pumping Calculations

First, the cargo loading rate is assumed to be:

27

STEP 1 Identify the cargo loading rate from the de-ballasting to loading rate ratio

Calculate the required amount of SP

STEP 2 Derive the amount of storage required

Determine the propellant gas quantity

Derive the chemical injection rate

STEP 3 Piping and pumping specifications

Storage location

Figure 5.13: Distribution system iterative process.

m ˙ cargo = 10000 t/h By setting the concentration of SP to csp = 0.5% and considering the vessel’s cargo capacity at mcargo = 53, 000 t, the total mass of SP comes to: msp = 53, 000 ∗ 0.005 = 265 t Following that, it is assumed that the required flow rate of the SP is 0.5% of the loading rate of the cargo. This assumption is made in order to ensure that the chemical is well mixed with the cargo and the mixture of both is as homogeneous as possible. Hence, the cargo loading rate and chemical concentration give the amount of SP mass flow rate: m ˙ sptotal = 0.005 ∗ 10, 000 = 50 t/h Since we are considering two separate pumps that distribute this amount, each one needs to be able to push: m ˙ sp = 50/2 = 25 t/h The density of SP is taken as ρsp = 1.25 t/m3 ,[11] and therefore the total volume used for one trip is: 265 = 212 m3 1.25 The volume flow rate of SP for each pump is derived as: Vsp =

Qsp =

m ˙ sp 25 = = 0.005556 m3 /s ρsp 1.25 ∗ 3, 600

Air has been chosen as the propellant gas. Since no experiments have been done using air as a propellant for SP, assumptions have been made at this stage. The 28

• Storage: in front of superstructure

1st

• Pumping: compressed air tanks with air pump • Piping: straight pipes spanning the length of the cargo holds above/below deck

• Storage: in front of superstructure

2nd

• Pumping: utilisation of air compressors on-board • Piping: straight pipes spanning the length of the cargo holds above/below deck

• Storage: in 3rd topside tanks

3rd

• Pumping: centrifugal air compressors, injection using the venturi effect • Piping: routed to all five tanks

• Storage: in-front of the superstructure

4th

• Pumping: pre-engineered AODD pumps • Piping: straight pipes spanning the length of the cargo holds above/below deck Figure 5.14: Distribution system iterative process.

29

velocity of air required to propel the chemical is Uair = 15 m/s and the flow rate Qair ratio of the chemical to the total is r = Qair = 0.1. These assumptions allow the +Qsp calculation of the piping and pump specifications. The storage location is on the deck, right behind hatch 5 of the ship, which corresponds to the hatch closest to the superstructure. The tank is positioned as far as possible form the superstructure in order to not obstruct the passage of crew. At this stage, a simple approach has been taken, where the storage shape is that of a rectangular prism, the dimensions of which are given as: Ltank = 3.48 m, Htank = 2.9 m, Btank = 21 m. The height is the first parameter from the tank dimensions that is determined. This is due to the fact that the tank height is constrained by the opening of the hatches, since for the basis ship they are of the folding type. For a different vessel, with a different hatch opening mechanism, this may not be an issue. The beam is also mainly restricted by the beam of the ship and the amount of space required for free passage by the crew along the sides of the bulk carrier. Since the volume of the tank is known, the length is simply obtained by dividing the volume by the breadth and height. The next step is to determine the piping specifications and pump requirements. Since the problem is much more complicated, due to the consideration of two phase flow, a few more assumptions are required. First and foremost, as previously explained, all the characteristics of a pneumatic transportation system are always determined by experimental procedures. Determining the flow patterns and drawing the line between dilute, discontinuous dense and dense flows can only be done via experimental means, since no formulae exist that generalise these characteristics with enough accuracy. Since time, equipment and expertise did not allow for performing such experiments, to determine all the flow patterns and specifications of the two phase flow — where the fluid phase is air and the solid phase is the SP — assumptions must suffice. Hence, the void fraction, which is known as the ratio between the pipe crosssectional area available for the flow of gas (air) to the total cross-sectional area, is assumed to be  = 0.8. Normally, the void fraction, the velocity of propellant gas and the flow rate ratio are parameters that are determined from experiments and give the flow pattern and other flow characteristics. As a future study, it is possible to look into this matter and determine with greater accuracy the patterns of SP and air two phase flow. The final model and design of the distribution system is shown in Appendix J. The maximum length of the pipelines over which the two phase pumps or air compressors have to deliver the flow is found as Lpipeline = 132.5 m, by taking measurements from the ship. A couple of other parameters are also required to perform the pressure loss calculations, and they are the following: ρair = 1.225 kg/m3 ,

µair = 0.00001827 P a ∗ s,

Fromr =

g = 9.81 m/s2 ,

χsp = 0.00085 m

Qair = 0.1 and Qsp = 0.005556 m3 /s, Qair + Qsp Qair = 0.5 m3 /s 30

According to Chapter 8 from [12], the following equations can be used to characterise the actual velocities of the fluid in a two phase flow: Qair Ain ∗  where Ain is the inner area of the pipe cross section. Using the above equations, the required inner pipe cross-sectional area is found to be: Uair =

Ain =

Uair ∗  15 ∗ 0.8 = = 0.004167 m2 Qair 0.05

Then, the required inner diameter is found to be: r 4 Din = Ain ∗ = 0.07284 m π The actual velocity of the solid in the two phase flow is given as: Usp =

Qsp 0.005556 = = 6.6667 m/s Ain ∗ (1 − ) 0.004167 ∗ (1 − 0.8)

To calculate the pipe friction losses, the momentum balance equation is used, where:

(Net force acting on pipe contents) = (rate of increase in momentum of contents) which, when further developed, gives: (Pressure force) − (gas-to-wall friction force) − (solid-to-wall friction force) −(gravitational force) = (rate of increase in momentum of gas) +(rate of increase in momentum of the solids) Assuming constant gas density over the pipe as well as constant void fraction the above wields the following equation [12]: ∆p = 0.5 ∗  ∗ ρair ∗ Uair 2 + 0.5 ∗ (1 − ) ∗ ρsp ∗ Usp 2 + Fspw ∗ Lpipeline + Fairw ∗ Lpipeline + L ∗ (1 − ) ∗ ρsp ∗ g ∗ sin θpipe + L ∗  ∗ ρair ∗ g ∗ sin θpipe where Fspw and Fairw are the solid-to-wall friction and gas-to-wall friction forces per unit volume of pipe, respectively. θpipe is the angle of inclination of the pipe, if the pipe has vertical elevation. Since we are avoiding vertical elevation, θpipe is taken as 0. The terms above can be interpreted respectively as: 1. Pressure drop due to gas acceleration 2. Pressure drop due to solid particle acceleration 3. Pressure drop due to gas-to-wall friction 4. Pressure drop due to solid-to-wall friction 31

5. Pressure drop due to static head of the solid particles 6. Pressure drop due to static head of gas. Fairw ∗ Lpipeline is obtained by simply using the friction losses equation and a moody diagram for the frictional coefficient: Fairw ∗ Lpipeline = fD ∗ ρair ∗

Uair 2 ∗ Lpipeline 2 ∗ Din

Fspw ∗ Lpipeline is obtained using the equations presented in [12]: Fspw ∗ Lpipeline = 2 ∗ fsp ∗ (1 − ) ∗ Usp 2 ∗

Lpipeline Din r

Fspw ∗ Lpipeline = 0.057 ∗ m ˙ sp ∗ Lpipeline ∗

where, fsp =

g Din

for horizontal transport

for vertical transport

3 ρair Din Uair − Usp 2 ∗ ∗ ∗ CD ∗ ( ) 8 ρsp χsp Usp

Chapter 2 of [12] gives the calculation of the drag coefficient between particle and gas as: CD =

24 , Stoke’s Law Resp

where, Resp = χsp ∗ Usp ∗

ρair µair

For the calculation of losses due to bends, Chapter 8 of [12] states that the only reliable way of obtaining the pressure drops is via experiments for the specific two phase flow. Taking the equivalent loss of a 7.5 meter vertical section pressure drop for every bend is a suggested estimation that can be used in case of no experimental data. Using all the above equations for pressure drops, the following results are obtained: Reair = 1.33 ∗ 108

and Relative roughness = 0.0000412

fD = 0.011 (from Moody diagram), Resp = 56.99, CD = 0.421109 (1) Pressure drop due to air acceleration: P1 = 0.5 ∗  ∗ ρair ∗ Uair 2 ⇒ P1 = 110.25 P a ⇒ P1 = 0.0011025 bar (2) Pressure drop due to particle acceleration: P2 = 0.5 ∗ (1 − ) ∗ ρsp ∗ Usp 2 ⇒ P2 = 5555.56 P a ⇒ P2 = 0.0555556 bar (3) Pressure drop due to gas-to-wall acceleration: 32

Figure 5.15: Moody diagram.

Uair 2 2 ∗ Din ⇒ P3 = 2757.71 P a ⇒ P3 = 0.027577046 bar ⇒ P3bend = 156.097 P a ⇒ P3bend = 0.001560965 bar

P3 = fD ∗ Lpipeline ∗ ρair ∗

(4) Pressure drop due to solid-to-wall friction: r

g Din ⇒ P4vertical = 0 P a ⇒ P4vertical = 0 bar ⇒ P4verticalbend = 34.45 P a ⇒ P4verticalbend = 0.000344535 bar

P4vertical = 0.057 ∗ m ˙ sp ∗ Lpipeline ∗

Lpipeline Din = 837638.41 P a = 8.376384083 bar

P4horizontal = 2 ∗ fsp ∗ (1 − ) ∗ Usp 2 ∗ ⇒ P4horizontal ⇒ P4horizontal

fsp =

3 ρair Din Uair − Usp 2 ∗ ∗ ∗ CD ∗ = 0.020720616 8 ρsp χsp Usp

(5) Pressure drop due to static head of the solids: 33

Figure 5.16: Pressure drop components.

P5 = Lpipeline ∗ (1 − ) ∗ ρsp ∗ g ∗ sin θpipe ⇒ P5 = 0 P a ⇒ P5 = 0 bar ⇒ P5bend = 18393.75 P a ⇒ P5bend = 0.1839375 bar (6) Pressure drop due to static head of the air: P6 = Lpipeline ∗  ∗ ρair ∗ g ∗ sin θpipe ⇒ P6 = 0 P a ⇒ P6 = 0 bar ⇒ P6bend = 72.10 P a ⇒ P6bend = 0.000721035 bar The total pressure is approximately 8.65 bar. A breakdown of the various contributions to the total pressure drop can be seen in Figure 5.16. The above parameters combined give the ideal system specifications found in Table 5.2. Schedule 40 Steel Pipe ASME/ANSI B36.10/19 and Schedule 80 Steel Pipe ASME/ANSI B36.10/19 are used for picking the actual nominal pipes for the piping system. The pipe sizes and specifications are Tables 5.3 and 5.4: The chosen nominal pipe diameter is highlighted. In SI units, the specifications can be seen in Table 5.5. Performing the pressure loss calculations again for these parameters, we deduce the following results:

34

Table 5.2: Sodium polyacrylate tank, pump and pipe specifications. Tank dimensions

Pump specifications

Volume 212 m3 Length 3.48 m Height 2.9 m Breadth 21 m

Qair Qair Qair ∆p

0.05 m3 /s 3000 LPM 792.5 GPM 8.647 bar

Piping specifications Din tpipe Dout

0.0728 m 0.0071 m 0.08703 m

Table 5.3: Schedule 40 Steel Pipe sizes & dimensions according to ASME/ANSI B36.10/19. Diameter (inches)

Wall

Pipe

Properties of Sections

Nominal

Inside

Outside

Thickness (inches)

Weight per foot (lbs)

Moment of inertia (inches4 ) Radius of gyration

Section modulus (inches3 )

0.13 0.25 0.38 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 24.00 32.00 34.00 36 42

0.269 0.364 0.493 0.622 0.824 1.049 1.38 1.61 2.067 2.469 3.068 3.548 4.026 5.047 6.065 7.981 10.02 11.938 15 16.876 18.812 22.624 30.624 32.624 34.5 40.5

0.405 0.54 0.675 0.84 1.05 1.315 1.66 1.9 2.375 2.875 3.5 4 4.5 5.563 6.625 8.625 10.75 12.75 16 18 20 24 32 34 36 42

0.068 0.088 0.091 0.109 0.113 0.133 0.14 0.145 0.154 0.203 0.216 0.226 0.237 0.258 0.28 0.322 0.365 0.406 0.5 0.562 0.594 0.688 0.688 0.688 0.75 0.75

0.24 0.42 0.57 0.85 1.13 1.68 2.27 2.72 3.65 5.79 7.58 9.11 10.79 14.62 18.97 28.55 40.48 53.52 82.77 104.7 123.1 171.3 230.1 244.77 282.35 330

0.00106 0.00331 0.00729 0.01709 0.03704 0.08734 0.1947 0.3099 0.6658 1.53 3.017 4.788 7.233 15.16 28.14 72.49 160.7 300.2 732 1172 1706 3426 8283.3 9991.6 12906.1 20689

0.00525 0.01227 0.0216 0.0407 0.07055 0.1328 0.2346 0.3262 0.5607 1.064 1.724 2.394 3.215 5.451 8.496 16.81 29.91 47.09 91.5 130.2 170.6 285.5 518.7 587.7 717 985.2

0.122 0.163 0.209 0.261 0.334 0.421 0.539 0.623 0.787 0.947 1.163 1.337 1.51 1.878 2.245 2.938 3.674 4.364 5.484 6.168 6.864 8.246 11.07 11.78 12.466 14.59

Table 5.4: Schedule 80 Steel Pipe sizes & dimensions according to ASME/ANSI B36.10/19. Diameter (inches)

Wall

Pipe

Properties of Sections

Nominal

Inside

Outside

Thickness (inches)

Weight per foot (lbs)

Moment of inertia (inches4 ) Radius of gyration

Section modulus (inches3 )

0.13 0.25 0.38 0.50 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

0.215 0.302 0.423 0.546 0.742 0.957 1.278 1.5 1.939 2.323 2.9 3.364 3.826 4.813 5.761 7.625 9.562 11.374 12.5 14.312 16.124 17.938 19.75 21.562

0.405 0.54 0.675 0.84 1.05 1.315 1.66 1.9 2.375 2.875 3.5 4 4.5 5.563 6.625 8.625 1.75 12.75 14 16 18 20 22 24

0.095 0.119 0.126 0.147 0.154 0.179 0.191 0.2 0.218 0.276 0.3 0.318 0.337 0.375 0.432 0.5 0.594 0.688 0.75 0.844 0.938 1.031 1.125 1.219

0.315 0.537 0.739 1.088 1.474 2.172 2.997 3.631 5.022 7.661 10.25 12.5 14.98 20.78 28.57 43.39 64.42 88.63 106.1 136.6 170.9 208.9 250.8 296.58

0.00122 0.00377 0.00862 0.02008 0.04479 0.1056 0.2418 0.3912 0.868 1.924 3.895 6.28 9.611 20.67 40.49 105.7 245.2 475.7 687.4 1158 1835 2772 4031 5672

0.006 0.01395 0.02554 0.0478 0.08531 0.1606 0.2913 0.4118 0.7309 1.339 2.225 3.14 4.272 7.432 12.22 24.52 45.62 74.62 98.19 144.7 203.9 277.2 366.4 472.8

35

0.115 0.155 0.199 0.25 0.321 0.407 0.524 0.605 0.766 0.924 1.136 1.307 1.477 1.839 2.195 2.878 3.597 4.271 4.692 5.366 6.041 6.716 7.391 8.066

Table 5.5: Pipe specifications in SI units. Nominal diameter 0.0762 m Inner diameter 0.07366 m Outer diameter 0.0889 m Wall thickness 0.00762 m

Figure 5.17: Moody diagram selection.

Din Uair Reair Resp

= 0.07366 m, Ain = 0.00426141 m2 ,  = 80% = 15 m/s, Usp = 6.5184 m/s, r = 9.799% 8 = 1.33 ∗ 10 , Relative roughness = 0.000339397, fD = 0.015 (Figure 5.17) = 56.992, CD = 0.4211

The pressure loss calculations yield the following results: (1) Pressure drop due to air acceleration: P1 = 0.5 ∗  ∗ ρair ∗ Uair 2 ⇒ P1 = 110.25 P a ⇒ P1 = 0.0011025 bar (2) Pressure drop due to particle acceleration: P2 = 0.5 ∗ (1 − ) ∗ ρsp ∗ Usp 2 ⇒ P2 = 5311.27 P a ⇒ P2 = 0.0.53112701 bar (3) Pressure drop due to gas-to-wall acceleration:

36

Uair 2 P3 = fD ∗ Lpipeline ∗ ρair ∗ 2 ∗ Din ⇒ P3 = 3718.47 P a ⇒ P3 = 0.0.03718468 bar ⇒ P3bend = 210.48 P a ⇒ P3bend = 0.0.002104793 bar (4) Pressure drop due to solid-to-wall friction: r

g Din ⇒ P4vertical = 0 P a ⇒ P4vertical = 0 bar ⇒ P4verticalbend = 34.45 P a ⇒ P4verticalbend = 0.000344535 bar

P4vertical = 0.057 ∗ m ˙ sp ∗ Lpipeline ∗

Lpipeline Din = 867700.32 P a = 8.68 bar

P4horizontal = 2 ∗ fsp ∗ (1 − ) ∗ Usp 2 ∗ ⇒ P4horizontal ⇒ P4horizontal

fsp =

Uair − Usp 2 3 ρair Din ∗ = 0.0.22705298 ∗ ∗ CD ∗ 8 ρsp χsp Usp

(5) Pressure drop due to static head of the solids: P5 = Lpipeline ∗ (1 − ) ∗ ρsp ∗ g ∗ sin θpipe ⇒ P5 = 0 P a ⇒ P5 = 0 bar ⇒ P5bend = 18393.75 P a ⇒ P5bend = 0.1839375 bar (6) Pressure drop due to static head of the air: P6 = Lpipeline ∗  ∗ ρair ∗ g ∗ sin θpipe ⇒ P6 = 0 P a ⇒ P6 = 0 bar ⇒ P6bend = 72.10 P a ⇒ P6bend = 0.000721035 bar The total amount of pressure comes to: 8.9555 bar. The above parameters combined give the ideal system specifications found in Table 5.6.

5.8.3

System weight calculations

This section provides the weights for every component of the system, which will be later used for the new stability calculations. The center of gravities are taken form the Rhino model where the system was modelled. The pipe characteristics are found from the piping manufacturer brochure of ASME/ANSI B36.10/19 pipes and the following parameters were extracted in Table 5.7. 37

Table 5.6: Final sodium polyacrylate tank, pump and pipe specifications, 3-inch nominal diameter. Tank dimensions Volume 212 m3 Length 3.48 m Height 2.9 m Breadth 21 m

Pump specifications Qair Qair Qair ∆p

0.0511 m3 /s 3068 LPM 810.5 GPM 8.9555 bar

Piping specifications Din tpipe Dout

0.0737 m 0.00762 m 0.0889 m

Table 5.7: ASME/ANSI B36.10/19 pipe specifications. Type 80 nominal diameter 3 inches 0.0762 m 2 Area of material 3.016 inches 0.001945803 m2 Weight 10.25 pounds per foot 15.25364 kg/m The storage tank weight is found by the following: Tank weight = ttank ∗ 2 ∗ (Btank ∗ Htank ∗ Ltank ) = = 0.02 ∗ 2 ∗ (21 ∗ 2.9 ∗ 3.48)/1000 = 45.18505 tonnes Both the tank and support thicknesses are taken from the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) model generated, which is presented later on, as 0.02 and 0.015 m, respectively. The straight section of the pipe running through the ballast water tanks is 132 meters long and has the biggest contribution to the piping weight. The small bends going into the cargo holds, which have 0.5 meters length each, have been excluded from the weight calculations due to their small accumulative weight contribution (only 0.15 tonnes — less than 4% of the total). The weight is hence determined as: Pipe weight = Lpipeline ∗ weight per metre = 132 ∗ 15.25364 = = 2.01348 tonnes 1000 There are two straight pipe sections symmetrically positioned along the vessel’s centreline. The weight is the same for both sections, where the only difference is the transverse arm between the two. Figure 5.18 shows the ANSYS model for the tank support. As it can be seen, the support comprises of seven transversely running stiffening strakes and two longitudinally running plates, the surface area of which are taken from Rhino: Stiffener surface area = 0.42994 m2 Plate 1 surface area = 0.16433 m2 Plate 2 surface area = 0.10327 m2 The thickness of all the strakes and plates is tsupport = 0.015 m and the stiffening strakes are all symmetrically positioned with respect to the middle one. Since the seven strakes are identical, their weights are combined together: 38

Figure 5.18: Chemical tank support illustration.

Total support stiffener weight = 7 ∗ stiffener surface area ∗ tsupport = = 7 ∗ 0.42994 ∗ 0.015 = 0.353893 tonnes Plate 1 weight = Plate 1 surface area ∗ tsupport = = 0.16433 ∗ 0.015 = 0.019323 tonnes Plate 2 weight = Plate 2 surface area ∗ tsupport = = 0.10327 ∗ 0.015 = 0.012143 tonnes

The weight of each of the two phase flow pumps is taken as an estimate of 200 kg or 0.2 tonnes. The resultant centres of gravities are taken from the Rhino, where the positions of the system components have been modelled. Table 5.8 gives a summary of the weights that are added to the lightship for the new stability calculations.

5.9

On-Shore Solution

An alternative to retrofitting the distribution system to the vessel is to store the chemical on shore. In its simplest form, the on-shore system consists of a silo, which is used for the storage of the chemical, and a ship loader, which is used for the loading of the chemical into individual cargo holds. Figure 5.19 illustrates the preliminary sketch of the system. The considerable advantage of the on-shore system design is its simplicity in terms of the engineering work involved. Possibility of using gravity filling means that a simple valve could control the amount of the chemical that falls on to the conveyor belt, on top of which cargo susceptible to liquefaction would already be moving. However, the negative points should also be taken into consideration. The availability of the chemical where the ports are located is not certain, especially in remote areas, 39

Table 5.8: Chemical storage and distribution system weight summary. Item name

Total mass (tonnes)

Long. Aft arm (m) Limit m

Fwd. Limit m

Trans. arm m

Vert. arm m

Straight pipe (sb) Straight pipe (p) Tank Supports stiffeners (sb) Supports plate 1 (sb) Supports plate 2 (sb) Supports stiffeners (p) Supports plate 1 (p) Supports plate 2 (p) Two-phase flow pump (sb) Two-phase flow pump (p)

2.014 2.014 45.185 0.354 0.019 0.012 0.354 0.019 0.012 0.2 0.2

98 98 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 31.922 31.922

164 164 32.241 32.241 32.241 32.241 32.241 32.241 32.241 31.922 31.922

11.7 -11.7 0 9.639 10.5 8.636 -9.639 -10.5 -8.636 12.03 -12.03

17.375 17.375 19.55 17.983 17.958 18.011 17.983 17.958 18.011 18 18

32 32 28.759 28.759 28.759 28.759 28.759 28.759 28.759 31.922 31.922

where many bulk cargoes are loaded; thus, the cost of transportation from the place of availability to the place of demand has to be taken into consideration. Another concern is that not all ports have the facilities and infrastructure to manage the on-shore application, i.e. some ports don’t use ship loaders, but rely instead on the equipment installed on-board of the ship. When the ship encounters heavy seas or rainstorms, and there is ingress of seawater into the cargo hold exceeding the moisture content and leading to cargo liquefaction, supplementing with additional chemical is not possible without the system being installed on board. Based on prior calculations, 265 tonnes of SP is needed for every cargo loading scenario. Based on the available sizes provided by Jiangsu Hengxin Silo Equipment based in China [13], as illustrated in Table 5.9, the 300 tonne model is sufficient to provide the amount needed. However, it must be taken into consideration that the density that was considered is 0.75 t/m3 , while SP has a density of 1.25 t/m3 . Therefore, the volume that can be stored is 240 m3 instead of 409 m3 . The cost of the silo ranges from 15 to 20 USD/tonne. For a 300 tonne silo, the price ranges from 4,500 to 6,000 USD. On a side note, a larger silo should be selected for individual ports, depending on their traffic and total loading capacity (daily, weekly, monthly) and determining which is the most reasonable option.

5.10

Effect of the On-Board Solution on Stability

The effect of the inclusion of the distribution system and the application of the chemical itself needed to be assessed with regards to its effect on the vessel stability. The additional weights due to the distribution system and the chemical itself are the primary factors that need to be considered. The change of cargo density due to super absorbent’s effect is the second main factor that will have an effect on the ship’s stability. In order to prove that the change is marginal and can easily be counteracted, the stability is rerun and the changes are discussed. First and foremost, the additional weight form the system is determined. The calculations are performed in the components weight sub-section of the chemical distribution section. All the additional weight, consisting of the tank, tank supports,

40

Figure 5.19: On-shore storage and distribution system illustration.

Table 5.9: Silo models and specifications by Hengxin Silo Equipment. Capacity (t)

Volume (m3 )

Density (t/m3 )

Diameter (m)

Height (m)

200 300 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 5000

263 409 637 1318 2028 2630 3387 4070 4682 6732

0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

5 6 7 10 12 14 15 16 18 22

13 14 16 16 17 16 18 19 17 16

41

piping, pump and chemical itself, have been included into the lightship. The new lightship is given in Table 5.10. As for the effect on the load cases, the only real evaluation can be made on sand, since experiments have been performed only on sand, for which the effect on relative density of the cargo-chemical mixture has been evaluated. This provides the relative volume of the mixture, considering the expansion of the super-absorbent polymer. As for iron ore and nickel ore, the evaluation cannot be performed since no experiments have been undertaken, due to the lack of the bulk material. This is a possible area of study, where the properties are measured from experiments of various cargo and SP samples. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) or other software can also be developed in order to approximate the interaction. This part of the report aims to prove that the ship can retain its stability in the worst case scenario. Load cases LC9 and LC10 correspond to the loading condition of sand before the introduction of the liquefaction battling mechanism, and the moisture point for those cases was taken as the highest allowable, i.e. TML. The TML is equal to 90% of FMP and from the experiments it was found that for the tested sand the FMP is 15.9664%, hence:

FMP = 15.9664% TML = FMP ∗ 0.9 = 15.9664% ∗ 0.9 = 14.3697% This defines the set of two load cases (one for departure and one for arrival condition) for the initial sand condition. When the chemical is applied, the properties of the mixture change. The established relative mixture density trend line from the experiments is used to calculate the new density: ρ0.5%SP = −357.62 ∗ MP + 1650 Knowing the Moisture Point (MP) (14.3697%), the density is calculated: ρ0.5%SP = −357.62 ∗ 0.143697 + 1650 = 1598.611 kg/m3 This relative density is used for the cargo mixture for the first set of load cases, namely LC11 and LC12. The stability is performed and the results are shown in Appendices F and G, like in the previous analysis. It can be seen that the inclusion of the distribution system does have a minor effect on the stability. Since the target trim angle has been chosen to be no more than ±0.75, and the new stability results go overboard the target; a slight modification to the loading booklet needs to be made if this system is to be installed. The corrected load cases corresponding to LC11 and LC12, named LC11C and LC12C respectively, are also provided. The alteration in LC11C and LC12C involves a simple redistribution of the cargo between the holds, keeping the same total DWT as before corrected. A second set of two load cases is created, LC13 and LC14, which aim to evaluate the limit of the SP as a liquefaction battling mechanisms. LC11 and LC12 considered moisture limits equal to the TML of the sand alone, however, the inclusion of the chemical delays the FMP and TML of the cargo-chemical mixture and this point needs to be evaluated, since it is the new worst case scenario of the system. The new FMP and TML of the cargo-chemical mixture is as follows:

42

Table 5.10: LC0 New: Lightship Item name

Quantity Unit mass tonne

Total mass tonne

Long. arm m

Aft Limit m

Fwd. Limit m

Trans. arm m

Vert. arm m

MACHINERY PIPING FOREPEAK FCLE BHD CH1 ->CH2 BHD CH2 ->CH3 BHD CH3 ->CH4 BHD CH4 ->CH5

1 1 1 1 1 1

95 320 182 198 198 182

95 320 182 198 198 182

21 177.6 144.4 115.6 86.8 58

12.8 174 143.2 114.4 85.6 56.8

27.2 184.8 145.6 116.8 88 59.2

0 0 0 0 0 0

8.05 14 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5

CARGO SECTION MACHINERY SECTION CASING FUNNEL ACCOMMODATION

1 1 1 1

5600 1070 80 320

5600 1070 80 320

101.15 13.47 8 20

27.2 -4 5.6 14.4

175.2 27.2 12 28

0 0 0 0

6.9 11 25 26.5

CRANE 1 CRANE 2 CRANE 3 CRANE 4 HATCHES HATCH COAMING

1 1 1 1 1 1

57 57 57 57 880 205

57 57 57 57 880 205

144.4 115.6 86.8 58 99.3 100.4

144 115.2 86.4 57.6 32 32

144.8 116 87.2 58.4 167.2 167.2

0 0 0 0 0 0

32 32 32 32 19.5 18.9

OUTFIT FOR OUTFIT MID OUTFIT AFT

1 1 1

220 200 500

220 200 500

178.3 95.5 0

174.4 28 -16.5

186 174.4 28

0 0 0

20.5 18.5 21

1 1 1 1

18 18 18 18

18 18 18 18

144.4 115.6 86.8 58

143.2 114.4 85.6 56.8

145.6 116.8 88 59.2

0 0 0 0

25 25 25 25

DECK HOUSE FR.72 DECK HOUSE FR.144 ELECTRICAL BRIDGE EQUIPMENT TOOLS AND SPARES MAIN ENGINE SHAFTS PROPELLER AUXILIARY ENG MACHINERY COMP MACHINERY EQUIP PAINT AND CATH

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

12 12 25 6 15 220 28 17 38 80 115 130

12 12 25 6 15 220 28 17 38 80 115 130

58 115.6 34.8 20 24 17.5 8 2.6 4.7 11.8 14.3 67.2

56 113.6 4 16 20 12 4 1.6 1.6 -1.6 1.6 -4

60 117.6 72 24 27.2 23.2 12 4 8 24.8 25.6 186

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19.45 19.45 15.5 32 14.3 5.9 3.5 3.5 13.5 14.5 12.7 16

Straight pipe S Straight pipe P Tank Sodium polyacrylate Supports stiffeners S Supports plate 1 S Supports plate 2 S Supports stiffeners P Supports plate 1 P Supports plate 2 P Two-phase flow pump S Two-phase flow pump P

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2.01 2.01 45.19 265 0.35 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.02 0.01 0.2 0.2

2.01 2.01 45.19 265 0.35 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.02 0.01 0.2 0.2

98 98 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 31.92 31.92

32 32 28.76 28.76 28.76 28.76 28.76 28.76 28.76 28.76 31.92 31.92

164 164 32.24 32.24 32.24 32.24 32.24 32.24 32.24 32.24 31.92 31.92

11.7 -11.7 0 0 9.64 10.5 8.64 -9.64 -10.5 -8.64 12.03 -12.03

17.38 17.38 19.55 19.55 17.98 17.96 18.01 17.98 17.96 18.01 18 18

CRANE CRANE CRANE CRANE

PEDESTAL PEDESTAL PEDESTAL PEDESTAL

Total Loadgroup FS correction VCG fluid

1 2 3 4

11563.383 82.089

23.2 0.002 12.312

43

Table 5.11: Cargo redistribution due to the addition of SP. Load case

CH1

CH2

CH3

CH4

CH5

LC9 and LC10 LC11 and LC12 LC11C and LC12C LC13 and LC14 LC13C and LC14C

68% 87.10% 88% 90.38% 92%

0 0 0 0 0

68% 87.10% 87.10% 90.38% 90.38%

0 0 0 0 0

68% 87.10% 86.10% 90.38% 88.76%

FMP = 33.7748% TML = FMP ∗ 0.9 = 15.9664% ∗ 0.9 = 14.3697% This provides the following relative density of the cargo-chemical mixture: ρ0.5%SP = −357.62 ∗ 0.303974 + 1650 = 1541.293 kg/m3 Note that the tonnage in each cargo hold more or less does not change between LC11 and LC13 or LC12 and LC14. The only difference is the relative density and how full the cargo hold is due to this change of density. LC13C and LC14C were created due to the same reasons why a correction was required for LC11 and LC12 — the slight change in stability. Note that every loading condition has two sets of load cases — departure and arrival. Similarly to the performed stability before the introduction of the liquefaction battling mechanism, the loads in the cargo holds do not change between the arrival and departure, only the service tanks do. As a summary, the effect on the stability is mostly marginal, but enough to require a small redistribution of the cargo between the cargo holds. Since no change in ballasting condition is required, the effect is evaluated as marginal and not dangerous. Table 5.11 below is an extraction of Appendix G and shows the slight redistribution of the cargo between the holds. Table 5.11 shows both the required redistribution of cargo as well as the effect of the chemical on the relative mixture density. With just 0.5% chemical concentration, the relative density of the mixture increases by 28.1% for moisture equal to 14.3697%, and 35.29% for moisture equal to 30.3974%. The expansion of the chemical has a noticeable effect, and although it does not demand decrease of cargo DWT for the sand, it might do for other bulk cargoes. To be certain, tests or CFD analyses of the mixture need to be performed in order to evaluate the relative density, as well as other properties of the cargo-chemical mixture.

5.11

Three-Cargo Hold Structural Analysis

5.11.1

Aim

The aim of this FEA is to assess the implementation of the storage and distribution system on the vessel from a structural point of view. The analysis is carried out considering the global loads on the vessel. It is known that for a ship in still water, static forces will be dominating. Those forces come from a variety of sources: 44

• steel weight, • cargo distribution, • ballast water, • buoyancy and • the addition of the distribution system on board of the ship. Depending on the final distribution the ship will deform in either hogging or sagging manner.

5.11.2

Software and Analysis Type

ANSYS Workbench was chosen as the appropriate software to carry out the analysis. The type of analysis carried out is static structural with Mechanical ANSYS Parametric Design Language (APDL) as the solver target. For this type of analysis implicit time integration is used. In this scheme, the displacement is not dependent on time, with the acceleration and velocity terms being zero. {F } = [M ]{

dx(t) dx2 (t) } + [c]{ } + [k]{x} dt dt

Resulting in: {F } = [k]{x} Implicit problems consist of inversion of the stiffness matrix [k] to solve for the displacement {x}.

5.11.3

Assumptions

To simplify the modelling procedure and save computational time, some simplifications were considered: • insignificant cut-outs are not modelled; • the brackets are not modelled; • the cranes and hatch covers are not modelled; • owing to limited data available for modelling of the ship, the corrugated bulkhead together with the lower and upper stools were developed based on judgement developed through assessment of other, similar ships; • to save computational time only half of the model was developed, the port side; • to simplify the problem only one thickness was considered per body. Taking the web frame as an example an average thickness was assigned for the whole body.

45

Figure 5.20: Extent of the analysed model. Table 5.12: Properties of NVA steel for ship construction. Property

NVA32

Density 7850 Youngs modulus 206 Poissons ratio 0.3 Yield strength 315 Ultimate strength 515

5.11.4

NVA36

Unit

7850 206 0.3 355 555

kg/m3 GPa — MPa MPa

Numerical Model

Although the model was developed in Rhino 3D it was deemed more appropriate to use the default design package (design modeller) from ANSYS Workbench. The main reason for this approach is the poor communication between the two software suites, as well as the inability to manually select the element type used. Emphasising on the latter point, ANSYS Workbench assigns an element type depending on the modelling technique used (square vs triangular elements can be forced during the meshing procedure). The midship cargo hold region is modelled from frame 68 to frame 185; even though the three cargo holds only extend from bulkhead 73 to bulkhead 181, the modelled area was extended to take into consideration the lower and upper stools extending into the adjacent cargo holds. The extent of the model used in the analysis is illustrated in Figure 5.20. Two types of steel were used for defining the materials comprising the vessel structure. These were NVA32 and NVA36 steel grades, the properties of which can be seen in Table 5.12 and the legend of the scantlings is illustrated in Figure 5.21. Web Frame The web frame is stationed every 2.4 meters along the longitudinal direction of the ship. Large openings are considered, to take into consideration for the adequate deformation pattern under the bending loads. Small cut outs and sniped stiffeners are omitted, as they only affect the stiffness marginally. Ordinary Frame with Transverse Stiffening Two ordinary frames are placed in between web frames, resulting in a spacing of 0.8 m. Ordinary frames include brackets, and two stiffeners within the ballast tank between stringer 1 and 3.

46

Figure 5.21: Steel type legend.

Figure 5.22: Web frame (left) and ordinary frame (right).

47

Figure 5.23: Body plan and isometric view of bulkhead. Bulkhead As mentioned in the assumptions, owing to the limited availability of the drawings, the bulkhead was developed based on study of similar ships and engineering judgement. Three-Cargo Hold Model The developed model consists of 973 bodies, 9427 faces and 31944 vertices; to make it fit for analysis, joints were required to be made between bodies and edges. The number of edge joints generated is 15838 and the final model is illustrated in Figure 5.24. Meshing The regulatory requirement for the mesh sizing is to follow the stiffener spacing. Owing to the considerable detail included in the model, and specifically for the ordinary frames, a finer mesh was applied of 0.2 meters; this corresponds to exactly a quarter of the stiffener spacing of the vessel. Element Types For modelling the plates of the vessel, SHELL181 element is used. This element type consists of four nodes with six Degrees Of Freedom (DOF); three in the translational directions: UX, UY, UZ and three in rotational directions: RX, RY, RZ. Moreover, this element type is suitable to be used for linear analysis, as well as large rotation and large strain analyses. For modelling of the longitudinal and transverse stiffeners, BEAM188 element is used. This element is one-dimensional in three-dimensional space; nodes I and J are used for defining it in the global coordinate system. For this element to precisely 48

Figure 5.24: Isometric view of three-cargo hold model (port side).

Figure 5.25: Profile view of one cargo hold model, with the hatch coaming visible at the top (looking port).

49

Figure 5.26: View of inner bottom of midship.

Figure 5.27: Hatch coaming.

Figure 5.28: SHELL181 (left) and BEAM188 (right) elements.

50

Figure 5.29: Edges assigned to the remote point. represent the ship’s stiffening, a corresponding cross-sectional area is assigned to it. Beam elements use first-order deformation theory (Timoshenko beam theory). Boundary Conditions A challenging procedure of FEA is to apply Boundary Condition (BC) to the model in a realistic manner. The three-cargo hold model is treated as a simply supported beam for the analysis. To apply this condition on the forward and the aft end sections of the model, Remote Points (RPs) are defined. The RP connects the edges of the cross section to a single point located at the intersection of the centre line and the neutral axis; the objective of the connection is set to rigid. An image showing the edges connected to the RP is illustrated in Figure 5.29. The actual BC is applied on the RP. To satisfy the condition of a simply supported beam, the remote point at the aft section is constrained as shown in Table 5.13. As the model only represents the port side of the ship, a symmetry BC is applied to the model at the centre plane, as detailed in Table 5.13; the highlighted edges in Figure 5.30 illustrate the location where symmetry condition is applied.

51

Table 5.13: Boundary conditions at the end sections and centre plane. UX

UY

Aft. RP 0 0 Fwd. RP FREE 0 CP BC FREE 0

UZ

RX

RY

0 0 FREE

0 0 0

FREE 0 FREE 0 FREE 0

Figure 5.30: Symmetry boundary conditions.

52

RZ

Table 5.14: Maximum vertical bending moment per load case. Load case

M (106 ∗ kg ∗ m)

M (kg ∗ m)

M (N ∗ m)

LC9 LC10 LC13C LC14C

142.472 115.729 151.822 122.165

142472000 115729000 151822000 122165000

1,397,650,320.00 698,825,160.00 1,135,301,490.00 567,650,745.00 1,489,373,820.00 744,686,910.00 1,198,438,650.00 599,219,325.00

0.5*M (N ∗ m)

0.5*M (kN ∗ m) 698,825.16 567,650.75 744,686.91 599,219.33

Loading For this analysis, only the vertical still water bending moment is considered, consequently representing a pure bending case. The moments at the forward and aft sections are applied on the already defined remote points. As the model represents only half of the vessel, the actual bending moment is halved. For the analysis, 4 load cases have been considered. The cases are LC9, LC10, LC13C and LC14C, and they correspond to ship loaded with sand (departure), ship loaded with sand (arrival), ship loaded with sand including the distribution system design (departure) and ship loaded with sand including the distribution system design (arrival). The maximum vertical bending moment for each case is illustrated in Table 5.14. The aforementioned cases are considered, owing to the quantified density of the mixture (of the chemical and the sand) inside the cargo hold, allowing for correct tank filling and resulting in appropriate vertical bending moment. To check the effect of the distribution system and the chemical on the global strength of the ship structure, it is necessary to compare LC9 to LC13C and LC10 to LC14C, showing the global ship response before and after implementing the chemical distribution system.

5.11.5

Results

LC9 and LC13C The first model considered corresponds to LC9. The deformation of the model was checked at the start, to study the behaviour under the applied boundary conditions. As illustrated in Figure 5.31, the model does not deform at the defined RP, and as anticipated the maximum deflection occurs in the middle of the cargo hold, owing to the applied loads and boundary conditions. The maximum deflection is 42.512 mm. The addition of the distribution system in LC13C and the chemical inside of the cargo holds leads to an increase in the total deformation to 45.302 mm, as illustrated in Figure 5.32. By comparing the von-Mises results, it can be observed that the value for LC13C increases above the yield strength of NVA36 (Figure 5.34), which means that the material would permanently deform. The stress at the height of the neutral axis is 0, emphasised by the dark blue colour in the figure. The fact that the 3 cargo hold analysis is only fit for analysing the middle cargo hold, owing to the effect of boundary conditions that are present, is the most probable cause of the excessively high stresses which can be seen in Figure 5.36 and Figure 5.37. The stresses at the middle cargo hold do not exceed the limits as shown in Figure 5.35. As the model is simplified, the lack of structural detail, such as the brackets connecting the coaming 53

Figure 5.31: LC9 Total deformation (m).

Figure 5.32: LC13C Total deformation (m). to the upper deck, most likely also contributes to the high stress values. Further analysis with more structurally accurate coaming should be carried out to verify this. Otherwise, the solution to the problem is to alter the distribution of the sand inside of the cargo hold such that the bending moment reduces, or to decrease the amount of the cargo carried. The distribution of the von-Mises stresses on the web frames located in the middle cargo hold of the model are illustrated in Figure 5.38 for LC9 and Figure 5.39 for LC13C. From the screenshots it can be seen that the stress is considerably less than the yield strength of the steel used. LC10 and LC14C For the arrival conditions, the vertical bending moments are smaller, resulting in decreased total deformations. For LC10, the maximum deflection is 34.532 mm and for LC14C 36.453 mm. The stresses acting on the structure for the arrival conditions are below the yield point of the materials, meaning the structure will respond elastically. The results of von-Mises are shown in Figures 5.42 and 5.43. The distribution of the von-Mises stresses on the web frames for the LC10 and LC14 are shown in Figure 5.44 and Figure 5.45. The stresses are below the yield strength of the material.

Figure 5.33: LC9 von-Mises stresses (Pa).

54

Figure 5.34: LC13C von-Mises stresses (Pa).

Figure 5.35: LC13C Cargo Hold 3 von Mises stresses (Pa).

Figure 5.36: Close-up of the maximum von-Mises stress area for LC13C (Pa).

55

Figure 5.37: LC13C isometric view showing von-Mises stress distribution (Pa).

Figure 5.38: LC9 von-Mises stresses on the web frame (Pa).

56

Figure 5.39: LC13C von-Mises stresses on the web frame (Pa).

Figure 5.40: LC10 Total deformation (m).

Figure 5.41: LC14C Total deformation (m).

Figure 5.42: LC10 von-Mises stresses (Pa). 57

Figure 5.43: LC14C von-Mises stresses (Pa).

Figure 5.44: LC10 von-Mises stresses on the web frame (Pa).

Figure 5.45: LC14C von-Mises stresses on the web frame (Pa). 58

Figure 5.46: Isometric views of chemical tank and its support.

Figure 5.47: Tank support profile view (left) and cross-section view (right).

5.12

Chemical Tank Structural Analysis

The purpose of this analysis is to structurally assess the design of the tank. Specific considerations were given to the assessment of the supports and the thickness of the steel plates used.

5.12.1

Modelling, Meshing & Boundary Conditions

The modelled parts include the tank and supports, which are illustrated in Figure 5.46. The dimensions for the components used are shown in Figures 5.47, 5.48 and 5.49. The steel properties assigned by ANSYS to the tank are shown in Table 5.15. The model is constrained at the supports in all DOF, as represented by the flag A in Table 5.16. At flag B, the model is constrained in vertical motion Y, as this part of the model sits on top of the upper deck.

5.12.2

Loading

Knowing that the chemical is evenly distributed within the tank, it was considered appropriate to apply the load from inside of the cargo tank in terms of the hydrostatic pressure. The density of the chemical is 1250 kg/m3 , and the hydrostatic acceleration 9.81 m/s2 . A screen shot showing the application of the pressure inside of the tank can be seen in Figure 5.52 (to enable the viewer to see the pressure distribution, the top and one of the side faces are hidden). 59

Figure 5.48: Tank plan view (looking at the bottom).

Figure 5.49: Tank profile view.

Table 5.15: Properties of steel for chemical tank construction. Property

Value

Density 7850 Young’s modulus 211 Poisson’s ratio 0.3 Yield strength 250 Ultimate strength 460 Plate thickness 30 Support thickness 15

Unit kg/m3 GPa — MPa MPa mm mm

Table 5.16: Boundary conditions of the tank and supports. UX Supports (A) Plate (B)

UY

0 0 FREE 0

UZ

RX

RY

0 FREE

0 FREE

0 0 FREE FREE

60

RZ

Figure 5.50: Isometric view of the meshed model (coarse mesh).

Figure 5.51: Boundary conditions at the supports.

61

Figure 5.52: Application of hydrostatic pressure inside of the tank.

Figure 5.53: Mesh size convergence study.

5.12.3

Convergence Study

To select the appropriate mesh size for the model, a convergence study was carried out. The plot of convergence is shown in Figure 5.53 From the graph it can be observed that the results have not completely converged, however, taking into consideration that further decrease of the mesh size leads to a significant increase in computational time, and the fact that the percentage change in the total deformation is small (between mesh size number 3 and 4, at 0.24%), it is considered appropriate to use mesh size number 4.

5.12.4

Results

The failure is considered through the von-Mises failure criterion. It is taken that the material begins to yield at a point where the von-Mises becomes equal to the stress 62

Table 5.17: Numerical results of mesh size convergence study. Number

Mesh size (m)

Total deformation (m) Safety factor Von-Mises (Pa)

%∆ Total deformation

1 2 3 4

0.28808 0.14404 0.07202 0.03601

0.010752 0.011027 0.011111 0.011138

2.56% 0.76% 0.24%

4.3664 2.9379 2.2739 1.8914

5.73E+07 8.51E+07 1.10E+08 1.32E+08

Figure 5.54: Total deformation results (m). limit, therefore, the yield strength is used as the stress limit. To make sure that the material doesn’t fail, a Factor Of Safety (FOS) is considered: F OS =

σyieldstrength σvon−M ises

The safety factor for the applied loading conditions is 1.9. Displacement For the purpose of visualisation, the deformations are exaggerated 48 times. Owing to the applied boundary conditions, it can be observed that the tank plate deflects the most at the points where no direct support exists. Equivalent Stress As shown in Figure 5.55, the numerical result for the maximum von-Mises is significantly less that the yield strength.

63

Figure 5.55: Von-Mises results (Pa).

Figure 5.56: Safety factor results (Pa).

64

Chapter 6 Chemical Experiments 6.1

First Stage Experiments

The first series of experiments were designed to ascertain which of the proposed chemicals was most efficacious, and thus, which chemical would be taken forward for further study.

6.1.1

Representative Cargo

To model the cargo, building sand was purchased in bulk quantity on the high street. A large quantity was purchased to ensure that all samples in these and future experiments would have identical material properties, coming from the same container of sand. Preparation In order to ensure that the representative cargo moisture content could be precisely determined, the sand was completely dried before use. The sand was dried at a local ceramics studio by kiln firing to 1060 degrees Celsius. The kiln bungs (vents) were left open during the firing to allow all moisture to escape from the bulk sand. Once firing was complete, the kiln was resealed and left for 24 hours to cool. Immediately upon opening the kiln the next day, the sand was placed in an airtight and watertight container, which remained sealed until the sand had been transported to the laboratory for use.

6.1.2

Chemicals to be Tested

The chemicals chosen for study in the first stage of experiments were chosen such that one chemical from each of the most promising classes was used. These each have a different method of action and therefore a brief overview is provided for each of them. Bentonite Clay Bentonite clay is an adsorbent desiccant. In adsorption, water molecules are drawn and adhere to the surface of the desiccant granules, until the specific surface area of the material becomes saturated. At this point, additional water molecules are not 65

adsorbed. The hypothesis to be tested is that this adsorptive property will cause the FMP of the cargo to rise, as some amount of the cargo moisture content is retained in adhesion to the desiccant, and thus is not able to separate from the cargo body and cause liquefaction. Aluminium Sulphate Aluminium sulphate is a coagulant commonly used in water treatment. In such systems, the coagulant causes impurities and sediment, present in the water, to bind together and to settle, thus facilitating their removal. In water treatment systems, coagulants are applied to a largely fluid medium, with small quantities of solid sediment. The hypothesis to be tested is that this coagulation will occur in the largely solid medium of the representative cargo. The hypothesis is that the coagulation will cause the moisture content of the cargo to reliably separate from the solid portion at a lower total moisture level, causing the water to rise to the surface of the cargo, largely clear of cargo sediment and granules. This water could then be pumped overboard. Sodium Polyacrylate SP belongs to the family of super-absorbent polymers. The polymer can absorb up to 300 times its own weight in water. This occurs due to the hydrophilic polymer chains within the SP granules. These polymer chains attract water, and begin to disperse. These are prevented from dispersing completely (dissolving) however, by elastic retractory forces present across the polymer network. The granules continue to absorb water until the hydrophilic and dispersion resultant forces are in equilibrium with the elastic retraction. At this point the granule has swollen to its maximum size, and can absorb no more water. The hypothesis to be tested in this case is that this absorption will cause the FMP of the cargo to rise, as in the case of the Bentonite Clay desiccant described above, but by a differing method of action. Again, the hypothesis is that this will occur due to some quantity of the water within the cargo remaining absorbed inside the SP granule, and being unable to separate from the cargo.

6.1.3

Experimental Sample Preparation

For the first round of experiments, four samples were prepared for testing. These comprised: 1. control sample: 1 kg of representative cargo (kiln dried sand) 2. super-absorbent polymer testing sample: 990 g of representative cargo, 10 g of SP 3. desiccant testing sample: 990 g of representative cargo, 10 g of bentonite clay 4. coagulant testing sample: 990 g of representative cargo, 10 g of aluminium sulphate.

66

Figure 6.1: Cylindrical steel moulds on shaking table. Thus each sample had a total mass of 1 kg, and the additive concentration for each sample was identical at 1% by mass. The testing samples had their respective additives thoroughly mixed through the representative cargo such that the additives were evenly distributed throughout.

6.1.4

Experimental Procedure

The prepared samples were placed inside cylindrical steel concrete moulds of 100 mm diameter and 200 mm depth. (Figure 6.1) These testing vessels were then marked to identify the sample contained within, and placed simultaneously on a large shaking table. All four samples were placed on the shaking table together, so that all applied excitation is experienced equally across all samples. In each testing iteration, the shaking table is activated for 10 seconds, timed using a stopwatch. Once the shaking table has settled, the samples are observed, and any observations noted. A binary check for liquefaction is performed and noted. This procedure is repeated for each iteration. Before each iteration, exactly 10 g of water are added to each sample. Thus, each iteration increases the moisture level by some percentage. For example: by iteration 100, a sample would have 1 kg(100 ∗ 10 g) of water added, and thus would have a moisture level of 50%. This process of continually increasing moisture levels between iterations is continued until all samples have liquefied.

6.1.5

First Stage Experimental Results

The results from this first series of experiments are shown in Figure 6.2. The curve plotted represents the moisture content expressed as a percentage at each testing iteration. This curve then tends asymptotically to 100% as the number of tests approaches infinity. 67

Figure 6.2: Experimental stage 1 results. Overlaid on this curve are the liquefaction, or FMPs for each of the four samples. These indicate the point at which that particular sample was considered to have liquefied by means of a visual inspection. Aluminium Sulphate Testing Sample The testing sample containing the coagulant aluminium sulphate was the first to liquefy, at 13.79% cargo moisture content. This is in line with the hypothesis that this additive will promote separation of the solid and liquid components of the cargo mixture. It should be noted however, that contrary to the hypothesis, this separation did not result in the water rising to the surface of the sample, where it could be easily removed. Some portion of the water did exhibit this behaviour, but this was not uniform, and some of the separated water was expelled from the side and bottom of the testing vessel. Control Sample The control sample was the second sample to liquefy, doing so at 14.53% cargo moisture content. This is in line with expectations.

68

Bentonite Clay Testing Sample The desiccant testing sample was the next sample to liquefy. Liquefaction occurred at 15.25%. Again, this is in line with the hypothesis that the adsorbent properties of the Bentonite Clay cause water retention and an associated increase in moisture content. Sodium Polyacrylate The super-absorbent polymer testing sample was the final sample to liquefy. Interestingly the distinction between the non-liquefied and liquefied states was blurred significantly. With the preceding three samples, the transition to liquefaction was very clear, and the state of liquefaction was distinct, allowing for a simple Boolean statement on the state of the sample. This was not the case for the SP sample. The transition to a liquefied state is gradual. The range indicated on the above plot shows the region in which the sample is undergoing this transition. Across this range, the sample exhibits ”gel-like” properties, and can be considered as neither solid nor liquid absolutely. Even at the end of this range, where the sample was considered to be fully liquefied, there remained a thin gel-like property to the sample, although there was clear fluid separation at that point. This transitional zone occurred between 42.2%, and 45.95% cargo moisture content, although with the gradual nature of this transition, these figures should be considered to be of a more approximate nature than those for the other samples.

6.1.6

Discussion of Results

These results proved essential in the determination of the future direction of the project. The decision was made to choose SP to be taken forward for further testing, due to the significantly higher efficacy of this chemical when compared to the other samples. The coagulant testing sample performed as hypothesized, in that the additive promoted the separation of the solid and liquid components of the cargo. However, as the separated liquid did not uniformly rise to the surface of the cargo, the aim of removing this liquid to overboard on a vessel seems infeasible. Indeed, by separating the solid and liquid components of the cargo at a lower moisture level, without the ability to safely remove that liquid, aluminium sulphate may cause an increase in the probability of liquefaction occurring, completely counter to the project aims. For this reason, study of this chemical was not continued subsequent to this experimental test. The bentonite clay desiccant also performed as hypothesized, causing a delay in liquefaction, thought to be due to the adhesion of some quantity of the water to the bentonite granules, and subsequent retention of moisture within the cargo preventing separation. The effect however, is relatively modest at this concentration, and results in only a small increase in FMP. The high absorption rate of the SP led to a significant delay in liquefaction, and increased cargo cohesion, even in the liquefied state. Thus the super-absorbent polymer was chosen to be taken forward for further testing, and to be the solution of choice for further development of the project. Future design iterations and 69

calculations would now be taken considering the application of SP as the preferred method for combating liquefaction

6.2

Second Stage Experiments

Following the results from the first round of experiments, SP was chosen to be taken forward for further testing. This round of experiments was undertaken with the aim of determining the effect of both additive concentration and cargo homogeneity on the FMP of the samples.

6.2.1

Representative Cargo

A portion of the kiln dried sand, which was used in the first round of experiments, was sieved through a 600 micron filter in order to yield a finer and more homogeneous representative cargo. The sand was taken from the same container as the first round of experiments, and was prepared and transported in the same manner as detailed above. The filtering was performed in the laboratory, immediately prior to sample preparation.

6.2.2

Additive Concentration

The first parameter which the second stage experiments were designed to test was the concentration of SP in the representative cargo. The hypothesis is that the extent of the liquefaction delaying effect observed in the first experiments would correlate with the quantity of SP added to the samples. To this end, a lower additive concentration would be tested, with the expectation that a decreased effectiveness would be observed.

6.2.3

Cargo Homogeneity

The second round of experiments were also designed to test the effect of the cargo homogeneity, granule size, and uniformity. The representative cargo used in these experiments was the 600 micron filtered sand as described above. It was suspected that this would likely have some effect on the FMP. The exact nature of the effect was, however, not speculated upon.

6.2.4

Sample Preparation

Again, as in the first experimental stage, four samples were prepared for testing. In this second round of experiments, these comprised: 1. filtered control sample: 1 kg of representative cargo (600 micron, filtered, kiln dried sand) 2. filtered and unmodified concentration: 990 g of representative cargo (filtered), and 10 g of SP 3. filtered and reduced concentration: 995 g of representative cargo (filtered), and 5 g of SP 70

4. unfiltered and reduced concentration: 995 g of representative cargo (unfiltered — identical to representative cargo used in first round experiments), and 5 g of SP.

6.2.5

Experimental Procedure

The experimental procedure followed was identical to that of the first round of experiments. The same testing vessels, machinery, scales and measures were used, ensuring the validity of any comparison between results from the different experiment sessions.

6.2.6

Second Stage Experimental Results

Figure 6.3: Experimental stage 2 results. Figure 6.3 shows the results from this second round of testing. The results are plotted in the same format as those for the first round of experiments, with the curve representing the water content expressed as a percentage. Results from the experiments are again overlaid on this curve. Filtered Control Sample The control sample of 1 kg of 600 micron filtered sand was the first sample to liquefy, at a moisture level of 17.36%. It should be noted that the liquefaction behaviour was of the same nature as observed in the control, bentonite clay, and aluminium sulphate samples in the previous experiments, in that the transition to a liquefied state was clear, and immediate. 71

Unfiltered, Modified Concentration Sample The sample consisting of the coarse, unfiltered sand, and a 0.5% SP concentration by mass was the second sample to liquefy. This sample behaved similarly to the SP sample in the first round experiments. The transition to liquefaction was again observed to be gradual, with the sample displaying ”gel-like” behaviour during and post-liquefaction. The liquefaction transition range was observed to be both shorter, and to occur earlier than in the unfiltered and unmodified concentration sample, which was tested in the first round of experiments. The transition to liquefaction was observed to occur between moisture contents of 31.97% and 33.77%. Filtered, Modified Concentration Sample The sample consisting of 600 micron filtered sand, and a 0.5% SP concentration was the third sample to liquefy. This sample behaved in a similar manner to previous samples containing some quantity of SP, again showing the gradual transition to liquefaction behaviour. The liquefaction transition range for this sample was observed to occur between moisture contents of 33.77% and 35.06%. Filtered, Unmodified Concentration Sample The sample containing the 600 micron filtered sand, and a 1% SP concentration was the final sample to become liquefied in this series of experiments. Again, the behaviour of gradual transition to liquefaction was observed. The range was longer than that observed in those samples with reduced SP concentration, being of similar magnitude as the SP-containing sample in the first series of experiments. The observed range occurred between moisture contents of 43.82% and 47.09%.

6.2.7

Discussion of Results

The results from this series of experiments demonstrate the relationship between FMP and additive concentration. A difference between the two representative cargo homogeneities was also observed, but the exact cause of this is not determined. Additive Concentration The concentration of SP is shown to have 2 distinct effects. The results demonstrate that both the increase in FMP, and the range of the liquefaction transition are proportional to the SP concentration. The efficacy of a concentration of only 0.5% by mass is particularly impressive. This could translate to significant long term cost savings if the required quantity for cargo treatment can be minimised. The scaling of the transition range is an unexpected effect, however this has the potential benefit of providing an ”early warning” of liquefaction, and may increase cargo coherence, even in a liquefied state. This effect should be studied further in future work.

72

Figure 6.4: Effect of particle size and SP concentration. Cargo Homogeneity The representative cargo consisting of 600 micron filtered sand was shown to liquefy at a higher moisture level across all additive concentrations, and indeed, in the control samples with no SP additive. The exact method by which this occurs is not known. A proposed hypothesis is that the representative cargo itself has some degree of adsorbency. The filtration process removes particles larger than 600 microns, and thus the surface area in a mass of the filtered sand is significantly larger than the surface area in an equivalent mass of the unfiltered sand. The effective surface area for adsorption would then be increased. Future work is suggested to test the adsorptive capacity of real cargoes, as opposed to the representative cargo used in these experiments.

6.3

Combined Results

Plot 6.4 displays the effects discussed above. Included are control and both additive concentrations experiments for each representative cargo. Note that for the two results plotted for the 1% additive concentrations there is a degree of overlap of the liquefaction transitional zone. For each of these results, only the end of the liquefaction transition is indicated by the data labels, being the point where the samples were considered to be fully liquefied. The data points for the start of these ranges can be seen in the individual results sections above. The first round tests for the eliminated chemical additives (bentonite clay and aluminium sulphate) are not included on this plot. The uniformity of the 73

results allows for confidence in the result accuracy. The magnitude and scale of both the additive concentration and cargo homogeneity are consistent across the range of experiments undertaken.

6.4

Third Stage Experiments

A third round of experiments was undertaken to determine the volume increase of the representative cargo of sand and SP for various moisture points. Moisture contents were induced, ranging from 0%, to slightly above the liquefaction point (above FMP).

6.4.1

Sample Preparation

The experiments comprised of testing four samples on a shaking table with various concentrations of SP. The samples tested are as follows: 1. control sample: ”C”, 1000 g of sand 2. SP 1% concentration: ”SP1.0”, 990 g of sand and 10 g of SP 3. SP 0.5% concentration: ”SP0.5”, 995 g of sand and 5 g of SP 4. SP 0.25% concentration: ”SP0.25”, 997.5 g of sand and 2.5 g of SP

6.4.2

Experimental Procedure

1. The volume that the dry samples occupy in the cylindrical moulds is measured. The inner dimensions of the moulds are 10 cm diameter and 20 cm height. The volume that is unoccupied by the sample in the mould is measured and subtracted from the total capacity, to give the volume occupied by the mixture. 2. 20 g of water are added to the mixture and the shaking table is run for 10 seconds as measured by a stopwatch. Then, the above method for measuring the volume of the sample is applied again. 3. Step 2 is repeated until all samples reach liquefaction point. Once a sample liquefies, it is observed closely to determine the point of ”full liquefaction”, before being removed from the shaking table. 4. The data gathered from the measurements is later complied, and a trend of volume expansion and approximate relative density is calculated for various moisture points. The relative density is determined by dividing the total mass of the mixture (including the mass of sand, SP and water) by the measured volume from the tests

6.4.3

Results

For Figure 6.5, trend lines are calculated, in order to create a meta model for estimation of the density at any moisture point between 0% and the FMP. The equations of the linear trend lines are given below: 74

Figure 6.5: Density against moisture content. • ρcontrol = 1553.3 ∗ MP + 1821.5 • ρ0.25%SP = 303.56 ∗ MP + 1698.5 • ρ0.5%SP = −357.62 ∗ MP + 1650 • ρ1%SP = −422.14 ∗ MP + 1657.9

6.4.4

Discussion

The density and volume changes for the control sample are expected, since wet sand does have a higher density than dry sand and this trend can be observed in the derived trend line and Figure 6.5. The 0.25% SP sample displays interesting behaviour. Although the volume of the mixture increases, the mass does as well. Up to 13% moisture point, the density seems to very slowly decrease, due to the more rapid expansion of the SP. However, since this sample only has 0.25% concentration of the chemical, it quickly becomes saturated and the rest of the moisture is adsorbed by the sand. This results into a gradual increase of the mixture’s density after the 13% moisture point until the FMP is reached. Note that with this concentration, the sample behaves closer to the control sample than the other SP samples. The 0.5% SP and 1% SP samples are more representative of the desired behaviour. Since there is a larger concentration of the chemical, the rate of expansion of the chemical is more dominant than the adsorption rate of the sand, resulting in a more steady absorption of water throughout the tests. Due to this, the relative density for these samples show a slow and steady decrease. Since the 1% SP has a larger concentration of the chemical, the expansion is faster, and the density decrease per MP is more pronounced. Figure 6.6 shows the ratio of the volume increase of the 1% SP sample against the volume of added water. When the curve is above the red line, the mixture is

75

Figure 6.6: Ratio of volume increase of the 1% SP sample over added water volume, as the number of experiments increase. expanding at a greater rate than water is being added. Conversely, when the curve tends below this line the total expansion is less than the added volume of water. It is hypothesized that the point at which the curve crosses this line corresponds to the beginnings of the re-establishment of the original pore pressure, with the larger fraction of the added water molecules now settling between both sand and SP granules, rather than being entirely absorbed within the polymer matrix of the SP. This is likely resultant from the increasing elastic retractory forces in the polymer matrix, coupled with the decreasing dispersive forces from the hydrophilic strands as they become less densely packed.

6.5

Conclusion

The most pertinent results from these experiments are the density calculations for 0.5% SP. When performing analyses which need to consider the moisture content of the cargo, and the relative density of the mixture, the TML will be used. This is the worst allowable scenario for the condition of the cargo.

76

Chapter 7 Technological Safety and Risk Assessment 7.1

Background

The concept behind this project is fundamentally unique and therefore requires an appropriate framework on which to structure the development of the idea. In order to meet the ultimate goal of preventing liquefaction, priority must be given to safety and steps must be taken to demonstrate that the design meets this primary objective. Conventional rule-based design aims to satisfy requirements as set out by the owner or obligations outlined by the class societies. To this end, a balance between performance, cost and earnings is seen as the main driver behind the design philosophy, where safety is applied as a constraint. [14] Therefore, a risk-based approach is needed to qualify the technology that will be applied to the ship to solve the problem of liquefaction. Albeit, the ship itself will already meet the required standard. Thus, a systematic approach as set out in the DNV-GL Technology Qualification [15] for novel technology will be implemented. The objective of this recommended practice concurs exactly with a core project objective, which is to develop a technological solution to the problem of liquefaction that functions reliably and safely. The DNV-GL literature presents clear risk management strategies in order to reduce or eliminate the uncertainties associated with innovative, unprecedented, and non-proven technologies such as that proposed by this project.

7.2

Basis for Qualification

Technology qualification is achieved through evaluating activities and decisions against a common set of principles. This Technology Qualification Basis (TQB) shall describe the system, how it will be used, its purpose and how it will be integrated into the ship, the operational environment, the required functionality, acceptance criteria and expected performance of the technology. A technology qualification process will be implemented to satisfy the requirements therein. Evidence is provided by the experimental data and the system design portions of the report, to support the qualification process, which are at a sufficient level of detail for the current stage of development. The documentation is transparent, traceable, and fulfil the requirements of the qualification process. The level of qualification

77

effort is equivalent to the level of uncertainty in the technology.

7.3

Technology Development and Qualification Process

For this project, the qualification process progressed as the technology was being developed. The DNV-GL Technology Qualification document states that there is an inverse correlation between uncertainties in the technology and stage of evolution, meaning that as the technology is developed through the qualification process by gathering evidence, confidence in the technology is strengthened. At this early stage of development, the qualification process was assessed by qualitative means i.e. expert judgement. As the technology development advances through experimental methods, quantitative (empirical) data was utilised. It is important to note, however, that expert judgement could not be eliminated completely, as the evidence supporting the technology was based on the interpretation of the empirical data. The structure of the basic technology qualification process can be seen in Figure 7.1. This process went through iterations, the number of which will depended on changes to either the technology itself, the acceptance criteria, or reliability and/or performance.

7.4

Technology Qualification

The purpose of this NTQ section of the report is to provide evidence that the chemical solution to the problem of liquefaction and the proposed distribution system, shall function within specified operational limits with an acceptable level of confidence. This NTQ shall be considered the first iteration in line with the level of maturity of the technology. The aim is to identify uncertainties within the system and to address these as methodically as possible within the given scope of this project. The technological solution presented in this report is unique, in that there is no precedent on which to base or compare findings. The risk addressed in this project is not being introduced by the chemical, rather the chemical is a solution to the risk that is inherent in the problem of liquefaction itself. The aim of this project is to alleviate risk, not to introduce risk to an existing system. Therefore, the basis on which this qualification will stand is on the experimental data performed by the project team and the analysis and implementation of a comparable delivery system, whereby the purpose of which is altered to suit the ambitions of this project. To this end, the qualitative actions performed herein shall focus on the novelty of the solution to provide certification to support its viability.

7.4.1

Technology Description

To address the problem of liquefaction, a chemical solution was taken forward as the best option within the scope of this project. This decision was based on guidance from the advisory panel, the economic analysis performed in the business case, and the results of the experiments performed. A piping system was then designed 78

Qualification Basis Set the requirements

Technology Assessment Modification

Novelty and prohibitive obstacles

Threat Assessment Failure modes and risks

Qualification Plan Select quantification method

Execution of the Plan Collect evidence

Performance Assessment Verify compliance with requirements

Requirements met?

No

Yes Technology Qualified Figure 7.1: Technology qualification process.

79

through an iterative process, from which the most suitable design could be chosen for delivering the chemical to the cargo. As an alternative to the on-board distribution, the viability of a shore-based system is also explored. The system aims to deliver the chemical solution via a piping system similar to a dry fire suppression system. The chemical will be held in a tank aft of cargo hold 5, which is forward of the superstructure. Consideration has been made towards giving adequate space between the superstructure and the tank, so as not to obstruct critical pathways of routine and emergency operations. The piping system runs through a piping duct, located inwards of the wing ballast tanks; this is as detailed in the storage and distribution section earlier in this report. The piping system is controlled via Air-Operated Double-Diaphragm (AODD) pumps situated at the tank side part of the system. The system is designed to use compressed air to drive the AODD pumps, thus forcing the chemical through pipes and dispersing it evenly into the cargo spaces during loading operations. System limitations that were identified during the preliminary design were that the system would: 1. not be able to efficiently pump the chemical vertically, 2. moisture in the system would adversely affect the delivery and performance of the chemical, 3. only enough chemical for one use would be able to be stored on-board 4. water contained in the cargo with a high salt content would adversely affect the performance of the chemical solution. There are no current regulations that directly relate to the chemical or the proposed use for the system. The IMSBC Code addresses the moisture limits in bulk cargoes, yet the methods for testing this are unreliable. A prospective outcome of this project would be to extend the current regulation to include the preventative measure of using SP as a means of ameliorating liquefaction. It would be prudent to test the chemical solution at full scale to directly quantify the benefit, giving solid evidence towards the solution, although at this stage of development this would be outside the scope of this project. Also, representative data for moisture levels in cargoes would be advantageous, so as to quantify the experimental data produced earlier in this report. Regrettably, this data was unattainable and, as a result, the qualification activities performed within this NTQ will be qualitative. The design of the system is relatively standard, although the specification itself is unique. The pumps will need to be manufactured by commission to meet the specific design requirements. The piping is chosen from a standard schedule of piping of nominal sizes. The chemical distribution system is designed with a basic steel rectangular prism tank; this was deemed to be the most suitable configuration for the design at this initial stage. Transportation of the chemical from shore to ship shall be straightforward, in this case the calculated volume needed for one application is 212 m3 . The re-filling of the tank can be facilitated via cranes which will load the chemical from the shore side. The installation of the system will be in line with current regulations for installing piping onboard a vessel. It will be operated via a simple control system which can be calibrated to disperse the chemical at the rate dictated by the current loading operation. 80

The maintenance plan for the chemical distribution system shall be integrated into the current maintenance strategy for the vessel. The system components will be designed to achieve the ideal system specification, as outlined in the storage and distribution section of this report. The composition of these parts shall comply with current regulation, although extra steps will be taken to ensure the safe operation of the system and to protect the chemical from moisture.

7.4.2

Performance Description

The technology is at the concept stage of development. The chemical has proven to be successful in the laboratory tests for liquefaction of sand. There was an attempt to test the chemical in iron oxide, as outlined in the chemical experiments section of this report, but these were unsuccessful due to the testing facilities being unable to cope with the particle size of the iron oxide. To continue with the qualification process, the reliability would need to be tested on a larger scale. This shall involve further experimentation with the chemical mixed in a material such as iron ore, in order to demonstrate the chemicals performance in real terms. Facilities which could provide shaking tables that could be calibrated to run at specific amplitudes and frequencies representative of the vessel motions would be advantageous. This will be further detailed in the future work section of this report, where qualification activities to determine reliability, availability, and maintainability targets shall be given. The chemical is not classified as a hazardous substance, although respiratory exposure recommendations are given as 0.05 mg/m3 over 8 hours. Although, this is not deemed to be an issue for the particle size used in this solution as it is out with the respirable range. The chemical can cause extremely slippery conditions when wet, therefore suitable provisions would need to be made to deal swiftly with any spillages of the chemical. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) would be recommended when dealing with the chemical during loading operations, including the refilling of the tank; this would include wearing protective goggles and masks when dealing with the chemical directly. Also, first aid measures will need to be introduced with regards to flushing the chemical from eyes, should this occur. The chemical is non-toxic and non-flammable, it has a National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) rating of minimal hazard for fire and reactivity. The concept solution to the problem states that a delay of liquefaction is expected by distributing SP into the cargo via a piping system. The experimental data shows that at 0.5% chemical concentration in sand, the process of liquefaction was delayed from 14.53% water content in the coarse control sample, to 31.97% and from 17.36% water content in the fine control sample, to 33.77%. The promising results obtained during the experiments make a valid case for taking the chemical solution forward as possible solution to the problem of liquefaction.

7.4.3

Technology Assessment

The TQB outlined previously forms the input to this Technology Assessment. The produced output from this Technology Assessment is an inventory of the novel technology elements, their main challenges, and uncertainties.

81

Table 7.1: Critical level hazards and risks. ID

Hazard

Risk

Probability

Impact

Risk index

1

Liquefaction of cargo

Loss of ship/lives

4

5

20

2

Unacceptable moisture levels in cargo Liquefaction occurs

4

5

20

Table 7.2: Critical risk control measures. ID

Control measure

Probability

Impact

1

Mitigation of liquefaction through application of chemical solution

2

5

10

2

Prevention of liquefaction through application of chemical solution

1

5

5

7.4.4

Risk index

System Functionality

The system will be operated during the cargo loading operations via an electronic control system that will allow for a variable flow rate of up to 50 t/h, subject to the pump capacity. The chemical solution will be applied to the cargo, which will most likely be iron or nickel ore. The system shall transport SP from the tank to each of the 5 cargo holds. Delivery to each specific cargo hold can be specified dependent upon the loading conditions for that cargo. The delivery of the chemical into the hold shall be evenly distributed throughout the cargo.

7.4.5

Identification of Main Challenges and Uncertainties

In order to assess the main challenges and threats in relation to the chemical solution and distribution system, a high level HAZID of the technology is performed. The HAZID shall provide an improved understanding of the system at the earliest stage of development prior to the threat assessment. The HAZID was performed using a risk matrix to clearly identify the elements of the project and the system that posed the most risk. The method used for this report gives a rating for both the likelihood of occurrence and the severity of the impact of such an event occurring by assigning a number between 1 and 5. The total risk rating is then determined by the product of these two values. This is the same method followed in the management risk section, and Figure 4.2 shows the risk ratings derived. A full HAZID of the technical risks can be seen in Appendix K. A summary of the most critical elements identified during the HAZID workshop can be seen in Table 7.1. The catastrophic risk identified within this project’s focus are the occurrence of liquefaction itself, the control options as identified within the scope of this project are outlined in Table 7.2. As can be seen from these tables, the chemical solution for tackling liquefaction, as outlined, is to reduce the occurrence of such an event. This, therefore, lowers the risk posed by the occurrence of liquefaction. The experiments have shown the capability of the chemical for delaying liquefaction in sand; it is therefore understood that the same positive results would be found in other mediums, such as iron ore, although further tests should be performed to solidify this reasoning. The medium level risks as posed by the chemical, and the storage and distribution system, can be seen in Table 7.3. To address the riskier elements posed — within the scope of the project subject matter and the distribution system as described — control measures were decided 82

Table 7.3: Medium level hazards and risks. ID

Hazard

Risk

Probability Impact

3

Chemical not thoroughly mixed with cargo

Insufficient mitigation of lique- 3 faction

4

Inaccurate measurement of Unacceptable moisture levels in moisture limits in cargo and cargo inadequacy of current testing methods

5

Damage to the storage tanks

Risk index

5

15

3

4

12

Spillage of chemical on deck 3 could causing slip hazard

4

12

6

Small Particles of Chemical be- Worst case cancer causing prop- 2 ing inhaled erties/health risk

5

10

7

System implemented for dis- Loss of ship/lives tributing chemical negatively affecting stability

2

5

10

8

Bad/wet weather conditions while loading

Moisture levels too high — liq- 2 uefaction occurs

5

10

9

Stored chemical becoming con- Chemical does not work effec- 2 taminated tively

5

10

10

Pipe is damaged and chemical Contamination of the ballast 2 is leaked into the ballast tanks and blockage

4

8

11

Chemical storage is placed near Particles of the chemical are 2 to accommodation released into the atmosphere, chemical is inhaled

4

8

12

Obstruction to access routes, Evacuation routes are hindered 2 corridors, escape routes causing issues during an emergency

4

8

83

Table 7.4: Medium risk control measures. ID

Control measure

Probability Impact

Risk index

3

Ensure proper mixing

1

3

3

4

Devise accurate measuring systems

2

4

8

5

Clean up procedure in place in case of spillage

2

3

6

6

Protective clothing such as masks to be worn when ex- 1 posed to the chemical

2

2

7

Proper analysis and design of system

1

5

5

8

Design system to have variable application rate to deal 1 with increased water moisture levels due to rain

3

3

9

Design storage system to be self-contained to protect 1 cargo

2

2

10

Pipes are protected by the pipe shaft

1

4

4

11

Chemical particle size is outside of the respirable range

1

2

2

12

System is designed to allow adequate space in the vicinity 1 of the tanks and pipes

3

3

Table 7.5: Technology categorisation table. Degree of novelty of technology Application area

Proven

Known 1 Limited Knowledge 2 New 3

Limited field history

New or unproven

2 3 4

3 4 4

upon with a view to safety, prevention, detection, and control. The objective of the project is to manage the risk of liquefaction occurring by means of preventing the event in the first instance. The control options agreed upon to control the risk as presented by the chemical solution can be seen in Table 7.4. As can be seen in these tables, the risk shall be lowered to an acceptable level by implementing the control options as stated. Further analysis is required to quantify the risk reduction, this shall be done by performing further tests and applying the results to data gathered from ports in respect to moisture levels in iron ore cargoes. This measure is currently outside the scope of this project.

7.4.6

Technology Categorisation

To focus where the novelty is greatest, and therefore uncertainty is high, novelty categorisation is used. The novelty of the technology itself and the area of application affect the uncertainty associated with the technology. Categorisation indicates the following: 1. no new technical uncertainties 2. new technical uncertainties 84

3. new technical challenges 4. demanding new technical challenges.

7.4.7

Technology Composition

Table 7.6 details a high level, top down assessment of the chemical storage and distribution system, as earlier outlined in the storage and distribution section of this report. Table 7.6: Top down assessment of the chemical storage and distribution system. Technology categorisation

Component

3 3 3 3

Chemical tank Storage of the chemical SP Pumps To force the chemical through the piping system Straight piping To distribute the chemical into the cargo 90◦ bend piping To distribute the chemical into the cargo

7.4.8

Component function

Threat Assessment

The input to this threat assessment is taken from the TQB and the novel elements as specified in the technology assessment. The associated output is the failure mode register, containing the identified failure modes and the associated risks. The approach used in order to assess the technology and the components therein is the FMECA. This is a systematic approach facilitating the identification of potential problems that may occur in the system. It will examine the effects and associated risk category of specific failure modes, and identify the root causes. The system will be re-assessed after the implementation of the mitigation method. FMECA is a recognised, industry wide recommended best practice and an integral part of any successful system, design, or process implementation. Each of the high level components, as described in the technology composition, are assessed with respect to potential failure modes, the root causes, and possible outcomes. A risk category (low, medium, high) is assigned as decided during the team workshops; this can be seen in Table 7.7. During the FMECA process, one high level risk was identified; that of the possibility of clogging. As is described in the storage and distribution section of this report, the issue of clogging should not have an adverse effect on the selected pumps. The pumps are designed to handle some back pressure therefore, this should not cause any adverse reaction in the system. If clogging is discovered, system maintenance should be performed to clear the blockage before normal operations resume. Also, the system shall be designed such that clogging does not occur, this operational standard shall be achieved by safeguarding against moisture in the system.

7.4.9

Risk Assessment

The risks, as identified for the system components in the technology assessment, are now re-evaluated with the mitigation measure in place; this can be seen in Table 7.8. 85

Table 7.7: FMECA — Threat assessment. Item Part

Root cause

Risk category

Failure mode

1

Tank

Corrosion

M

Material de- Leak of chemical on the deck area formation

2

Tank

Brittle fracture due to contact

M

Fracture

Chemical escapes from container

3

Tank

Ageing

L

Leak

Escape of chemical from tank openings

4

Pumps System failure H due to clogging

Blocking

Back pressure on pump causing damage

5

Pumps Material fatigue

M

Cracking

Reduced pumping pressure

6

Pumps Wear of internal M components

Cracking

Diminished pump performance

7

Pumps Vibration

L

Leak

Chemical escapes from pump casing

8

Pipes

Breakage/damage M of pipes

Leak

Chemical is leaked from pipe

9

Pipes

Worn out valves

10

Pipes

System failure H due to clogging

M

Effect

Leak

Chemical is escaped

Blocking

Back pressure on pump causing damage

Table 7.8: FMECA — Risk assessment. Item

Effect

Mitigation measure

Risk category

1

Leak of chemical on the deck area

Maintenance and clean-up procedure

L

2

Chemical escapes from container

Operation and clean-up procedure

L

3

Escape of chemical from tank openings

Maintenance and clean-up procedure

L

4

Back pressure on pump causing damage

Monitor operation with sensors

L

5

Reduced pumping pressure

Maintenance procedure

L

6

Diminished pump performance

Maintenance and monitoring

L

7

Chemical escapes from pump casing

Maintenance procedure

L

8

Chemical is leaked from pipe

Stop operation and repair

M

9

Chemical is escaped

Maintenance procedure

L

10

Back pressure on pump causing damage Monitor operation with sensors

86

L

The risk presented within the system components can be addressed simply by incorporating the system into the maintenance procedures already performed onboard. Additionally, clean-up procedures shall be included in the system operating manual and in-built monitoring measures within the system shall resolve some of the risks posed. This assessment is in line with the level of maturity of the technology.

7.4.10

Consequences of Failure

In terms of the technology failing, the only direct consequence would be that the chemical solution would not be applied to the cargo. In a wider sense this could then increase the probability of liquefaction occurring, although the risk involved herein would be beyond the scope of this NTQ. At this concept stage, the effect of the system on any interfacing elements of the vessel has not been assessed. It is assumed that the distribution and storage system is its own boundary and would have no adverse effect beyond that of a standard piping system. It is considered to function within the requirements of current regulation. Therefore, failure between interfaces can be considered negligible. Failed operation of the system may occur if the chemical clogs up inside the pipes. Although, this is not deemed to be a critical issue as the pumps are designed to handle some back pressure. The full scale system will be designed with pressure monitors to ensure that the system is functioning within the operational requirements. The chemical is non-toxic, non-flammable, and poses no harm to the environment. Health and safety concerns raised regarding spillage of the chemical presenting a slip hazard when wet are addressed within the standard operating procedures. These will be provided when the technology is at the implementation stage.

7.4.11

Probability of Failure

Due to the absence of quantitative statistical data to which the experimental data could be applied, the probability of failure can not be determined at this stage. In the next iteration of the design and with further experiments, it is expected that this data would be provided as part of any future work to evolve the findings presented in this project.

7.4.12

Qualitative Probability Classes

Conservative estimates can be made in lieu of evidence, where conservatism shall increase with novelty and assumptions shall be substantiated. This can be done for novel elements in the early stages of development, by using standard probability classes as outlined in the DNV-GL NTQ document (Table 7.9). Due to the infancy of the concept it would be imprudent to apply this logic since the operational profile of the system is unverified in the field.

7.4.13

Experimental Methods

The experimental programme is outlined in the chemical experiments section of this report. The purpose of the experiments was to measure the effectiveness of SP as a means of delaying liquefaction in sand. The empirical results have been documented, clearly demonstrating the unequivocal benefit of the chemical solution. 87

Table 7.9: Industry standard probabilities.

No.

Description

1 2 3 4 5

Failure is not expected (pf =) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

40 n/a 102.7 1.7189

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 42.6679

30

Pass

2382.28

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 44.5 0.2

deg deg m

44.5 4.49

deg

44.5

deg

44.5

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

2145

Pass Pass

78.18

Pass 0 0.15

166

deg m

8.255

Pass

5403.33

Table G.2: LC2 tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

Value

3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

Pass

1933.05

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 114.1 deg 5.1566 m.deg 109.7354

Pass

2028.06

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 114.1 deg 1.7189 m.deg 45.6678

Pass

2556.8

Pass 30

deg

30

90 44.5 0.2

deg deg m

44.5 4.898

deg

44.5

44.5

deg

3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

167

Status

0

30 deg 30 114.1 deg 3.1513 m.deg 64.0676

25

3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

7.936

Pass

5190.67

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

30 114.1 3.1513

deg 30 deg m.deg 64.0676

0

Pass

1933.05

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

40 n/a 114.1 5.1566

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 109.7354

0

Pass

2028.06

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

40 n/a 114.1 1.7189

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 45.6678

30

Pass

2556.8

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 44.5 0.2

deg deg m

44.5 4.898

deg

44.5

deg

44.5

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

2349

Pass Pass

78.18

Pass 0 0.15

168

deg m

7.936

Pass

5190.67

Table G.3: LC3 tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

1262.44

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 109.1 deg 5.1566 m.deg 78.1912 Pass

1416.33

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 109.1 deg 1.7189 m.deg 35.2566 Pass

1951.11

Pass 30

deg

30

90 43.6 0.2

deg deg m

43.6 3.819

deg

43.6

43.6

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

169

Status

0

30 deg 30 109.1 deg 3.1513 m.deg 42.9347 Pass

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

5.239

Pass

3392.67

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

30 109.1 3.1513

deg 30 deg m.deg 42.9347

0

Pass

1262.44

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

40 n/a 109.1 5.1566

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 78.1912

0

Pass

1416.33

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

40 n/a 109.1 1.7189

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 35.2566

30

Pass

1951.11

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 43.6 0.2

deg deg m

43.6 3.819

deg

43.6

deg

43.6

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

1809.5

Pass Pass

74.54

Pass 0 0.15

170

deg m

5.239

Pass

3392.67

Table G.4: LC4 tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

1397.99

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 113.8 deg 5.1566 m.deg 85.1071 Pass

1550.45

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 113.8 deg 1.7189 m.deg 37.9008 Pass

2104.95

Pass 30

deg

30

90 44.5 0.2

deg deg m

44.5 4.133

deg

44.5

44.5

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

171

Status

0

30 deg 30 113.8 deg 3.1513 m.deg 47.2062 Pass

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

5.598

Pass

3632

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

30 113.8 3.1513

deg 30 deg m.deg 47.2062

0

Pass

1397.99

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

40 n/a 113.8 5.1566

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 85.1071

0

Pass

1550.45

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

40 n/a 113.8 1.7189

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 37.9008

30

Pass

2104.95

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 44.5 0.2

deg deg m

44.5 4.133

deg

44.5

deg

44.5

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

1966.5

Pass Pass

78.18

Pass 0 0.15

172

deg m

5.598

Pass

3632

Table G.5: LC5 tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

1280.37

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 143.2 deg 5.1566 m.deg 74.0984 Pass

1336.96

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 143.2 deg 1.7189 m.deg 30.5987 Pass

1680.13

Pass 30

deg

30

90 59.1 0.2

deg deg m

59.1 3.789

deg

59.1

59.1

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

173

Status

0

30 deg 30 143.2 deg 3.1513 m.deg 43.4997 Pass

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

5.74

Pass

3726.67

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

30 143.2 3.1513

deg 30 deg m.deg 43.4997

0

Pass

1280.37

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

40 n/a 143.2 5.1566

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 74.0984

0

Pass

1336.96

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

40 n/a 143.2 1.7189

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 30.5987

30

Pass

1680.13

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 59.1 0.2

deg deg m

59.1 3.789

deg

59.1

deg

59.1

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

1794.5

Pass Pass

136.36

Pass 0 0.15

174

deg m

5.74

Pass

3726.67

Table G.6: LC6 tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

1361.2

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 143.4 deg 5.1566 m.deg 78.4657 Pass

1421.66

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 143.4 deg 1.7189 m.deg 32.4188 Pass

1786.02

Pass 30

deg

30

90 58.2 0.2

deg deg m

58.2 3.945

deg

58.2

58.2

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

175

Status

0

30 deg 30 143.4 deg 3.1513 m.deg 46.0469 Pass

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

5.86

Pass

3806.67

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

30 143.4 3.1513

deg 30 deg m.deg 46.0469

0

Pass

1361.2

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

40 n/a 143.4 5.1566

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 78.4657

0

Pass

1421.66

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

40 n/a 143.4 1.7189

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 32.4188

30

Pass

1786.02

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 58.2 0.2

deg deg m

58.2 3.945

deg

58.2

deg

58.2

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

1872.5

Pass Pass

132.73

Pass 0 0.15

176

deg m

5.86

Pass

3806.67

Table G.7: LC7 tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

1505.79

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 180 deg 5.1566 m.deg 87.0443 Pass

1588.02

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 180 deg 1.7189 m.deg 36.4411 Pass

2020.03

Pass 30

deg

30

90 60.9 0.2

deg deg m

60.9 4.587

deg

60.9

60.9

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

177

Status

0

30 deg 30 180 deg 3.1513 m.deg 50.6031 Pass

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

6.583

Pass

4288.67

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

30 180 3.1513

deg 30 deg m.deg 50.6031

0

Pass

1505.79

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

40 n/a 180 5.1566

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 87.0443

0

Pass

1588.02

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

40 n/a 180 1.7189

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 36.4411

30

Pass

2020.03

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 60.9 0.2

deg deg m

60.9 4.587

deg

60.9

deg

60.9

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

2193.5

Pass Pass

143.64

Pass 0 0.15

178

deg m

6.583

Pass

4288.67

Table G.8: LC8 tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

1610.63

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 180 deg 5.1566 m.deg 93.1339 Pass

1706.11

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 180 deg 1.7189 m.deg 39.2267 Pass

2182.08

Pass 30

deg

30

90 59.1 0.2

deg deg m

59.1 4.81

deg

59.1

59.1

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

179

Status

0

30 deg 30 180 deg 3.1513 m.deg 53.9072 Pass

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

6.795

Pass

4430

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

30 180 3.1513

deg 30 deg m.deg 53.9072

0

Pass

1610.63

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

40 n/a 180 5.1566

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 93.1339

0

Pass

1706.11

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

40 n/a 180 1.7189

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 39.2267

30

Pass

2182.08

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 59.1 0.2

deg deg m

59.1 4.81

deg

59.1

deg

59.1

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

2305

Pass Pass

136.36

Pass 0 0.15

180

deg m

6.795

Pass

4430

Table G.9: LC9 tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

1194.04

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 134.4 deg 5.1566 m.deg 69.8343 Pass

1254.27

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 134.4 deg 1.7189 m.deg 29.0551 Pass

1590.33

Pass 30

deg

30

90 56.4 0.2

deg deg m

56.4 3.496

deg

56.4

56.4

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

181

Status

0

30 deg 30 134.4 deg 3.1513 m.deg 40.7792 Pass

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

5.312

Pass

3441.33

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

30 134.4 3.1513

deg 30 deg m.deg 40.7792

0

Pass

1194.04

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

40 n/a 134.4 5.1566

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 69.8343

0

Pass

1254.27

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

40 n/a 134.4 1.7189

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 29.0551

30

Pass

1590.33

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 56.4 0.2

deg deg m

56.4 3.496

deg

56.4

deg

56.4

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

1648

Pass Pass

125.46

Pass 0 0.15

182

deg m

5.312

Pass

3441.33

Table G.10: LC10 tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships

Value

3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

Pass 0

deg

0

30 deg 30 134.8 deg 3.1513 m.deg 43.704

Pass

1286.86

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 134.8 deg 5.1566 m.deg 75.243

Pass

1359.16

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 134.8 deg 1.7189 m.deg 31.539

Pass

1734.84

Pass 30

deg

30

90 53.6 0.2

deg deg m

53.6 3.7

deg

53.6

53.6

3.1.2.3: Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

25

deg

3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

Pass

1750

Pass Pass

114.54

Pass

3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

0

deg

30 134.8 3.1513

deg 30 deg m.deg 43.704

0

Pass

1286.86

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

40 n/a 134.8 5.1566

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 75.243

0

Pass

1359.16

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

40 n/a 134.8 1.7189

deg 40 deg deg m.deg 31.539

30

Pass

1734.84

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 53.6 0.2

deg deg m

53.6 3.7

deg

53.6

deg

53.6

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

1750

Pass Pass

114.54

Pass 0 0.15

184

deg m

5.47

Pass

3546.67

Table G.11: LC11 tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

766.08

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 117.5 deg 5.1566 m.deg 47.9988 Pass

830.82

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 117.5 deg 1.7189 m.deg 20.7062 Pass

1104.62

Pass 30

deg

30

90 51.8 0.2

deg deg m

51.8 2.416

deg

51.8

51.8

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

185

Status

0

30 deg 30 117.5 deg 3.1513 m.deg 27.2926 Pass

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

4.104

Pass

2636

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

30 117.5 3.1513

deg deg m.deg

27.2926

30 Pass

766.08

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

40 n/a 117.5 5.1566

deg deg deg m.deg

40

47.9988

Pass

830.82

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

30

40 n/a 117.5 1.7189

deg deg deg m.deg

40

20.7062

Pass

1104.62

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 51.8 0.2

deg deg m

51.8 2.416

deg

51.8

deg

51.8

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

1108

Pass Pass

107.27

Pass 0 0.15

186

deg m

4.104

Pass

2636

Table G.12: LC11C tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

767.11

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 117.4 deg 5.1566 m.deg 48.057

Pass

831.95

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 117.4 deg 1.7189 m.deg 20.7316 Pass

1106.1

Pass 30

deg

30

90 51.8 0.2

deg deg m

51.8 2.413

deg

51.8

51.8

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

187

Status

0

30 deg 30 117.4 deg 3.1513 m.deg 27.3253 Pass

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

4.1

Pass

2633.33

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

30 117.4 3.1513

deg deg m.deg

27.3253

30 Pass

767.11

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

40 n/a 117.4 5.1566

deg deg deg m.deg

40

48.057

Pass

831.95

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

30

40 n/a 117.4 1.7189

deg deg deg m.deg

40

20.7316

Pass

1106.1

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 51.8 0.2

deg deg m

51.8 2.413

deg

51.8

deg

51.8

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

1106.5

Pass Pass

107.27

Pass 0 0.15

188

deg m

4.1

Pass

2633.33

Table G.13: LC12 tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

843.95

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 116.9 deg 5.1566 m.deg 52.6063 Pass

920.17

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 116.9 deg 1.7189 m.deg 22.8595 Pass

1229.89

Pass 30

deg

30

90 49.1 0.2

deg deg m

49.1 2.604

deg

49.1

49.1

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

189

Status

0

30 deg 30 116.9 deg 3.1513 m.deg 29.7468 Pass

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

4.207

Pass

2704.67

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

30 116.9 3.1513

deg deg m.deg

29.7468

30 Pass

843.95

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

40 n/a 116.9 5.1566

deg deg deg m.deg

40

52.6063

Pass

920.17

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

30

40 n/a 116.9 1.7189

deg deg deg m.deg

40

22.8595

Pass

1229.89

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 49.1 0.2

deg deg m

49.1 2.604

deg

49.1

deg

49.1

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

1202

Pass Pass

96.36

Pass 0 0.15

190

deg m

4.207

Pass

2704.67

Table G.14: LC12C tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

843.63

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 116.8 deg 5.1566 m.deg 52.6071 Pass

920.19

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 116.8 deg 1.7189 m.deg 22.8706 Pass

1230.54

Pass 30

deg

30

90 49.1 0.2

deg deg m

49.1 2.602

deg

49.1

49.1

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

191

Status

0

30 deg 30 116.8 deg 3.1513 m.deg 29.7365 Pass

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

4.206

Pass

2704

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

30 116.8 3.1513

deg deg m.deg

29.7365

30 Pass

843.63

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

40 n/a 116.8 5.1566

deg deg deg m.deg

40

52.6071

Pass

920.19

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

30

40 n/a 116.8 1.7189

deg deg deg m.deg

40

22.8706

Pass

1230.54

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 49.1 0.2

deg deg m

49.1 2.602

deg

49.1

deg

49.1

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

1201

Pass Pass

96.36

Pass 0 0.15

192

deg m

4.206

Pass

2704

Table G.15: LC13 tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

Pass

719.44

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 114 deg 5.1566 m.deg 45.4232 Pass

780.88

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 114 deg 1.7189 m.deg 19.6002 Pass

1040.27

Pass 30

deg

30

90 50.9 0.2

deg deg m

50.9 2.265

deg

50.9

50.9

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

193

Status

0

30 deg 30 114 deg 3.1513 m.deg 25.823

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

3.914

Pass

2509.33

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

30 114 3.1513

deg deg m.deg

25.823

30 Pass

719.44

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

40 n/a 114 5.1566

deg deg deg m.deg

40

45.4232

Pass

780.88

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

30

40 n/a 114 1.7189

deg deg deg m.deg

40

19.6002

Pass

1040.27

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 50.9 0.2

deg deg m

50.9 2.265

deg

50.9

deg

50.9

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

1032.5

Pass Pass

103.64

Pass 0 0.15

194

deg m

3.914

Pass

2509.33

Table G.16: LC13C tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

720.02

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 113.8 deg 5.1566 m.deg 45.4476 Pass

781.35

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 113.8 deg 1.7189 m.deg 19.6063 Pass

1040.63

Pass 30

deg

30

90 50.9 0.2

deg deg m

50.9 2.258

deg

50.9

50.9

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

195

Status

0

30 deg 30 113.8 deg 3.1513 m.deg 25.8414 Pass

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

3.904

Pass

2502.67

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

30 113.8 3.1513

deg deg m.deg

25.8414

30 Pass

720.02

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

40 n/a 113.8 5.1566

deg deg deg m.deg

40

45.4476

Pass

781.35

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

30

40 n/a 113.8 1.7189

deg deg deg m.deg

40

19.6063

Pass

1040.63

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 50.9 0.2

deg deg m

50.9 2.258

deg

50.9

deg

50.9

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

1029

Pass Pass

103.64

Pass 0 0.15

196

deg m

3.904

Pass

2502.67

Table G.17: LC14 tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

Pass

795.5

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 113.4 deg 5.1566 m.deg 49.9285 Pass

868.24

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 113.4 deg 1.7189 m.deg 21.7085 Pass

1162.93

Pass 30

deg

30

90 48.2 0.2

deg deg m

48.2 2.454

deg

48.2

48.2

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

197

Status

0

30 deg 30 113.4 deg 3.1513 m.deg 28.22

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

4.009

Pass

2572.67

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

30 113.4 3.1513

deg deg m.deg

28.22

30 Pass

795.5

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

40 n/a 113.4 5.1566

deg deg deg m.deg

40

49.9285

Pass

868.24

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

30

40 n/a 113.4 1.7189

deg deg deg m.deg

40

21.7085

Pass

1162.93

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 48.2 0.2

deg deg m

48.2 2.454

deg

48.2

deg

48.2

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

1127

Pass Pass

92.73

Pass 0 0.15

198

deg m

4.009

Pass

2572.67

Table G.18: LC14C tabulated stability criteria check. Code

Criteria

Value

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 30 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.1: Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=) A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.2: Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

Units

0

deg

Pass

793.89

Pass 0

deg

0

40 deg 40 n/a deg 113.2 deg 5.1566 m.deg 49.8609 Pass

866.93

Pass 30

deg

30

40 deg 40 n/a deg 113.2 deg 1.7189 m.deg 21.6919 Pass

1161.97

Pass 30

deg

30

90 48.2 0.2

deg deg m

48.2 2.447

deg

48.2

48.2

deg

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.4: Initial GMt spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

0 0.15

deg m

199

Status

0

30 deg 30 113.2 deg 3.1513 m.deg 28.169

25

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.6: Turn: angle of equilibrium Turn arm: a vˆ2 / (R g) h cosˆn(phi) constant: a = vessel speed: v = turn radius, R, as percentage of Lwl h = KG - mean draft / 2 cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

A.749(18) Ch3 - Design criteria applicable to all ships 3.1.2.5: Passenger crowding: angle of equilibrium Pass. crowding arm = nPass M / disp. D cosˆn(phi) number of passengers: nPass = passenger mass: M = distance from centre line: D = cosine power: n = shall not be greater than (=)

deg m

Pass

2568.67

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 0 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

30 113.2 3.1513

deg deg m.deg

28.169

30 Pass

793.89

Pass

27.1.2.1 Area 30 to 40 from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle first downflooding angle angle of vanishing stability shall not be less than (>=)

0

deg

0

40 n/a 113.2 5.1566

deg deg deg m.deg

40

49.8609

Pass

866.93

Pass

27.1.2.2 Max GZ at 30 or greater in the range from the greater of spec. heel angle to the lesser of spec. heel angle angle of max. GZ shall not be less than (>=) Intermediate values angle at which this GZ occurs

30

deg

30

40 n/a 113.2 1.7189

deg deg deg m.deg

40

21.6919

Pass

1161.97

Pass

27.1.2.3 Angle of maximum GZ shall not be less than (>=)

30

deg

30

90 48.2 0.2

deg deg m

48.2 2.447

deg

48.2

deg

48.2

25

27.1.2.4 Initial GMo at sea spec. heel angle shall not be less than (>=)

Pass

1123.5

Pass Pass

92.73

Pass 0 0.15

200

deg m

4.003

Pass

2568.67

Appendix H

Figure H.1: Midship section scantlings.

201

Appendix I

Figure I.1: 1st chemical distribution and storage system design.

Figure I.2: 2nd chemical distribution and storage system design.

202

Figure I.3: 3rd chemical distribution and storage system design.

Figure I.4: 4th chemical distribution and storage system design.

203

204

Figure J.1: General arrangement with distribution system. Group 2

University of Strathclyde

Date: 30/03/2017

Title: General Arrangement - Distribution System

NM502 Group Design Project

Drawing No: 003

Appendix J

Figure J.2: Chemical system piping diagram.

205

1S

1P

GV1

GV3

4P

OD 0.0899 0.0899 0.0899 0.0899 0.0899

t 7.62 7.62 7.62 7.62 7.62

ID 1P/1S 2P/2S 3P/3S 4P/4S 5P/5S

2S

GV15

GV2

3S

GV17

GV6

4S

GV6

5P

6P

6P/6S 7P/7S 8P/8S 9P/9S 10P/10S 11P/11S

ID

GV5

5S

6S

GV20

GV19

GV4 GV18

GV7 GV21

t 7.62 7.62 7.62 7.62 7.62 7.62

GV9

7P

0.0899 0.0899 0.0899 0.0899 0.0899 0.0899

OD

GV8

8P

7S

GV2

9P

10P

All dimensions are in mm

Gate Valve

Legend

9S

11P

11S

Group 2

University of Strathclyde

Date: 30/03/2017

Title: System Design Piping Diagram

NM502 Group Design Project

10S

GV26

Drawing No: 002

8S

GV23

GV22

GV11 GV25

3P

GV10 GV24

GV3 GV27

2P

GV14 GV28

Figure J.3: View of chemical system below deck.

Figure J.4: View of chemical system above deck.

206

Appendix K Table K.1: All hazards and risks. ID

Hazard

Risk

Probability Impact

Risk index

1

Liquefaction of cargo

Loss of ship/lives

4

5

20

2

Unacceptable moisture levels in cargo

Liquefaction occurs

4

5

20

3

Chemical not thoroughly mixed with cargo

Insufficient mitigation of lique- 3 faction

5

15

4

Inaccurate measurement of Unacceptable moisture levels in moisture limits in cargo and cargo inadequacy of current testing methods

3

4

12

5

Damage to the storage tanks

Spillage of chemical on deck 3 could causing slip hazard

4

12

6

Small Particles of Chemical be- Worst case cancer causing prop- 2 ing inhaled erties/health risk

5

10

7

System implemented for dis- Loss of ship/lives tributing chemical negatively affecting stability

2

5

10

8

Bad/wet weather conditions while loading

Moisture levels too high — liq- 2 uefaction occurs

5

10

9

Stored chemical becoming con- Chemical does not work effec- 2 taminated tively

5

10

10

Pipe is damaged and chemical Contamination of the ballast 2 is leaked into the ballast tanks and blockage

4

8

11

Chemical storage is placed near Particles of the chemical are 2 to accommodation released into the atmosphere, chemical is inhaled

4

8

12

Obstruction to access routes, Evacuation routes are hindered 2 corridors, escape routes causing issues during an emergency

4

8

13

Behaviour and interaction of chemicals with the cargo

Possibility of unintended nega- 2 tive interactions/reactions

3

6

14

Removal of chemical from the Cargo could become unusable cargo and safe disposal and environmental concerns

2

3

6

15

Chemical is mixed with other Adverse reaction between substances/materials on board chemical and other materials

2

3

6

16

Reaction of chemical with fire or ignition sources

Chemical is ignited

1

4

4

17

System is too close to lifeboat

Obstruction lifeboats

1

4

4

18

Scaling issues

Insufficient global supply

1

3

3

19

Improper storage of chemicals

Irritation to skin, eyes, and res- 1 piratory system

2

2

207

of

access

to

Table K.2: All risk control measures. ID

Control measure

Probability Impact

Risk index

1

Mitigation of liquefaction through application of chemical solution

2

5

10

2

Prevention of liquefaction through application of chemi- 1 cal solution

5

5

3

Ensure proper mixing

1

3

3

4

Devise accurate measuring systems

2

4

8

5

Clean up procedure in place in case of spillage

2

3

6

6

Protective clothing such as masks to be worn when ex- 1 posed to the chemical

2

2

7

Proper analysis and design of system

1

5

5

8

Design system to have variable application rate to deal 1 with increased water moisture levels due to rain

3

3

9

Design storage system to be self-contained to protect 1 cargo

2

2

10

Pipes are protected by the pipe shaft

1

4

4

11

Chemical particle size is outside of the respirable range

1

2

2

12

System is designed to allow adequate space in the vicinity 1 of the tanks and pipes

2

3

13

Rigorous testing of cargo/chemical mixture

1

2

2

14

Conduct investigation iron ore manufacturing and envi- 1 ronmental issues to ensure

3

3

15

Chemical is non-toxic and non-reactionary, poses no risk

1

2

2

16

Chemical is non-flammable, no risk

1

4

4

17

System is not near lifeboats

1

1

1

18

No control measure, chemical is available globally

0

0

0

19

Use of sealed tanks and proper handling tech- 1 niques/equipment

1

1

208