t Damage Stability Issues for the Advanced Double Hull (ADH) Project CRDKNSWC-HD-0043-01 ee Carderock Division Naval Surface Warfare Center Bethesda, Maryland 20814 CRDKNSWC-HD-0043-01 November 1994 Ship Hydromechanics Department Damage Stability Issues for the Advanced Double Hull (ADH) Project By Paul J. Kopp AUG 101995) | od 19950809 009 DIT6 QUALITY INGPBCTED 8 ‘Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited LSMAJOR CARDEROCK DIVISION TECHNICAL COMPONENTS CODE 011 Director of Technology 40 Machinery Systems/Programs and Logistics Directorate 20 Ship Systems and Programs Directorate 50 Hydromechanics Directorate 60 Sunivability, Structures and Materials Directorate 70 Signatures Directorate 80 Machinery Research and Development Directorate 90 Machinery In-Service Engineering Directorate ty Codon svall endfor CARDEROCK DIVISION, NSWC, ISSUES THREE TYPES OF REPORTS: 1. CARDEROCKDIV reports, a formal series, contain information of permanent technical value. ‘They carry a consecutive numerical identification regardless of their classification or the originating directorate. 2. Directorate reports, a semiformal series, contain information of a preliminary, temporary, oF proprietary nature or of limited interest or significance. They carry an alphanumerical identification Issued by the originating directorate. 3. Technical memoranda, an informal series, contain echnical documentation oflimited use and interest. They are primarily working papers intended for intemal use. They cary an identifying number which indicates their type and the numerical code of the originating directorate. Any istrbution outside CARDEROCKDIV must be approved by the head of the originating directorate on a case-by-case basis. ow.oTRe srs (er. 94)REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Peas GROREATON ROT WSEN ERNTORNG NTTATON RETORTN (CRDKNSWC-HO-0049-01 RES REST BS ORNCE STITT NE FRONTS TROT rock Division, , Naval Surface Warlare Center Code $610 7: ADORESS (oy Se, az oe) Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Tena RRS ETRE CNORTON [OS ORESTTNR | ESIGN TIRE Nooo ASS XABDASIAA Se ADORESS [oy Shie waz on) Te SOURGE OF RONG NOMEERS ein a a i Poa) Damage Say ses th Adraced Dot Hal ADH) rot) ae Paul. Kop Foo 17 0.1 i To ABSTRACT (Coo neve Freer ad roy BO NN) ‘The U.S. Navy is currently investigating the concept of an advanced, unidirectionally framed, double hull surtace combatant ship design. This report documents the results of an investigation into the damage stability issues involved. Comparisons have made between a conventional monohull surface combatant and the vessel modified with double hull compartments. Double hull configurations intemal and external tothe original hull shell using three foot and six foot spacings were considered. Several ‘watertight compartmentation geometries within the double hull spaces were also investigated. The Ship Hull Characteristics Program (SHCP), version 4.11 was used for intact and damaged stabilty calculations. Damage conditions evaluated were specified by Navy Design Data Sheet (DDS) 079-1 dated 1 August 1976, forthe stability and buoyancy requirements for U.S. naval surface ships. The stabilly criteria as specified in DDS 079-1 were applied and evaluated for the double hull CG 47 ‘Computer models. Additional damage conditions and stability criteria evaluated were taken from the U.S. Coast Guard standards ‘adopted for double hull oil tankers. Itis concluded thatthe double hull concept does have an adverse effect on damage stability ‘and that the existing Navy stability criteria is adequate for double hull combatants. THOS THBUTION NVALABLITY OF ABSTRACT er AnSTRACT SECURITY CONSSICATIN Unlimited UNCLASSIFIED a WANE OF RESPONSE ROOT TE TELEONE pages oe) Ta ence SEO Paul J. Kopp 301-227-5119 ‘Code 5610 Afington, Virginia 22901 SUBKESTTERWS (anna novos #racaay ely By Bo Habe Damage Stability ‘Advance Double Hull Intact StabilityCONTENT ABSTRACT. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION. INTRODUCTION. : COMPUTATIONAL SHIP MODEL DESCRIPTION. DOUBLE HULL COMPARTMENTATION GEOMETRIES. STABILITY CRITERIA AND DAMAGE CONDITIONS USED. U.S. NAVY REGULATIONS... U.S. COAST GUARD REGULATIONS. SHCP STABILITY RESULTS.. STABILITY ANALYSIS. INTACT CONDITION. 15@L DAMAGE CONDITIONS... WEAPONS DAMAGE CONDITIONS... BOTTOM RAKING DAMAGE CONDITIONS. CONCLUSION: REFERENCES FIGURES FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF DOUBLE HULL MODIFICATIONS .. FIGURE 2, BODY PLANS OF ORIGINAL CG 47 AND CG 47 MODIFIED WITH EXTERNAL DOUBLE, HULLS coe : . FIGURE 3, FORE AND AFT EXTENTS OF INTERNAL COMPARTMENTATION.. FIGURE 4. DOUBLE HULL COMPARTMENTATION GEOMETRIES FIGURE 5. SAMPLE INTACT RIGHTING ARM AND WIND HEELING ARM CURVES FIGURE 6. SAMPLE DAMAGED CONDITION RIGHTING ARM AND WIND HEELING ARM CURVES... 16 FIGURE 7. SAMPLE INTACT RIGHTING ARM CURVE. FIGURE 8, SAMPLE DAMAGED RIGHTING ARM CURVE, FIGURE 9. INTACT STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS .. FIGURE 10, DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS - 15%L DAMAGE, STATION 070 STATION3.... —— ee FIGURE 11. DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL SPACING - 15%L DAMAGE, STATION 3 TO STATION 6. = 21 FIGURE 12. DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL GEOMETRY - !5L. DAMAGE, STATION 3 TO STATION 6.FIGURE 13. FIGURE 14. FIGURE 15. FIGURE 16. FIGURE 17. FIGURE 18. FIGURE 19. FIGURE 20. FIGURE 21. FIGURE 22. FIGURE 23, FIGURE 24. FIGURE 25 FIGURE 26. FIGURE 27. FIGURE 28. FIGURE 29. FIGURE 30. DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL SPACING - 15%L DAMAGE, STATION 6 TO STATION 9. 23 DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL GEOMETRY - 15%L DAMAGE, STATION 6 TO STATION 9. DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL SPACING - 15%L DAMAGE, 5S 24 STATION 9 TO STATION 12. reson a DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL GEOMETRY - 1591 DAMAGE, STATION 9 TO STATION 12 — se DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL SPACING - 15SL DAMAGE, STATION 12 TO STATION 15. so DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL GEOMETRY - 1591. DAMAGE, STATION 1270 STATION 15 . DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL SPACING - 15%L DAMAGE, STATION 15 TO STATION 18 a 29 DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL GEOMETRY - 159¢L. DAMAGE, STATION 15 TO STATION 18 DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS - 15%L DAMAGE, STATION 18 TO STATION 20, so DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BU DOUBLE HULL SPACING - SYMMETRIC on 26 sn 2B 0 31 WEAPONS DAMAGE .. ——- DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL GEOMETRY - SYMMETRIC 33 WEAPONS DAMAGE ... se . DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL SPACING - ASYMMETRIC WEAPONS DAMAGE wn . . DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL GEOMETRY - ASYMMETRIC WEAPONS DAMAGE, = 7 DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL SPACING - 20% BOTTOM RAKING DAMAGE... : oe : ce 36 DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL SPACING - 20% BOTTOM 37 RAKING DAMAGE... : 7 DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL GEOMETRY - 40% BOTTOM 38 RAKING DAMAGE ——— DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL GEOMETRY - 40% BOTTOM RAKING DAMAGE ee : 39 DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL SPACING - 60% BOTTOM RAKING DAMAGE... 40FIGURE 31, DAMAGE STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOUBLE HULL GEOMETRY 60% BOTTOM RAKING DAMAGE FIGURE 32. INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS USING US. NAVY CRITERIA SET. FIGURE 33, INTACT STABILITY ANALYSIS USING USCG CRITERIA SET.. FIGURE 34, 15%L SHELL OPENING DAMAGE - AREA RATIO RESULTS... FIGURE 35. 15%L SHELL OPENING DAMAGE - WIND LOADED STATIC HEEL ANGLE RESULTS... FIGURE 36. 15%L SHELL OPENING DAMAGE - RIGHTING ARM RATIO RESULTS FIGURE 37. 15%L SHELL OPENING DAMAGE - MAXIMUM RIGHTING ARM, HEELING ARM DIFFERENCE RESULTS. FIGURE 38. 15%L SHELL OPENING DAMAGE - STATIC HEEL ANGLE RESULTS....... FIGURE 39. 15%L SHELL OPENING DAMAGE - POSITIVE RIGHTING ARM RANGE RESULTS. FIGURE 40. 15%L SHELL OPENING DAMAGE - RIGHTING ENERGY RESULTS... FIGURE 41. WEAPONS DAMAGE - AREA RATIO RESULTS. FIGURE 42, WEAPONS DAMAGE - WIND LOADED STATIC HEEL ANGLE RESULTS FIGURE 43, WEAPONS DAMAGE - RIGHTING ARM RATIO RESULTS FIGURE 44, WEAPONS DAMAGE - MAXIMUM RIGHTING ARM, HEELING ARM DIFFERENCE RESULTS, - i . FIGURE 45, WEAPONS DAMAGE - STATIC HEEL ANGLE RESULTS. FIGURE 46, WEAPONS DAMAGE - POSITIVE RIGHTING ARM RANGE RESULTS FIGURE 47, WEAPONS DAMAGE - RIGHTING ENERGY RESULTS...... FIGURE 48, BOTTOM RAKING DAMAGE - AREA RATION RESULTS. FIGURE 49, BOTTOM RAKING DAMAGE - WIND LOADED STATIC HEEL ANGLE RESULTS .. FIGURE 50. BOTTOM RAKING DAMAGE - RIGHTING ARM RATIO RESULTS... FIGURE 51, BOTTOM RAKING DAMAGE - MAXIMUM RIGHTING ARM, HEELING ARM DIFFERENCE RESULTS. FIGURE 52, BOTTOM RAKING DAMAGE - STATIC HEEL ANGLE RESULTS ... FIGURE 53. BOTTOM RAKING DAMAGE - POSITIVE RIGHTING ARM RANGE RESULTS. FIGURE 54. BOTTOM RAKING DAMAGE - RIGHTING ENERGY RESULTS... TABLES TABLE 1. SHIP PARTICULARS TABLE 2, SUMMARY OF US. NAVY STABILITY CRITERIA INVESTIGATED .. . ‘TABLE 3, SUMMARY OF US. COAST GUARD DOUBLE HULL TANKER SPECIFIC STABILITY CRITERIA INVESTIGATED. iit 41 2 a 4a 61 62 8 65 66 Cl68 nb ‘TABLE 4. INTACT STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS...... TABLE 5. DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR ORIGINAL CG 47 ‘TABLE 6. DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH INTERNAL 3° DOUBLE HULL USING U-TANK GEOMETRY. ‘TABLE 7. DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH INTERNAL 3" DOUBLE HULL USING J-TANK GEOMETRY ‘TABLE 8. DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH INTERNAL 3° DOUBLE HULL USING WING TANK GEOMETRY .. ‘TABLE 9. DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH INTERNAL 3" DOUBLE HULL USING SEGMENTED TANK GEOMETRY TABLE 10. DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH INTERNAL 6’ DOUBLE HULL USING U-TANK GEOMETRY | ‘TABLE 11. DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH INTERNAL 6’ DOUBLE HULL USING J-TANK GEOMETRY .. —— — ‘TABLE 12. DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH INTERNAL 6’ DOUBLE HULL USING WING TANK GEOMETRY 76 ‘TABLE 13. DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH INTERNAL 6” DOUBLE HULL USING SEGMENTED TANK GEOMETRY .. wT ‘TABLE 14, DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH EXTERNAL 3° DOUBLE HULL USING U-TANK GEOMETRY sn ‘TABLE 15, DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH EXTERNAL 3’ DOUBLE HULL USING J-TANK GEOMETRY... : ‘TABLE 16. DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH EXTERNAL 3° DOUBLE HULL USING WING TANK GEOMETRY ‘TABLE 17, DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH EXTERNAL 3° DOUBLE HULL USING SEGMENTED TANK GEOMETRY .. ‘TABLE 18. DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH EXTERNAL 6° DOUBLE HULL USING U-TANK GEOMETRY. ‘TABLE 19. DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH EXTERNAL 6" DOUBLE. HULL USING J-TANK GEOMETRY ..... : ‘TABLE 20. DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH EXTERNAL 6° DOUBLE. HULL USING WING TANK GEOMETRY ‘TABLE 21, DAMAGE STABILITY EVALUATION RESULTS FOR CG 47 WITH EXTERNAL 6’ DOUBLE. HULL USING SEGMENTED TANK GEOMETRY ‘TABLE 22. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS FOR INTACT CASE, 70 oT n we TS 81 82 83 85 1 86TABLE 23, TABLE 24, TABLE 25, TABLE 26. TABLE 27. TABLE 28, TABLE 29. TABLE 30, TABLE 31. TABLE 32. TABLE 33. TABLE 34, SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS FOR 15%L DAMAGE, STATION 0 TO STATION 3. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS FOR 15%L DAMAGE, STATION 3 TO STATION 6. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS FOR 15%L DAMAGE, STATION 6 TO STATION 9.ooonns . SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS FOR 15%L DAMAGE, STATION 9 TO STATION 12, SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS FOR 15%L DAMAGE, STATION 12 TO STATION 18. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS FOR 15% DAMAGE, STATION 15 TO STATION 18. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS FOR 15%L DAMAGE, STATION 18 TO STATION 20... SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS FOR SEVER WEAPONS DAMAGE, STARBOARD SIDE vn ~ en so SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS FOR SEVERE WEAPONS DAMAGE, PORT AND STARBOARD. _ SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS FOR 20%L BOTTOM RAKING SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS FOR 40%L BOTTOM RAKING..... SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS FOR 60%L BOTTOM RAKING 87 vo 88 89ABSTRACT The U.S, Navy is currently investigating the concept of an advanced, snidirectionally framed, double hull surface combatant ship design. This report documents the results ofan investigation into the damage stability issues involved. Comparisons have made benween a conventional monohull surface ‘combatant and the vessel modified with double hull compartments. Double hull configurations internal and external tothe original hull shell using three foot and sx foot spacings were considered. Several watertight compartmentation ‘geometries within the double hull spaces were also investigated. The Ship Hull Characteristics Program (SHCP), version 4.11 was used for intact and damaged stability calculations, Damage conditions evaluated were specified by Navy Design Data Sheet (DDS) 079-1 dated 1 August 1975, for the stability and buoyancy requirements for US. naval surface ships. The stability criteria as specified in DDS 079-1 were applied and evaluated forthe double hull CG 47 computer models. Additional damage conditions and stability criteria evaluated were taken from the U.S, Coast Guard standards adopted for double hull oil tankers. It is concluded thatthe double hull concept generally does have an adverse effect on damage stability and that the existing Navy stability criteria is ‘adequate for double hull combatants. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION ‘This work was funded by Office of Naval Research (ONR-334) and is submitted as part of the deliverables from Task 14 of the Advanced Double Hull Technology Project (RH21S11) of the Surface Ship Technology Block Program (PEQ602121N). INTRODUCTION "The concept of a double hull surface combat vessel raises the possibility of the application of several different technologies. Acoustic advantages can be obtained by filling the double hull space with fluid and acoustic foam; weapons effects can be minimized by providing a stand off distance between the outside world and the inside ‘equipment, ordinance, and personnel; damage control advantages are obtained from increased counterflooding possibilities; and ship construction can be more efficient and cost effective. However, as the U.S. Navy has not designed or constructed a double hull combatant vessel, there are many unanswered questions which must be addressed early inthe design cycle. Infact, the stability characteristics of double hull vessels are not addressed in USS. Naval design guidelines. ‘This report documents an investigation of the stability issues involved with the design of a double hull ‘surface combatant. The basis for the investigation was a computer model of the CG 47 hull form and it's internalcompartmentation, The double hull version of the CG 47 has been modeled with double hull compartments internal and external to the original hull shell using three foot and six foot spacings. Several different watertight compartmentation geometries within the double hull spaces were investigated. The Ship Hull Characteristics Program (SHCP), version 4.11 was used to model intact and damaged stability characteristics. Damaged conditions and stability criteria evaluated were specified by naval design guidelines for standard monohull combat vessels, Adcitional damage conditions and stability criteria evaluated were taken from the U.S. Coast Guard standards adopted for double hull oil tankers. Evaluation ofthe stability criteria was performed using a new software tool developed specifically for this task. COMPUTATIONAL SHIP MODEL DESCRIPTION ‘The CG 47 was selected as the baseline hullform to be used inthis investigation. The SHCP representation of the CG 47 hull form and internal compartmentation was provided by the Naval Sea Systems Command [1] . The input fle, originally provided in SHCP version 3 format, was modified for use with SHCP version 4.11. The newer version of SHCP was used because of an updated compartmentation description format which made modeling of the double hull compartments easier. ‘The double hull modifications to the original CG 47 SHCP input file were made inthe simplest manner possible. Because of the modeling complications in the presence of appendages and significant changes in the shape of the hull form at the ends of the vessel, it was considered adequate for the level of detail necessary, to limit the double hull tothe central length of the ship hull. The double hull used in this investigation was created between stations 5 and 16, tapering down to original CG 47 shell at stations 3.97 and 17 respectively. These station numbers were selected from the station offset list provided inthe original input file and allowed the longest extent of ‘maximum double hull space. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the hull form indicating the area covered by the double hull space. In addition tothe external double hull shell spacings of 3 feet and 6 feet, two other shell spacings of the same size were used internal to the original hull shell. Each double hull was created from the existing hull shell by projecting the original offsets normal to the hull shell by the appropriate distance. In all cases, the base line remained constant as did the location of the vertical center of gravity and draft. In order to maintain an even Keel condition, the longitudinal center of gravity was allowed to move. Table I shows the ship particulars forthe original hull form and external double hull variants. Body plans are shown in Figure 2. ‘The internal compartmentation of the original CG 47 was not affected by the addition of the external double hulls, However, the internal double hulls did impact the internal compartmentation. No attempt was made to rearrange the compartments to account for the lost internal volume, Certain compartments were lost completely to the double hull space while others lost portions oftheir usable volume. A true double hull modification, if undertaken, would redistribute compartments in a much more logical and practical manner. This would not be a trivial task and was not considered to be appropriate forthe level of detail desired for this investigationDOUBLE HULL COMPARTMENTATION GEOMETRIES Each double hull space was separated by transverse watertight bulkheads located atthe same locations of those within the original vessel. Figure 3 shows the fore and aft compartment extents from the original CG 47 input file. The clustering of points indicates the locations of the main bulkheads. Within each longitudinal section of the double hull spaces, it has been assumed that there was no tankage or large machinery and the space was void (permeability 0.98). Figure 4 shows a schematic of the four double hull compartmentation geometries investigated; J tank, U tanks, wing tanks, and segmented tanks. Each geometry, when used, was applied to all ofthe double hull spaces. The combination of the original CG 47 and four double hull spacings (internal/external), and the four compartmentation geometries yields 17 different vessels forthe investigation. STABILITY CRITERIA AND DAMAGE CONDITIONS USED As part of the stability task, a review of the existing U.S. Navy stability criteria was performed. A review of pertinent stability information from the commercial shipping industry, particularly double hull oil ankers, was also included, U.S. NAVY REGULATIONS ‘The U.S. Navy stability criteria for both intact and damaged conditions are covered in Reference [2]. The Design Data Sheet includes monohull combat and auxiliary vessels, SWATH's, hydrofoils, and most other forms of surface vessel in the U.S. Navy fleet and specifies the types of damage to be investigated. There are currently no provisions for the special case of double hull construction for combatant or auxiliary vessel. ‘The intact criteria for surface vessels includes the cases of a 100 knot beam wind, the lifting of heavy ‘weights over the side, towline pull (tgs) personnel crowding to one side, high speed turning, and ice loading. For combatant vessels, only the beam wind, high speed turning, and possibly ice loading conditions need be investigated. For comparative purposes, itis sufficient to consider only the wind loading condition. Figure 5 shows an example intact righting arm curve and wind heeling arm curve. The point B is the wind loaded static heel angle, the point C shows the angle at the maximum righting arm, and the angle 0, is the roll back angle. The roll back angle is defined to be 25 degrees and represents a mean maximum angle that the vessel would roll back when in waves. For the intact case, the maximum permissible heel angle, as indicated by point D, is the angle at which the righting arm becomes negative or 90 degrees, whichever comes first. Note that the wind heeling, ‘arm shown is positive through the range of heel angles shown. Assuming the center of wind pressure is located above the vessel center of gravity, this would indicate a positive heeling moment caused by wind blowing across the deck from port to starboard. Wind blowing across the deck from starboard to port would produce a negative heeling ‘moment and the wind heeling arm curve would be negative (ie, mirrored across the x-axis). ind ‘The intact criteria, under wind loading is given by two conditions. The righting arm value at the static loaded heel angle (point B in Figure 5) shall be no more than 60% of the maximum righting arm value (point C inFigure 5). This condition insures thatthe static heel angle in the presence of high wind does not approach the point of diminishing stability. The second condition is thatthe rato between the shaded areas (A and A2 in Figure 5) is no less than 140. This condition insures that there is adequate righting energy to keep upright while being acted upon by wind and waves “The Design Data Sheet specifies the type and amount of damage to be considered. For combat vessels, 2 shell opening of 15% of the length of the vessel, on one side (por or starboard, from centerline to main deck is specified, This 15% length may occur at any longitudinal positon. For this investigation, only successive 15% lengths are considered. The other damage condition specified is weapons damage. The exact nature ofthe weapons damage and the size of the opening is in practice, classified, However, for this investigation, the damage condition ‘used in a dynamic damaged stability model test study! will be used, ina slightly modified form . In this scenario, the damage occurs such tat al interior compartments between stations 14.44 and 19.13 were flooded. An additional opening between stations 14.44 and 19.13. weapons damage condition is used here which had only a starboard si Figure 6 shows an example of a damaged condition righting arm curve and wind heeling arm. This figure is similar to Figure 5 except that the undisturbed static heel angle shown as point A has moved away from the zero ‘angle point. In the damaged condition, the roll back angle and wind speed are reduced according to functions of ship displacement (both specified inthe DDS). The same criteria from the intact case applies tothe damage case withthe audition of a minimum difference between the maximum righting arm value andthe wind heeling arm at that hee! angle (0.275 ft minimum). Theres also 8 maximum permissible static wind loaded heel angle, The value specified depends on weather the ship is equipped with aside protection system (15 degrees without and 20 degrees with). The side protection system is basically voids on the sides ofa ship which are dedicated solely to counteflooding in a damaged condition. Aircraft carirs and other larger vessels are so equipped. If a ship is equipped, then the counterflooding capabilities must be able to reduce the static loaded heel angle to less than 5 degrees In the damaged condition, the maximum permissible heel angle, Gis defined asthe downflooding angle ‘where there is free communication between internal spaces and the sea. For this investigation, the maximum permissible heel angle will be considered tobe the angle at which the deck at edge becomes immersed. In realty, the fan tail dock near the ster has lower sheer line than the rest of the vessel and will usually be the first deck to become immersed; however, it is current practice to assume that there are no permanent openings on the aft deck. For this investigation, only the deck at edge forward of station 17 willbe sed for determining the maximum permissible heel angle. ‘The double hull spaces could easily qualify as aside protective system if they are indeed left as dedicated counterflooding spaces (not all spaces would need to be dedicated). The U-tank geometry would not be appropriate fora side protective system because ofthe inherent inability to generate an additional heeling arm when flooded. The segmented compartment geometry, on the other hand, can generate heeling arms to reduce the static heel bu at the 1 Documented in a limited distribution report.cost of associated piping and pumping systems. There is therefore a design trade off between the complexity of highly segregated double hull compartments and the associated piping and pumping, and the accompanying increase ‘in damage control options. The damage control options for each geometry and the effects of counterflooding are not addressed further by this investigation, U.S. COAST GUARD REGULATIONS ‘The commercial oil industry has put much effort into investigating double hull oil tanker design issues, including the stability characteristics. This was a direct result from public pressure to minimize the environmental impact of tanker damage, The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has addressed the stability considerations in an informal working document [3]. The efforts of the USCG, the major oil companies, and other marine groups went into the drafting of these standards and criteria. In practice, the double hull oil tanker criteria have no relation to naval ‘combat ships, but they do provide a different view of damage stability criteria and evaluations. The differences between the USCG and naval stability criteria are highlighted by the different measures of merit used and damage conditions specified. The USCG criteria addressed here are only the additional criteria applicable to double hull tankers and not the standard USCG stability criteria [4]. Figure 7 shows another example of an intact righting arm curve. The metacentric height (GM) is to be no less than 1.5m (4.92 ft). In this investigation, the metacentric height is calculated from the righting arm curve by a line tangent to the curve at the static heel angle (zero inthe intact case). The value of the righting arm taken from the tangent line at x radians (57.3 degrees) of heel beyond the static hee! angle is the metacentric height [5}. The righting arm at 30 degrees heel shall also be greater than 0.2m (0.656ft) with the maximum righting arm occurring at a heel angle greater than 25 degrees. The righting energy, which is the area under the righting arm curve, shall be greater than 0.055 m-rad up to 30 degrees heel, 0.03 m-rad between 30 and 40 degrees, and 0,09 m-rad up to 40 degrees heel or the downflooding angle, which ever is less. Figure 8 shows an example of a damaged condition righting arm curve. For the damage condition, the static hheel angle (without wind loading) shall be less than 25 degrees. The righting arm shall also be positive for no less than 20 degrees beyond the static heel angle. In addition, the righting energy shall be greater than 0.0175 m-rad. The damage conditions specified by the USCG criteria includes botiom raking and side raking. For this investigation, only bottom raking was considered since the Navy specified 159%L damage conditions serve a similar function and are geometrically similar to side raking. The regulations specify raking lengths of either 40% or 60% of the length of. the vessel, starting at the forward perpendicular, depending on displacement. For this investigation though, bottom. raking damage resulting in 20%L, 40%L, and 60%L shell openings (starboard side only) was used.SHCP STABILITY RESULTS ‘The results of SHCP computer runs are tables of righting arm, transverse, longitudinal, and vertical center cof buoyancy, draft, and trim as functions of heel angle. For this investigation, the vessel was allowed to sink and trim 4s necessary in all conditions. A total of 207 separate righting arm curves were calculated for this investigation. Plots ofthe righting arm, draf, and trim for the intact condition are shown in Figure 9 forthe original hullform and the wo external double hull variants. Te intact case indicate the differences instability characteristics dive only tothe additional volume distributed along the hull forthe extemal double hull variants. Upto approximately 30 degrees hee, there is litle difference in righting arm between the hullforms. Past 40 degrees of heel the larger double hull losses righting energy rapidly. However, the larger external double hull provides more buoyancy (due to the additional volume) whichis reflected inthe smaller loss of daft and smaller trim angles as compared to the original hull form. Righting arm curves for the sequential 15%L. damage conditions are shown in Figures 10 through 21. Figure 10 forthe first 159% length from station 0to station 3 shows the righting arm, draft, and trim forthe original hull form and the external double hull variants. Tis is due tothe double hull beginning aft of station 3. The remaining mn which allow separate figures show the righting arms only. There are two figures for each 15%L damage condi comparison of the effect of double hull compartmentation geometry and double hull shell spacing. Figures 22 and 23 show the righting arm curves forthe severe weapons damage condition with both port and starboard side flooding. Figures 24 and 25 show the righting arm curves for the severe weapons damage condition with only starboard side flooding. The two figures shown for each damage condition display, separately, the effect of double hull compartmentation geometry and double hull shell spacing. In several ofthese damage scenarios, the severity ofthe flooding results in either deep drafts (large sinkage) or arg trim angles or both. Figures 26 through 31 show the righting arm curves for bottom raking damage. Shell openings of 20%, 40%, and 60% of the length are shown with two figures foreach damage condition. STABILITY ANALYSIS ‘The analysis ofthe stability results, as represented by the righting arm curves, has been performed using the ‘established criteria previously discussed as a series pass/fail tests. In addition, the degree of pass or fail for a given criteria is also evaluated, All assumptions stated previously regarding the deck at edge immersion and downflooding angles have been incorporated into an analysis computer program written specifically for this task. INTACT CONDITION ‘The intact stability evaluation results are listed in Table 4. Damage stability evaluation results forall design variants and the original CG 47 are listed in Tables 5 through 21. The intact table contains the same information as shown in the damage stability tables except for the deck at edge immersion angles and corresponding station number found to be immersed, and positive stability range information, ‘Tables 22 through 34 give a summarized listing of the stability evaluations for each criteria. The tables show the difference between the computed values for each geometry and the criteria value, Negative values indicate‘criteria failure. The greater the magnitude ofthe value in the table, the further it is from the criteria valve, These tables therefore may be used to indicate relative differences between the different geometries investigated Figure 32 shows the results ofthe intact stability analysis using the U.S. Navy criteria. Both criteria are passed foreach extemal double hull shell spacing. Inspection ofthe righting arm curves in Figure 9 shows the smaller maximum righting arm values for the double hull variants which explain the increase in righting arm ratio. (since nearly identical static wind loaded static heel angles). The decrease in area ratio forthe two double hulls is 4ve tothe smaller heel angles for deck at edge immersion which cuts off the AI area before the decrease in righting arm curves occur (beyond 40 degrees hee) set, The metacentric Figure 33 shows the results ofthe intact stability analysis using the USCG crite ils in al cases. However, the minimum value specified is a reasonable value for a full shaped oil height criteria tanker design, while surface combatant vessels are finer hullform designs which tend to have lower metacentrc heights. The other results shown indicate small differences in righting arms and quicker deck at edge immersion for the larger double hull spacing. “The intact stability characteristics discussed are not specific to the double hull per se. They simply show the diferences in stability due tothe addition of volume external tothe existing CG 47 hull form. The additional volume has no direct relation to a double hull since the addition could just as easly be crew berthing as void compartments lity analysis since stability characteristics forthe external double hull ‘This also tends to complicate the damage sta ‘geometries investigated are partially due to the external volume addition as well as the double hull compartments. 15%L DAMAGE CONDITIONS ‘Area ratio results for the 15%L damage conditions are plotted in Figure 34. Itcan be seen that as the 5 = Inner 6 Shell 2 Spacing = o | 5 4 | Inner 3’ Shell Spacing 0 _— Tank — ~ Side Tank Segmented Tank J 4 ; ara Pry? 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 TTTTTT Ty 0 Heel Angle (degrees) -40 -30 -20 -10 Figure 15. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Spacing - 15%L Damage, Station 9 to Station 12 25| Side Tank Righting Arm (feet) Inner 6 Shell Spacing Inner! ShellSpacng —— - Outer3' Shel Spacing | — ~~ Ouar6 sre Spacing 4S eo -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 16. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Geometry - 159%L Damage, Station 9 to Station 12 264s - _| Outer 6’ Shell Spacing 0 4 4 : _| Outer 3’ Shell Spacing Bg 2 = < o> 4 = Inner 6’ Shell 2 Spacing coo 4 poriiiit 4 _| Inner 3’ Shell Spacin ; pacing —— Baseline Tank UTank = — ~ Side Tank — = = Segmented Tank 4 al rryrt -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 17. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Spacing - 15%L Damage, Station 12 to Station 15 23S £ — é D 4 = Side Tank 2 _| Side Tan! 2 a o- = 4 4 0 ee P= pasetne = cnsnats | | teem Spang mr Sel Se cae ms Blot ] TTT TTT -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 18. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Geometry - 15%L Damage, Station 12 to Station 15, 28_| Outer 6’ Shell Spacing pee eee bovis fm 4 _, Outer 3’ Shell Spacing 7 0 s 2 = 4 pot eee eee ee eee eee g Ze = _| Inner 6’ Shell = Spacing a ° Lee og So 4 -| Inner 3’ Shell Spacin: c pacing: —— Baseline Tank UTank = — ~ Sido Tank ~ Segmented Tank 47 TT TT TTT TTT yt yt rt -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 19. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Spacing - 15%L Damage, Station 15 to Station 18 29U Tank Righting Arm (feet) 40 -30 -20 “10 ==+= -— Baseline = Inner 6 Shell: 7 faa | 4st 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 20. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Geometry - 1561 Damage, Station 15 to Station 18 30Trim (feet, stern down) Draft (feet) Righting Arm (feet) 20 — 18 7 —— Baseline 6 3’ Shell Spacing 4 —--~ 6’ Shell Spacing 12 — yo bt tt 2 3 T T -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 21. Damage Stability Characteristics - 15%L Damage, Station 18 to Station 20 31Righting Arm (feet) 2 — _| Outer 6’ Shell 2 = _| Outer 3’ Shell Spacing 0 — = ee 214 poi 2 _| Inner 6’ Shell | — Spacing o- == La LZ gees Inner 3’ Shell Spacing Tank Side Tank —— Baseline Soi = = = Segmented Tank ryt T T TT TT T aa eee! Tt -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 22. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Spacing - Symmetric Weapons Damage 32Righting Arm (feet) Baseline == tne? 6.Shelt Spaeing + Inner Shel Spacing —— - Outer Shot Soa — =~ Outere Shell spacing = | -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 23. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Geometry - Symmetric Weapons DamageRighting Arm (feet) 4 . | Outer 6’Shell | Spacing 0 4 14 pot boii poiiiiiit 4 — = _| Outer 3’ Shell Spacing 0 — olen eae eee ee eevee eee ee eeerceeg \ 4 i — Inner 6’ Shell Spacing 4 Inner 3’ Shell Spacing pT 0 ————= —— baseline == Tank jee a Segmented Tark | Ds a DD a -40 -30 -20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 24. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Spacing - Asymmetric Weapons DamageRighting Arm (feet) —— Bassline =~ Inner 6°Siet Spacing TILS tna Shel Spacing —— — Outer Shel Spang = = = outro’ snet Spacing oy) oes Vena et Up ee ee -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 25. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Geometry - Asymmetric Weapons Damage 35Righting Arm (feet) 4 _, Outer 3’ Shell Outer 6’ Shell Spacing Spacing Inner 6’ Shell Spacing Inner 3’ Shell Spacing | —— Baseline = JTank a rr = = = Segmented Tank | TTT TT TTT -40 -30 -20 -10 0 H TTT 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 leel Angle (degrees) Figure 26, Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Spacing - 20% Bottom Raking Damage 36Righting Arm (feet) 4 4 - 0 [= Being == tor She Spacing | 4 TTT nme Sha Spang —— Outer Sal Spare e — = - Outer Sho Ssacng So CO -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 27. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Spacing - 20% Bottom Raking Damage 31Righting Arm (feet) 4 _| Outer 6’ Shell Spacing o | — — 4— 4 _| Outer 3’ Shell Spacing =< : a= 4 i eee brpirriiis 4 ————__—- —_ Inner 6’ Shell Spacing 0 = 4 ! pitt pera iiiit 4 _| Inner 3’ Shell Spacing 0 = Baseline ‘JTank | 4 UTenk ‘Side Tark 7 ‘Seger Tank eee eee ~40 -30 -20 -10 0 40 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 28. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Geometry - 40% Bottom Raking Damage 38UTank Righting Arm (feet) Inner 6 Shel Spacing (Outer Shot Spacing — = + outers Shel Spacing 3 4 Tt -40 -30 -20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 29. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Geometry - 40% Bottom Raking Damage 39Righting Arm (feet) Outer 6’ Shell Spacing Inner 6’ Shell Spacing | Inner 3’ Shell | Spacing -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 30. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Spacing - 60% Bottom Raking Damage 40Righting Arm (feet) —— Baseline = Inner She Spacing — uer 6 She Spat nner Shall Spacing (Outer Shel Spacing j 5 1 ~40 TTT -30 -20 10 0 i 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Heel Angle (degrees) Figure 31. Damage Stability Characteristics by Double Hull Geometry - 60% Bottom Raking Damage 41os ‘Area Ratio (AV/A2) Fighting Arm Ratio (StatcrMax) Final Figure 32, Intact Stability Analysis Using U.S. Navy Criteria Set40 2 Heel at Max Fighting Arm (deg) Original Spacing 6 Spacing Original 3° Spacing 6 Spacing 08 oa oa 1 on Fighting Arm at deg Heo! (ft) Fighting Energy upto 3adeg Heel (t-rad) Orgel Spacing 6° Spacing ‘Original 9° Spacing 6 Spacing Fighting Energy 90deg to 4Odog H tad) Fighting Energy to 40deg or Dock immersio Orginal 3 Spacing 6° Spacing ‘ignal 9° Spacing 6 Spacing Figure 33. Intact Stability Analysis Using USCG Criteria Set 4a[rtemal Double Hub 6 Space} 10 0 g° ge ze Es gs a4 a. @. i : ze £0 al a . 08 68 SINS St TO 08 Stee | SLtRHS sk toa 96 S812 SL ISIE sas ena SLI ‘S%L Shol Opening Locaton ‘8% Shell Opening Location wOignal— @UTak al Tank [eOignal — ¢UTark al Tank [Wing Tank « Segmented [2Wing Tank @ Segmented Exomal Double Hal- Spang [Exomal Dole Hal-6 Spacrg 10 10 0 ge ze ze a: a z 3 go ze 08 ES SIRI LIA rr eer | suse sen su 1e4e soe. siete SL1sHB 15% Shot Opening Location 15% Sho Opering Location [eOrgnal— @UTak at Tonk wOigcal—@UTark a Tark ‘Wing Tank ¢Segmented ‘Wing Tank Segmented Figure 34. 1596L Shell Opening Damage - Area Ratio Results3 ao oa ? (raral oe Ha 6 Ser z0 S40 a B 2 2 0 £ £ 8 10 8 0 3 z ae tne {Shel Open Location {tL Shot Open Location [monn Ute wan wowed +UTew ata Ving Tank Segmered [S¥ing Tank Segmened : [onal Dose a3 Spa = roma Dose Fa € Spare 340 oa $ 2 50 us 3 3 320 32 3 : _ 3 = ol 1 Bo 1 z uos ses sie ame os ee a Bae en site Be so oan si see {et Shot Open Locaton {ey She Opening toca [erga UTank a Tank Wing Tank # Segmented [wOtgnal —¢UTark a J-Tank 2Wing Tank ¢ Segmented Figure 35. 1596L Shell Opening Damage - Wind Loaded Static Heel Angle Results 45z ara Double Hal-5 Spor z [rem Doae Fat -@ Spas] 3 ie i Bos os i : eo goa Ep eee eel & é Be . Be , Z s0s seo is tea Z'sos eo sets teat ? S96 S942 SL ASI 2 s.e6 sore S818 18% Shel Opening Location 15%. Shel Opening Location eOigre! Terk atTank feoigeal SU Terk at Tank {2 Wing Tank @ Segmented Wing Tank -¢ Segmented i [Eom Doubie Ha Spas) 7 [Eeeral beat Hal 6 Spacg] 3 Boe 8 3 Bos Zoe a. =z z zo Coo tg eee foe Bo 1 . L a ee ee Zoos ee staat st 10 2 see hon LISS 2 sss sen si 1548 15% Shel Opening Location 15%. Sht Opening Location wOngnal—eUTak atone feorgeal—eUTork ah Tonk Wing Tank Segmerod j= Wing Tank @ Segmented Figure 36, 154L Shell Opening Damage - Righting Arm Ratio Results 46= = a F 5 : f : : g* z ee . § § g 2 Be 3 S BL : : B sos St 69 ‘St 12-15. ‘St. 18-26 A stos St. 6-9 SL 1215 St. 18-26 = S136 SL 12, ‘St. 15-18 = St 36 S112, St 15-18 ae ees ees aoe oto ase Saaaie ise Sages ere Smee 2) =e 2) =a A Es 5. i a : : § a Be 2, E é e Ee . ‘ = St. 36 St S12, ‘St 15-18. = 86 SL O12 ‘St. 15-18 fn Sean eas “Sat snl Opin Loin aa aera Wing Tank @ Segmented [= Wing Tank Segmented Figure 37. 15%L Shell Opening Damage - Maximum Righting Arm, Heeling Arm Difference Results 4[riemal Doute Hu S Spacing =” =” Bm i Ew Bo 03 ses siete st 18a 03 seo SLIas sk HB suse sot S.1548 38 sem sis TSKL Shot Opening Locston 18%L Shot Opening Loosen [moral = UTark Tak [motgral—eUTank as Tank {2Wing Tank « Segmented Ving Tank Segment (Eter Dobe Fa Spach Enorral ble Fal-6 Spec =” =” g 3 B20 gx £ z ; Ew Bo 3 a Bo ao os see steHs Lea sos Seo SARIS Sk tm S36 Lote SIS 36 eet 16 ‘5% Sl Opening Location 18% Sha Oponing Location [moore eUTek aiTark [mOvghat Uae wiTenk Wing Tank» Segmented ing Tank « Segments Figure 38, 15%L Shell Opening Damage - Static Heel Angle Results 483 (eral Dot al-¥ Soa ? g 100 10 : : PoP oP SS” € E Ze So 2 2 & 0 Bo 2» 2 wl Estos si69 st 124s st 182 B“sos ses siiets stead S196 oie S158 soe suede 8.1548 “5% Sal Opening Location 15% Shell Opening Location [eognal—eUTerk a hTonk feOtgns)—@U Tank wank {2Ving Tank @ Sooners [2Ving Tank + Segmented [External Double Hull - 3° Spacing} z [Extemal Double Hull - 6° Spacing} 100 gr so “SSE” Zw 0 So 2 0 bo sos es Skis StTeaM E“scs ses size stead suee sea Suse suse sede 8.1548 15% Shel Opening Location 18% She Opening Location [morgnat Tek aTonk [eoignal —@UTerk —gsTank Wing Tank « Segmented {2Wing Tank @ Sognertd Figure 39. 159L Shell Opening Damage - Posi 49 ive Righting Arm Range Resultsirteral Double Hol -6 Spacing] z z = 5 Pe 2 & & a Bi 5 5 Zo 2, 1 rr ee ere S103 69 SLIaNS Sh 8 S36 gone se 1s98 198 son BL 1eA8 ‘SKI Shel Opening Lcaton “1% Shol Opening Losin [movgnal Uae Tank feOigral 6 UTank a Tank [2ng Tank» Segmented 2Ming Tank Somers (Exar Doble Fal Spar [Exar Dobe Hal Space ? ? Za Zs F 5 &° PP 2 g: 3 : zy 2, L ri sos ee Stats SL tm os kee sats sited soe sore S168 ase Sone SL ISIE 15%L Shell Opening Location feOrignal Uta wy uTank [Wing Tank 4 Segmented '15%L Shall Opening Location [Orginal @U-Tank atari | 2Wing Tank ¢ Segmented Figure 40, 1S66L Shell Opening Damage - Righting Energy Results 50a1 g ee Eos & i a ome ies Sevreaprs Danae a awe ae Boon oes even eto rg ek monger Ivy Terk Soe eT eT = g Baas Sos 3 3 Bos i” 3 3 g 3 mae ae ——as Sr open Danae Se Wepre One oc Te BTa Tam wing Tark mSognonted Figure 41. Weapons Damage - Area Ratio Results 31[rtemal Doobie Hul-3 Space} Wind Loaded State Heel Angi (deg) ini Symetic Sib Side Severe Weapons Damage fmoviginal — mUTark Wing Tank MSogmented “ 20 10 Symetic St Side ‘Severe Weapons Damage ‘Wind Loaded Static Heel Ange (deg) fmovignal MUTA mU-Tank Wing Tank MSegmented [Exemal Double Hol - 6 Spacing] Wind Loaded State Heel Angle (dea) ? go a i Sore Wenore Dosage moviginat — MUTank = MBU-Tank MWg Terk mSegmontod movignas — MU-Tak Tank Wing Tark mSeqmented Figure 42, Weapons Damage - Wind Loaded Static Heel Angle Results 2Ee BHRReEeR ae e ees ee Fighting Arm Ratio (Wind StatcrMax) [rteral Double Hul-F Spacrg| frtemar Daatie Ha oe os (Wed Statieax) ian Symetic St Side ‘Severe Weapons Damage Symetric ‘tb Side Severe Weapons Damage Orga MUTank — mBSTank Wing Tank Segmented Orgad MU Tak MUTank mWing Tank Segmented Fighting Arm Ratio (Wind Staerax) g [Eeemat Dosble Hul-6 Spacing] os Sos os Boe os Eos 3 02 Boz ° So ‘Symetie v0 Sido 2 Symetie 51 Side ‘Severe Weapons Damage @ ‘Severe Weapons Damage Morignal — MUTark Tank Wing Tank WSegmerted ovina MMUTak — MBUTank (Wing Tank wm Segmentod Figure 43. Weapons Damage - Righting Arm Ratio Results,frtema Dobie Fal 6 Spacing] Symettic si Side ‘Severe Woapons Damage Syme ‘Sir Side ‘Severe Weapons Damage zg [ional Doabe al-¥ Spa E gas Eos Bee g fis iis é é go gs Bos Bos 5 5 3 Sete sib See 5 Sete Si0 Sie = ‘Severe Weapons Damage = ‘Severe Weapons Damage wOigra mUTak ee wots UTark Tek ing Terk Segmented IhVing Terk M Segments 2 [Exeral basi al ¥ Spec] z Exenalboaerl-© Spa eae Ge é é gs gs Bos Bos 2 Bo i i Worgnal — MUTank — MTank Wing Tank mSogmenied Figure 44. Weapons Damage - Maximum Righting Arm, Heeling Arm Difference Results, 54frteral Doubve Hal -6 Spacing] =” =) Bes a2 2 Sie Bi aie = 10 210 Bs Bs to 3° a a2 as 5 0 . 0 Symetie ‘stb Sige ‘Smee St Sco ‘Severe Weapons Damage ‘Severe Weapons Damage Orginal mUTak mm Tank ovgoa—U-Terk mms Tone ming Tank msegmenied Img Terk Segmented [Eternal Douie Fal-3 Spasra] [Etema Double Fat-6 Spear] 2 Rs Sm Bis zo 3's an 33 0 ‘Smee ore Sige ‘Smee st Side Severe Weapons Damage Severe Weapons Damage WOvgeal MU Tank Mork [Moga mu Texk MU Tork tang Tank Segmented mV7ng Tank Segmented Figure 45, Weapons Damage - Static Heel Angle Results 553 ? g 100 rs e e Ew 7) a) Ew £ «0 F wo % & Po Ba zo Zo é ‘Symetic ‘ub Side é ‘Syste ‘tt Side Sever Weapons Oaage Sevor Weapons Damage fmoro mu Taw Te oigrar eUTenk men ving Tak Msegrerted teving Terk mSogmeriod e [External Double Hull-& Spacing] 3 [Exteral Double Hull -6 Spacing] ge 'g 100 8 Ew Bw fo Bao » Bio Zo Zo 2 symotic sub side 3 symetic sub Side over Weapons Danoge ‘Severe Weapons Duane fmorgnal MUTank — MU-Tank Wing Tark Segmented fmoignat MUTA MUTank ming Tank maSegmentes Figure 46, Weapons Damage - Positive Righting Arm Range Results 56e? AG 3 : bus dus : = r, F. Pos Pos é : Snr Weapons Dane Sor Weapora Danae Soe Sure mvTe Sore Tek ew vega seq eg Tak magn (Sa Oto a Sg os € 2 e115 215 F, i a o ze Pos e, B, a a Booed mute mex eo ewok moqroted Evirg ark eogroted Figure 47, Weapons Damage - Righting Energy Results 37® 3° Ee Ee a: a. i : g2 a2 Zo Zo aI Pr “on oon on von os Seton lrg Os Long tm F, Pot sk) Goto alr (eLongh tomF, Pt St) rr fecigna UTenk aa Wg Tank Sepmetd fewee Tank» Sepmeied erat bone FY Soa ema Dane ral © Sac —~——— o>. a a Se Ss 3 3 a: gs <2 e2 xo zo 2 2 mx “om woe 20% 40% 60%. ‘Botlom Raking (% Length rom FP, Port Side) (erga 4 U-Tank ‘Wing Tank ¢ Segmented ‘es Tank ‘Bottom Raking (% Length om FP, Pot Side) [etna —¢UTank [aWing Tank ¢Sogmented Tank Figure 48, Bottom Raking Damage - Area Ration Results, 58Bottom Raking (% Length rom FP, Pot Sie) 3 ner Double Fat 3 Spas} 2 erat Double Rul -© Spas} 2, g $ 3° Zn i i a2 g a & Jo Zi § g pol . zo 4 Fox om on EB on am a Baton Raking (% Length tom FP, Prt Sie) ‘Bot Rae (1 Leng tom FP, Pat Sid) [ecignal eu Terk at Tank fecignal —@UTerk—a.eTonk [Wing Tark_ 4 Sogmonied [2Wing Tark_¢ Segmented [erat Deuba Hal Spang 3 era Dale Ful 6 Spas} i” ” ge 3 8 zw Br § s z° ° a 10% om Bmx om oon ‘Bottom Raking (% Length om FP, Pot Sid) fwOrignal 4 U-Tank JaWing Tank «Segmented avTark (eOtgnal—¢UTark —aJ-Tark Wing Tank Segmented Figure 49. Bottom Raking Damage - Wind Loaded Static Heel Angle Results, 59i [nena ona ra 5 Seg 3 i 3 : : — Eo ee ee 2 2 an Bos 20% 40% 60%, 2 20% 40%, 60%. oto Raking (Lang tom FP Pot Se) ote Raking Legh tm F, Por) LL fangre! oe av Tak fing Tank Senmeried (Wir Tak Seqnntd i ral Doni ral 3 Sea 7 Earl boa a0 Sera 3 3 ges ad 5 02 go é é Bos . Bos 20% 40% 60%. B 20% 40% 60% Sotom Raking (gh tom FP Pot Se) oom Rs sgh ton F, Pot i) jeOrgra Uta arto acters! UT avon Wr Tank Sepreiod fing Tek Segmented Figure 50, Bottom Raking Damage - Righting Arm Ratio Results 60e rtonal boobe Fa-5 Spa 2 ioral Dosbe Ha € Spach €s £5 & i 2 z Ee ie § i 3 a 2a e : é 3 S =, 1 @, 3 2x 40% 60% E 2% 40% 0% Botom Raking (Leng om FP, Port Side) ‘oto Raking (% Leng om FP, Port Side) eO%gral Ua wt Tenk [eOtgeal—@UTank wb Tonk f2Wing Tak Segonted {2Ving Tank Segments . (eral Goabe Ful Sper 2 Eroral boite Ha-€ Spec E 5 £5 & Ra i¢ i : fo} —_____# §, é z rae Be & 7 i oe J‘ on ms oe tom Raking (% Length fom FP, Pot Sie) Bot Rang ( Leng tom FP, Pot Side) [morons Uk a Tank eOtgral—@U Tak a aTank [Wing Tank # Segmented [eng Tak Seamer Figure 51. Bottom Raking Damage - Maximum Righting Arm, Heeling Arm Difference Results 61eral Double Fal-3 Specie [rer Double Har 0 0 ga gx gx 3 e & Eu £15 Ei Ev a* 5° ° ° 20% won con 2% ae som Bot Raking (Length fom FP, Pot ide) ‘Batam Raking (Length tom FP, Pot Side) [morgeal 9 UTark a FTonk eon SU Tork at Tank [2Wng Terk «Segmariod J@Wng Terk ¢ Segmented [Exenal Dube Hal 5 Spach (Exeral bout Hul- 6 Spec 2 0 Be Bes 32 2» é 3 zis zis £1 Zw z 5 gs ° o 20% wom oe 2% 10% com oto Raking ( Leng tom FP, Port Sie) Bom Raking (% Length om FP, Pat Side) feovgral Uta 4 lTank [moignal—-eU-Terk a JTonk [2Wng Tank « Sogmeied Wing Tak ¢ Segmented Figure 52. Bottom Raking Damage - Static Heel Angle Results oe8 [rtemat Double Hut ‘Spacing intemal Dabo Hol 6 Spachg] 8 3 3 Positive ight Arm Range (eg) 20% «0% 0% Bottom Faking (% Length em FP, Pot Sie) Posttve Rightng Arm Range (deg) 20% 40%, 00% Bottom Raking (%e Length ftom FP, Port Sie) wOtgnal —-¢UTark —a-Tank Wing Tank @ Segmented [mOrgial§— SUeTark a J-Tank ‘Wing Tark Segmented [Exemal Double Hal - Spacing] [Exemal Double Ful 6 Spacing Postive Fighting Arm Range (de) 8 20% 40% com, ‘Bottom Raking (% Length rom FP, Pot Sie) Posttve Fighting Arm Range (dag) 20% 40% 60% ‘Bottom Raking (% Length om FP, Pot Side) fmOrginal— @UTank Tank JaWing Tank # Segmented (eOrgnal — ¢UTark —a-Tank ‘2Wing Tank Segmented Figure 53. Bottom Raking Damage - Positive Righting Arm Range Results: i ga [Se 2s B2 Be a a 7. - e 2 oe = cox me os on Seton Rating (Langton FP Po Se) Sota ating (Leng fem Po Se ore «Utena Tonk ecigna ota ava CT | Beara bane ral 7 Sa ora boa aT Seay ‘ ‘ z z EB 5 20% 40% 0% Bottom Raking (% Length rom FP, Port Sie) [acral U-Tank Wing Tank ¢ Segmented aS Tank 20% 0% 00% ‘Bottom Raking (Length rom FP, Port Sie) [eOtinat— ¢UTank [aWing Tank Segmented ‘a Tank Figure 54, Bottom Raking Damage - Righting Energy Resultsa i i B a 5 tee a LL im 51/618 a ‘Lg (fm fwd midship) -9.89 /-3.01 ~10.8 / -3.29 1.47/35 nace | MEaTEsTic canes aara 5 cp 0.601 0.508 0.565 a 8 5 a a 5 a 5 :‘Table 2, Summary of U.S. Navy Stability Criteria Investigated Intact Criteria 100 knot beam wind imposed, 25 degree rll back angle Righting arm at static wind loaded heel angle is no more than 60% of the maximum righting arm ‘Area ratio (AV/A2) is no less than 140% Damage Condition Criteria 100 knot beam wind an rollback angle reduced according to displacement ‘Area ratio (AV/A2) sno less than 140% Rightng arm minus heeling arm at the maximum righting arm vale is no less than 0.25% Static wind loaded heel angle of less than 15 degrees if side protection system used, 20 degrees with ‘capability to reduce heel to less than 5 degrees Shell opening of 15% of the length of the vessel at any longitudinal location, centerline to main deck ‘Weapons damage condition 66‘Table 3. Summary of U.S. Coast Guard Double Hull Tanker Specific Stability Criteria Investigated Intact Crites Initial GM no less than 15 m Righting arm grater than 0.2m at 30 degrees heel with the maximum righting arm occurring at no less than 25 degrees heel Righting energy greater than 0055 m-rad up t 30 degrees heel Righting energy greater than 0,03 m-rad between 30 and 40 degrees heel Righting energy greater than 0,09 m-rad up to 40 degrees heel or downflooding angle, which ever i less Damage Condition Criteria Static heel angle less than 25 degrees Positive righting arm range of atleast 20 degrees beyond the static heel angle Righting energy no less than 0.0175 m-rad Bottom raking damage of 40% or 60% of the length of the vessel, depending on displacement 67Table 4, Intact Stability Evaluation Results Original [S Spacing] 6" Spacing Static Heel (deg) 0 0 0 [Maximum Righting Arm 2896 | 2712 | 2498 Heel at Max Righting Arm (deg) 50 45 40 [Wind Static Heet (deg) 20.2058 | 20.2074 | 20.1524 Righting Arm at Wind Static Heel (®) 7.0866 |_1.0566 [1.0574 [Max Heel (deg) 37.181 | 34.0886 _| 31.5443 [St. Immersed at Max Heel 3318_| 6316 | 8.318 [Min Heel (deg) 37.1932 | -34.1794 | -31.4033 [st. immersed at Min Heel 318 | 6.316 | 8.318 [Max Heel total (deg) 24.1711 | 24.1796 | 24.2463, [st, Immersed at Max Heel total 47.003 | 17.003 | 17.003 Min Heel total (deg) 24.3223 | -24.3373 | 24.2753, [st. Immersed at Min Heel total 17,003 |_17.003 | 17.003 Roll Back (deg) 25 25 25 (GM, 26471 | 2.5668 _| 2.5096 Righting Arm - Heeling Arm @ Max RA (A) 24 | 2.412 _|_ 1.795 RRighting Arm at 20deg (ft) T7at_| 1.791] 1.653 Righting Energy, At ({t-rad) 2.0479 | 1.5834 _| 7.0298 Heeling Energy, Az (f-rad) 0.3385 | 0.3406 | 0.3434 [Area Ratio, AVAZ 6.05 | 46484 | 2.0988 IRighting Arm Ratio, 0.3648 | 0.3806 | 0.4231 IRighting Energy to S0deg (f-rad) 0.4132 | 0.415 | 0.4186 IRighting Energy 30 to 40deg (ft-rad) 03711 | 0.3865 | 0.3898 IRighting Energy to 40deg or Max Heel (trad) | 0.6097 | 0.5588 | 0.4744wr OWS HD ty Boon ay Bora ino} Table 5. Damage Stability Evaluation Results for Original CG 47(eLioe —[evewe [sro Joe (OTELS) ‘Table 6, Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With Internal 3° Double Hull Using U-Tank Geometryenh wer 2865] [sor suey wwe Table 7. Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With Internal 3° Double Hull Using J-Tank Geometry nTye Bag ‘uy Bonus naar Ten) ear anes ‘Table 8. Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With Internal 3° Double Hull Using Wing ‘Tank Geometryep) ar aS Table 9. Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With Internal 3° Double Hull Using Segmented Tank Geometry B[Fa Rr aE TS oT] eourer esis a5 ixor ures woues Suodeayh 9105, Table 10, Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With Internal 6° Double Hull Using U-Tank GeometrySooo were Janes [zeae [Treva Riou ey a w=] ezsoe_ esas 02 fsesto —feirro. fsoiso—_Jootr faero0 —lvos00, fezzoo— [2500 aero —[ueze zzz [ase lsesog feu, ieoreicore soot oz eacaez aces. esiaez esoeo. bs00 22 ss cea esare eso 1 pieoez isco peizt Gop} ear 203 fos Tso» Toe cups wens opis aaa] suDurG) Oc-e1 WS] ast 7S} ‘suodeom 1000s ‘stzi 3 oI Sus ory Bojedg os 1 ‘Table 11. Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With Internal 6° Double Hull Using J-Tank GeometryTT ay Ba fo Gyury Banus wna Ben} wets] ‘Table 12. Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With Internal 6" Double Hull Using Wing Tank Geometry[sso0e —Jereoe —[rrene —|—peray Rig ta Kas oa] rose 65ers ez fezevo leer. 008 7 12300 sai. reo sre. sare Geometry 05 scar ‘cat 5] 21-6 us Buoy Bovedo 164s 1551 Table 13. Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With Internal 6" Double Hull Using Segmented Tankrsaso eae, Sea a RS Ta [esr Table 14, Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With External 3° Double Hull Using U-Tank Geometry‘earl Table 15. Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With External 3° Double Hull Using J-Tank Geometry 0EFA ART OP SES oa] parime| TP SS pa e uy Bat Gop) oe om Pu Tap iy Bo Fe eH hy Bag nae orn] Table 16, Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With External 3° Double Hull Using Wing Tank GeometryTor {Gos} wort ane] ‘Table 17. Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With External 3° Double Hull Using Segmented Tank Geometry[para Rac ani MS “Teesh etary aaeisenisoq] ‘Table 18, Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With External 6" Double Hull Using U-Tank Geometry83 “Table 19. Damage Stability Evaluation Resls for CG 47 With External 6" Double Hull Using J-Tank GeomenrySay Min TS OT op) or 2a Purl Gopyuny Bona Ta w wer Day Bowie unwTe Sabenaee| Table 20. Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With External 6' Double Hull Using Wing Tank GeometryTable 21. Damage Stability Evaluation Results for CG 47 With External 6° Double Hull Using Segmented Tank GeometryTable 22. Summary of Evaluation Results for Intact Case - ‘Original [5 Spacing [Spacing (US. Navy Criteria ‘Area Ratio (140%, minimum) BER | ATH _| HH Righting Arm Ratio 60%, maximum) 0.235 | 0210 | 0.177 \USCG Criteria Metacenter, GM Lim (15, minimum) or | 74 GZ at 30deg (0.2, minimum) 0.35 | 0.36 Max Righting Arm Heel (25, minimum 20 5] | CRighting Energy to 306g (0.056, minimum) T 073 Righting Energy 30 to 40deg (0.03, minimum) “0.083 0.089 0.055: Fighting Energy to 40deq or Max Fee! (0.02, minimum) 0.114 NOTE: Shown in parenthesis are the value ofthe criteria and weather it is an upper (maximum) ‘ot lower (minimum) limit. Values in the table are the difference from the criteria, Alar indicates a characteristic beyond what the criteria calls for. Negative values indicate a criteria failure.Table 23, Summary of Evaluation Results for 15%L Damage, Station 0 to Station 3 ‘Orga and Interal | External | Esteral Ccompartmentaion | 3 Spacing | 6 Spacing [U'S. Naw Crea Ee Area Rat (140%, RU a, ETE | STE Righting-esing Arm Oierenee (025mm {2s 2472 [2.182 —| ‘State Wind Loaded Heal (20, maxmur) 26 1045 [978 —] [State Wind Loaded Heel (1, maximum) 836. 548 [470 lusce criteria sie Heel (25, maaan ssa oatve Righing Arm Range above Sta Heel minum] [68.38 5628 | 58.44 Fighting Energy (0.0175, minimum : ‘0330 ‘076410601 NOTE: Shown in parenthesis ae the value ofthe eeria and weather tis an uppe (maximum) ‘rower (minimum mt. Values nthe table ae the eierence rom era. A larger value lndeates a characterise beyond whal the eeria cll fer. Negative values nate entra aur, 87‘Table 24, Summary of Evaluation Results for 159L Damage, Station 3 to Station 6‘Table 25. Summary of Evaluation Results for 151, Damage, Station 6 to Station 9 89.=e ee | Table 26. Summary of Evaluation Results for 1S%L Damage, Station 9 to Station 12‘Table 27. Summary of Evaluation Results for ISL Damage, Station 12 to Station 15‘Table 28. Summary of Evaluation Results for 159L Damage, Station 15 to Station 18Table 29. Summary of Evaluation Results for 154L Damage, S [—orgratand J] External | Eternal Spacing | 6 Spacing Interal | compartmentation (US. Navy Criteria —| ‘rea Rata (140%, min 2 sa Righing: Heslng Arm Dierence (025, minimum) "2088 [7.868 |" .628 —] ‘State Wind Loadod Heel (20, maxim) 639 833 30 ‘Stale Wind Loaded Heal (15, maximum) = 139 133 [430 usec criteria ! ‘Stati Hoel 25, manu) 7338 Za eatve Righing Arm Range above Satis Hel (20, maior 57.38 5.20—[ 8276 Righing Energy (0.0175, minum) “2703 0585 —[a43t NOTE: Shown n parenthesis are the value ofthe teria and weather Ris an upper (maxima) ‘rower (minimum) ln, Values in the table ae the dference rom the cra. A larger value indoates a characterise beyond what the ee cals for Negative values indicate 2 erteria faleTTT lll nae eee ‘Table 30, Summary of Evaluation Results for Sever Weapons Damage, Starboard Side‘Table 31. Summary of Evaluation Results for Severe Weapons Damage, Port and Starboard‘Table 32. Summary of Evaluation Results for 20%. Bottom Raking‘Table 33. Summary of Evaluation Results for 40% Bottom Raking‘Table 34, Summary of Evaluation Results for 60%%L Bottom RakingREFERENCES 1. “Ship Hull Characteristics Program (SHCP) User's Manual, Version October 1992, ‘Naval Sea Systems Command, Data Sheet - Stability and Buoyancy of U.S. Naval Surface Ships", DDS 079-01, Department of the ‘Navy, Naval Ship Engineering Center, 1 August 1993, 3. “Double Hull Standards for Vessels Carrying Oil in Bulk; Interim Final Rule”, United States Coast Guard, 12 August 1992. 4. Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 46, Sub-Chapter D, Parts 1 through 40 and 170 through 174. 5. “Principles of Naval Architecture - Volume I: Stability and Strength”, Edward V. Lewis, editor, The Society of, Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Jersey City, N.J, 1988.