See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336086050

Application of the 2nd Generation Intact Stability Criteria for fast semi
displacement ships

Conference Paper · September 2019

CITATIONS READS

3 148

3 authors:

Ermina Begovic Barbara Rinauro

University of Naples Federico II University of Naples Federico II
74 PUBLICATIONS 638 CITATIONS 14 PUBLICATIONS 53 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ferdi Çakıcı
Yildiz Technical University
47 PUBLICATIONS 243 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Manoeuvering Performance Predictions of Underwater Vehicles View project

Development of a fast frequency&time domain ship motion code View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ferdi Çakıcı on 27 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Application of the 2nd Generation Intact Stability Criteria for fast semi
displacement ships
E. Begovic, B. Rinauro
University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
F. Cakici
Yildiz Technical University, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey

ABSTRACT: The Second Generation Intact Stability Criteria (SGISC) are developing since 2002 after a
series of naval accidents, which clearly demonstrated that actual stability criteria are not adequate to account
for significant changes in the design and operation characteristics of new commercial ships. The philosophy is
a multi-level approach in which successive levels are less conservative and more accurate, arriving, if neces-
sary, to the Direct Assessment of stability failures.
In this paper, Level 1 and 2 of the three main stability failure modes of the SGISC: The Parametric Roll,
Pure Loss of Stability and Surf-riding/Broaching are studied on four naval ships the Systematic Series D two-
parent hulls, the ONRT, benchmark ship from research version of the US Navy, and FREMM, a class of mul-
ti-purpose French- Italian frigates. For every ship typology, when one was found vulnerable to 2nd level, the
corresponding criteria were analyzed by navigation conditions to estimate operational limits.

1 INTRODUCTION Great attention has been given to parametric roll

After a series of naval accidents clearly demonstrat-
ed that actual stability criteria were not sufficient an-
ymore, a new generation of criteria is under devel-
opment since 2002. The Second Generation Intact
Stability Criteria consider five stability failure
modes: Parametric roll, Pure loss of stability, Surf-
riding/ broaching, Dead ship condition and Exces-
sive accelerations, actually dealt by IMO working
group. The criteria are structured with a multi-tiered
approach: Level 1 is simple and conservative. If the
ship is found vulnerable level 2 is applied, which is
less conservative and based on simplified physics. If
again the ship is found vulnerable, the Direct Stabil-
ity Assessment (DA) can be performed using the
most advanced state of art methodology.
These three failure modes have been long studied
before the development of the SGISC. During 70-
ties Paulling et al. (1972), (1975), Chou et al. (1974),
Oakley et al. (1974) conducted an extensive experi-
mental campaign and identified three modes of cap-
sizing in quartering and following seas, defined as:
low-cycle resonance (parametric roll), pure loss of
stability and broaching.
During last two decades, IMO working group
studied more than 30 “bench mark” ships vulnerable
to different stability failures reported in Peters et al.
(2011, Wandji and Corrignan (2012), Schrøter et al.
(2017). Container ships, fishing vessels, naval ships
are found to be the most vulnerable to the parametric
roll, pure loss and surf riding.
problem after the accident of a post-Panamax, C11
class containership in 1998, when she encountered
extreme weather and sustained extensive loss and
damage to deck stowed containers. France et al.
(2003) investigates the motions of the vessel during
the storm event through a series of model tests and
numerical analyses. Authors stated that:
“From theory and as validated in these tests,
parametric roll occurs when the following require-
ments are satisfied:
1. the natural period of roll is equal to approxi-
mately twice the wave encounter period
2. the wave length is on the order of the ship
length (between 0.8 and 2 times LBP)
3. the wave height exceeds a critical level
4. the roll damping is low”
Vulnerability of naval vessels have been studied
mainly for Office of Naval Research Thumblehome
(ONRT) and Flare (ONRF) models and destroyer
type DTMB 5415 model by following Authors.
Francescutto (2011) studies parametric rolling on
experimental basis of a destroyer type and the exper-
imental results are in very good agreement with the
theory of Mathieu equation.
Bassler (2008) applied the ABS parametric roll
susceptibility criteria, developed for containership
design, on the naval hulls of ONRT and ONRF and
compared results against LAMP (Large Amplitude
Motion Program) simulation predictions. The differ-
ent topside geometry of the two ships shown to af-
fect the amplitude of parametric roll: parametric roll
for the tumblehome ship occurred at smaller wave
heights and lower speeds than for the flared hull. Lu
and Gu (2012) applied a mathematical model for
predicting parametric roll of ONRT hull and investi-
gated her vulnerability considering hydrodynamic ef-
fects of radiation and diffraction, which play an im-
portant role in parametric roll prediction. The
authors conclude that tumblehome ship with appro-
priate GM could be not vulnerable except with high
speed in severe waves.
In the last decade, Direct Assessment methods us-
ing CFD simulations have been explored in Sadat
Hosseini (2009), Sadat Hosseini t al. (2011), Alistair
and Boulougouris (2015) to predict broaching, surf-
riding, and periodic motion for the ONR Tumble-
home model. Although very time consuming, it is
confirmed that CFD is a valuable tool for the inves-
tigation of the phenomena.
More detailed literature background for surf-ring
and pure loss of stability failure modes is reported in
Begovic et al. (2018) and Rinauro and Begovic
(2019).
This paper focuses on IMO Level 1 and 2 proce-
dures of the three principal failure modes: Paramet-
ric roll, pure loss stability and surf-riding/broaching
applied on naval ships. Series D - two parent hulls,
and for the ONRT, benchmark ship from research
version of the US Navy. For FREMM, a class of
multi-purpose French- Italian frigates have been
studied. For every ship typology, when one was
found vulnerable to 2nd level, the corresponding cri-
teria was analyzed by navigation conditions to esti-
mate operational limits
2 IMO SECOND GENERATION INTACT
STABILITY CRITERIA
2.1 Parametric roll criteria
Parametric roll criterion for Level 1 and 2 have been
analyzed following IMO documents SDC 2/WP 4,
SDC 3/WP 5, SDC 5/ INF 4 and SDC 5/INF 12.
The vulnerability of a ship to parametric roll for
Level 1 is detected if the ratio between the amplitude
of the variation of the metacentric height in waves
and the metacentric height in calm water, is greater
than a calculated limit value.
Level 2 vulnerability is based on the calculation of
two criteria, C1 and C2. The first is function of the
metacentric height estimated in waves, the second
one is determined from the estimation of the maxi-
mum roll angles in head waves and following waves,
for 3 velocities cases and 1 zero speed case. The re-
sults are weighted for wave case occurrences from
Table 2.11.3.4.2 (SDC 2/WP4). The ship is found
not vulnerable if either C1 or C2 is greater than limit
value of 0.06.
The value of the maximum roll angle, for a ship sail-
ing in longitudinal seas (following or head), is esti-
mated by solving the nonlinear equation of paramet-
ric roll:
( I 4 4  A 4 4 )  B 4 4 L   B 4 4 N L  + Δ G Z (  , t )  0
3
(1)
Where, B44L is the linear roll damping coefficient,
B44N is the nonlinear (cubic) roll damping coeffi-
cient, A44 is the roll added mass, I44 is the transverse
moment of inertia,  is the displacement force of the
ship and GZ(,t) denotes the righting arm with re-
spect to time which is introduced with a 7th order
polynomial equation:
G Z( , t )   G M m  G M a cos(ω e t )  
(2)
 a  b  c  d  
7 5 3
 
GMm is the mean value and GMa is the amplitude of
the GM changes for each wave case, that is:
GM  (G M  GM )/2
a m ax m in
where GMmax and GMmin are maximal and minimal
instantaneous values of GMi among the ones calcu-
lated for 10 wave crest positions.
The encounter frequency eis calculated as
ω e    k  u s cos(  )
Here  is wave frequency and it is found using dis-
persion relation in deep water
2πg
ω=
λ
is wave length, g denotes the gravity, k denotes
wave number k=, uS is the ship speed and  de-
notes the heading angle.
a, b, c, d are the restoring coefficients calculated
using the least squared method .
For the evaluation of linear and cubic roll damp-
ing coefficients, Ikeda’s simplified prediction meth-
od can be used (SDC/4/5/1/Add.1, Annex 2). Ikeda’s
simplified formula divides the equivalent roll damp-
ing into the frictional (BF), the wave (BW), the eddy
(BE) and the bilge keel (BBK) components at zero
forward speed and the lift component (BL) is added
at forward speed.
2.2 Pure loss of stability criteria
Pure Loss Criterion has been analyzed following
IMO documents SDC 2 WP.4, SDC 3 WP.5, SDC
4/5/1 and SDC 4/5/6.
The verification of Pure Loss of Stability applies
to all ships for which the Froude number corre-
sponding to the service speed exceeds 0.24.
A ship is considered vulnerable to level 1 pure
loss stability if the minimum value of the metacen-
tric height, estimated in waves, is lower than a limit
value of 0.05.
For level 2, vulnerability is detected if the largest
value between 2 criteria, CR1 and CR2 is greater than
limit value of 0.06. These two criteria are deter-
mined from the estimation of the minimum values of
angle of vanishing stability and the maximum value
of the static angle of righting arm curve in waves.
The results are weighted for wave case occurrences
from Table 2.10.3.2 (SDC 2/WP4).
2.3 Surf-riding/broaching Criteria
Surf-riding/broaching criterion has been analyzed
following IMO documents SDC 2 WP.4 and SDC 3
WP.5.
Level 1 vulnerability for Surf-riding/broaching is
based on lower limit of 200 m for ship length and
higher limit of 0.3 Froude number for speed limit
values.
Vulnerability of Level 2 is detected if the value of
index C is greater than limit value of to 0.005. The
formulation of the Index C value is based on the so-
lution of surge motion equation, following Melni-
kov’s method, and the results are weighted for wave
case occurrences from Table 2.12.3.3.2 (SDC
2/WP4).
ational speeds range: maximum speed around 25 -
30 knots and autonomy speed around 15-20 knots.
The Systematic Series D is originated from a
semi-displacement twin-screw round-bilge hull
form, initially made by the German yard
Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft, with the necessity
of having resistance and power predictions on a
shorter and wider ship type as this was a new and
developing trend of ship design (Kracht and Jacob-
sen, 1992). The D-Systematic Series has seven mod-
els and the body plans of parent hull forms D1 and
D5 are shown in figure 1.
The models D1 and D5 have been scaled with
scaling factor equal to 22, corresponding to a length
between perpendiculars of 132 m, in line with typi-
cal Italian naval ship statistical data.
Figure 1 Nondimensional section lines of parent hull forms D1
(continuous line) and D5 (discontinuous line) (after Kracht and
Jacobsen, 1992)

2.4 Code Verification on IMO benchmark Ships

The FREMM ("European multi-purpose frigate”)
1st and 2nd Level of the three criteria have been is a class of multi-purpose frigates designed by Na-
coded in Matlab ® and hydrostatic calculations have val Group/Armaris and Fincantieri for the navies of
been performed with Maxsurf software. Matlab® France and Italy. In France the class is known as the
codes for level 1 and 2 of the three criteria have been Aquitaine which was the lead ship commissioned in
first validated on the benchmark ships:
November 2012 by the French Navy, while in Italy
Parametric roll code has been validated on test case
C11 containership, whose data and resulting calcula- they are known as the Bergamini class. The hull
tions are available in IMO documents SDC 5/INF.4 form is shown in figure 2.
Annex 13 and SDC 5/INF12. The final resulting val-
ues coincide perfectly with IMO ones, but interme-
diate values slightly differ from IMO’s due to the
different methods in calculating GM value in waves
and damping evaluation.
Pure Loss code has been validated (Rinauro et al.,
2018) on C11 containership.
Surf-riding/broaching code has been validated (Be-
govic et al 2018) on the IMO benchmark fishing ship
(SDC 3 WP 5).

3 DESCRIPTION OF CONSIDERED SHIPS: THE

SYSTEMATIC SERIES D, FREMM AND Figure 2. FREMM (Wikipedia)
ONRT

The validate codes for the three SGISC have been
performed on four Navy ships: Models D1 and D5
from the Systematic Series D, FREMM and ONRT
hulls. Normally naval ships have two different oper-
The ONR Tumblehome vessel, which is one of
the benchmark ships used for the second generation
intact stability criteria. It represents the research ver-
sion of the US Navy surface combatant DDG-1000
Zumwalt class. The body plan is shown in figure 3.
For the ONRT model, equipped with twin propellers 4 IMO CRITERIA
and twin rudders, resistance and thrust data has been
taken from Hosseini et al. (2011).
4.1 Parametric roll

Level 1 and Level 2 vulnerability codes for paramet-

ric roll have been performed for each ship.
For the calculation of index C2 of Level 2, the solu-
tion of roll equation (1) is performed numerically
with the Runge Kutta method at fourth order with
time set to T *15 and time step set to T/40.
The initial conditions are taken the same for each
simulation:

  0.087 rad

  0 rad / s
Where the values of the natural roll period were
not known from the hull data the following formulas
Figure 3. Body Plan ONRT have been used:
k 4 4  0 .4  B
For the three considered ships, main dimensions,
I 44  k 
2
resistance and thrust coefficients are reported in Ta-
bles 1 and 2, where the resistance curve has been fit- A 4 4  0 .2 5  I 4 4
ted with a 5th order polynomial equation and thrust
coefficient with a 2nd order polynomial function. I 4 4  A4 4
T  2 
  g .G M
Table 1. Main dimension for 4 considered ships
DIMENSIONS D1 D5 FREM ONRT
M Results of parametric roll vulnerability criterion
Length PP L m 132 132 134 154
for the three ships are given in table 3: no vulnerabil-
Beam waterline B m 19.8 19.4 17.65 18.78
ity is detected.
0 0
Draft T m 5.28 5.17 5.81 5.49
Table 3. Parametric Roll results for Level 1 and 2
Displacement  t 6986 6970 6847 8507 Parametric Roll
Block coefficient CB - 0.50 0.50 0.337 0.535 Level 1 Level 2
Propeller diameter DP m 4.71 4.71 4.75 5.22 D1 Fails Passes for V > 20 kn
Number propellers NP - 2 2 2 2 D5 Fails Passes for V ≥ 20 kn
Center of gravity KG m 8.8 8.8 7.91 8.24 FREMM Fails Passes for V=15 & 30 kn
Metacentric height GM m 1.95 1.65 1.272 1.781 ONRT Passes -
8
For the Series D, Hulls D1 and D5 are found vul-
nerable to level 1 since the GM ratios, equal to 0.618
Table 2. Resistance and Thrust coefficients for D1 and to 0.6645 for D5, are greater than RPR
D1 D5 FREMM ONRT limit of 0.17. Therefore, the calculation of Level 2
r0 0 0 0 0 has been performed for different speed cases: for au-
r1 329397.8 328233 -163486 48098 tonomous speed of 20 knots, intermediate speed of
r2 -102478 -101595 85283 -11539 25 knots and higher speed of 30.3 knots, correspond-
r3 10533.69 10444.9 -12738 1364 ing to service Froude number. Hull D1 was found
r4 -384.8 -379.86 808.69 5.173 vulnerable to parametric roll for speeds lower or
r5 4.68 4.58 -17.01 -1.254 equal to 20 knots, while D5 was found not vulnera-
k0 0.677 0.677 0.521 0.634 ble for 20 knot speed, as shown in table 4 and fig 4.
k1 -0.422 -0.422 -0.090 0.267
k2 -0.084 -0.084 -0.206 0.095
tp f (Vs) f (Vs) 0.100 0.120
wp 0.100 0.100 0.066 0.100
 Table 4. Parametric Roll criterion Level 2 for The FREMM hull results vulnerable to level 1
hulls D1 and D5 since GMmin, equal to -1.0926, is less than limit
D1 D5 0.05. The calculated values of CR1 and CR2 of level
V(kn) Fn C1 C2 C1 C2 2 have been performed for speed range of 15.5 to 35
20 0.286 0.2488 0.0647 0.2488 0.0038 knots and results are shown in table 5 and figure 5.
25 0.357 0.2488 0.0004 0.2488 0
30.3 0.433 0.2488 0 0.2488 0 Table 5 - Pure loss of stability criterion Level 2 for
FREMM
FREMM
Parametric Roll - Level 2 D1 & D5 V(kn) V(m/s) Fn CR1 CR2
0.30
C1,C2 15.56 8.0 0.221 1.10E-05 1.10E-05
0.25 19.44 10.0 0.276 1.10E-05 2.50E-05
23.33 12.0 0.331 1.10E-05 0.000647
C1-D1
0.20 27.22 14.0 0.386 1.10E-05 0.004985
C2-D1
C1-D5 31.11 16.0 0.442 1.10E-05 0.026879
0.15
C1-D5 33.05 17.0 0.469 1.10E-05 0.044961
C2-D5 35.00 18.0 0.497 1.10E-05 0.081164
0.10

0.05
Level 2 Pure Loss Criteria - FREMM
0.00 0.090
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 C1 and C2
Fn 0.080
Figure 4. D1 and D5 Parametric roll results for Froude number 0.070
range 0.28-0.433. 0.060
0.050
The FREMM hull has been found vulnerable to CR1
0.040
Level 1 since the GM ration of is equal to 0.9035 0.030 CR2
which is greater than RPR limit of 0.17, therefore, 0.020 LIMIT
Level 2 has been performed at 15 and 20 knots 0.010
speed. The value of C1 equals zero for both autono- 0.000
my and maximum speeds, therefore no vulnerability 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 0.500
Fn
to parametric roll was detected.
The ONRT hull results not vulnerable to paramet- Figure 5. FREMM Pure loss of stability results for Froude
ric roll since Level 1 equation is verified with the number range 0.22-0.5
GM ratio equal to 0.2295, less than the RPR limit
value calculated as 0.9. The intermediate values of the minimum vanish-
ing stability, the maximum static angle and the arm
of a heeling moment are shown in table 6, for speed
4.2 Pure loss of stability case of 18 m/s where vulnerability is detected. It can
Results of pure loss of stability vulnerability crite- be noted that the minimum value of vanishing stabil-
rion for Level 1 and 2 are given in table 4, for the ity is always greater than 30 degrees, limit value,
considered ships. giving no contribution to CR1 calculation while for
wave height higher than 6 m the maximum static an-
Table 4. Pure loss stability results for Level 1 & 2 gle is greater than 25, limit value, and gives contri-
Pure loss of stability bution to calculation of CR2.
Level 1 Level 2
D1 Fails NA
Table 6 - Minimum vanishing stability and maxi-
D5 Fails NA
mum static angle intermediate values for FREMM at
FREMM Fails Passes for V <34 kn
speed 18 knots
ONRT Passes - FREMM V= 18 m/s
Wave height Vmin Smax RPL3
Hulls D1 and D5 are found vulnerable to level 1, 0.0 35 0 0
since GMmin values, equal to -1.12 for D1 and -1.29 1.34 35 5.2 0.11
for D5, are less than 0.005 limit. The hull geometry 2.68 35 11.5 0.23
available from the Systematic series D, without su- 4.02 35 17.5 0.34
perstructure, was not sufficient to perform adequate 5.35 35 23.5 0.46
calculations of GZ curve values in waves, therefore 6.69 35 34.8 0.57
Level 2 has not been performed. 8.03 35 35 0.69
9.37 35 35 0.80
10.71 35 35 0.92
 12.05 35 35 1.03 Figure 6. Surf-riding Level 2 for all considered ships for Fn
13.39 35 35 1.15 range 0.3 – 0.35

Table 8. Surf-riding Level 2 hulls D1 and D5

SERIES D
The ONRT is found not vulnerable to level 1
V(kn) Fn Index C-D1 Index C-D5
since the GMmin, equal to 0.682, is greater than 0.05
20.99 0.300 0 0
limit and 2 level was not performed. 22.39 0.320 0.0002 0.0001
23.09 0.330 0.0013 0.0011
4.3 Surf-riding/broaching 23.64 0.338 0.0043 0.0039
23.78 0.340 0.0056 0.0052
Considering a service Froude number above 0.3, 24.48 0.350 0.0128 0.0125
corresponding to about 21 knots for model D1, D5
and FREMM and about 22 for ONRT, all ships are Table 9. Surf-riding Level 2 FREMM hull
vulnerable to Level 1 surf-riding criterion. The val- FREMM
ues of the thrust deduction coefficient tp and wake
V(kn) Fn Index C
fraction wp have been taken equal to the mean values
21.13 0.3 0
of the ones from experimental data, and for the se-
21.84 0.31 0
ries D the following formulas, indicated by Authors,
22.54 0.32 0.0001
have been used:
23.25 0.33 0.0006
 Fn 
bT ( F n )   1.0  0.433 F n exp   23.95 0.34 0.0036
 F n0  24.09 0.342 0.0047
1 24.16 0.343 0.0056
t p  1.0 
bT ( F n ) 24.66 0.35 0.0107
J KT nM D M
wP  1  Table 10. Surf-riding Level 2 ONRT hull
M
ONRT
Where Fn0 is equal to 0.52, i.e. corresponds to
V (kn) Fn Index C
Froude number at maximum CR(Fn) coefficient.
22.67 0.3 0.0000
23.42 0.31 0.0001
Results of surf-riding/broaching criterion for all
24.18 0.32 0.0008
three class hulls are given in table 7 and in figure 6.
24.93 0.33 0.0031
25.31 0.335 0.0054
Table 7. Surf-riding Level 1 and 2
25.69 0.34 0.0084
Surf-riding/broaching
26.45 0.35 0.0127
Level 1 Level 2
D1 Fails Passes for V <23.6 kn
From figure 6, from a first comparison in terms of
D5 Fails Passes for V <23.7 kn
Froude number, it can be seen that the FREMM has
FREMM Fails Passes for V <24 kn
the best hull form, with Fn limit around 0.342, while
ONRT Fails Passes for V <25 kn
ONRT has the worst, with Fn limit around 0.335, in
line with Hosseini (2011) results. From a second
All hulls have been tested on level 2 for different analysis, from tables 7,8 and 9, it can be seen that
speed cases starting from Froude number 0.3, limit the ONRT hull has the highest speed limit before
value of level 1, to 0.35. Resulting values are shown failing surf-riding vulnerability criterion, around 25
in figure 6 and in tables 8, 9 and 10. knots, and the D1 and D5 hulls have the lowest
speed limit around 23.5 knots. This is due to the
greater ship length of the ONRT hull, which for cor-
Surf-riding 2 Level responding Fn numbers gives high speed values.
0.014 Index C
C - D1
0.012
C - D5
5 CONCLUSIONS
0.010 FREMM
0.008 ONRT
Limit
IMO Second generation intact stability criteria of
0.006 Parametric roll, pure loss of stability and surf-riding
0.004 have been applied on three different naval ships: Se-
0.002 ries D, FREMM and ONRT. All considered ships,
0.000 have two operational speeds range: maximum speed
0.3 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34
Fn
0.35
around 25-30 knots and autonomy speed around 15-
20 knots.
It can be concluded that, for the Series D, hulls D1 Coast Guard, Technical Report. (Also IMO Doc. STAB/7,
and D5 are vulnerable to parametric roll for speeds 1973).
Paulling, J. R., Oakley O.H., and Wood, P. D. 1975. Ship cap-
below 20 knots and to surf-riding for speeds greater sizing in heavy seas: the correlation of theory and experi-
than 23.5 knots. In particular D1 model is found ments. Proc. of STAB'75: 1st International Con-ference on
slightly worse than D5 model for both surf-riding Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles, Glas-gow.
and parametric roll vulnerability. Nothing can be Peters,W., V. Belenky, C. Bassler, K. Spyrou, N. Umeda, G.
concluded for pure loss of stability criterion, since Bulian, B. Altmayer, 2011. The Second Generation Intact
calculation could not be performed with the availa- Stability Criteria: An Overview of Development. Trans.
SNAME, 119:225-264.
ble hull geometry. Rinauro B., Begovic E., 2019. Vulnerability Assessment of
The FREMM hull was found vulnerable mainly to Surf-Riding-Broaching and Pure Loss of Stability for Sys-
surf-riding for speeds greater than 24 knots, while tematic Series D1 Model. Journal of ship and offshore
from the mean value of the autonomous speed, of structure
about 15 knots, to the mean value of the maximum Schrøter C., Lützen M., Erichsen H., Jensen J.J., Kristensen
speed, of about 30 knots, no parametric roll or pure H.O., Lauridsen P. H., Tunccan O., Baltsersen J.P., 2017.
Sample Applications of the Second Generation Intact Sta-
loss of stability vulnerability is detected. bility Criteria -Robustness and Consistency Analysis, 16th
The ONRT hull was found vulnerable to the only International Ship Stability Workshop, pp 9-14
surf-riding criterion for speeds above 25 knots. Wandji C., Corrignan P., 2012. Test Application of Second
Since all three hull forms are similar to each other, Generation IMO Intact Stability Criteria on a Large Sample
and the highest limit of vulnerability for the ONRT of Ships. 11th International Conference on the Stability of
hull can be attributed to its greatest ship length. Ships and Ocean Vehicles, Greece., pp 129-139
IMO SDC 2/WP.4 Report of the working group (Part 1), Lon-
don, 19 Feb 2015
IMO SDC 3/WP.5 Report of the working group (Part 1), Lon-
6 REFERENCES don, 21 Jan 2016
IMO SDC 5/INF 4 Information collected by the correspond-
Alistair G., Boulougouris E., 2015. Parametric rolling of the ence group on intact stability, London, 15 Nov 2017
Tumblehome hull using CFD. 12th International Confer- IMO SDC 5/INF.12 Sample ship calculation results. Submit-
ence on Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles ted by Brazil, London, 17 Nov 2017
Bassler C., 2008. Application of parametric roll criteria to Na- IMO SDC 4/5/1 Report of the correspondence group (Part 1).
val vessels. 10th International Ship Stability Work-shop Submitted by Japan, London 11 Nov 2016
Begovic E., Bertorello C., Boccadamo G., Rinauro B, 2018. IMO SDC 4/5/6 Draft consolidated explanatory notes for the
Application of Surf-riding and Broaching Criteria for the second generation intact stability criteria. Submitted by the
Systematic Series D models”, Ocean Engineering United States, London, 10 Nov 2016.
Chou S. J., Oakley O.H., Paulling J.R., Van Slyke R. Wood
P.D., Zink P. F., 1974. Ship Motions and Capsizing in
Astern Seas
France W.N., Levadou M., Treakle T.W., Paulling J.R., Michel
K., Moore C., 2003. An investigation of head-sea paramet-
ric rolling and its influence on container lashing systems.
Marine Technology, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 1-19
Francescutto A., 2011. An experimental investigation of para-
metric rolling in head waves. Journal of Offshore Mechan-
ics and Artic Engineering
Sadat-Hosseini H., Carrica P, Stern F., Umeda N., Hashimoto
H., Yamamura S., Mastuda A., 2011. CFD, system-based
and EFD study of ship dynamic instability events: Surf-
riding, periodic motion and broaching, Ocean Engineering,
38 (2011) 88–110
Sadat-Hosseini H.,2009. CFD prediction of ship capsize: para-
metric rolling, broaching, surf-riding, and periodic motions,
PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa,
https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.c2qgkc5s
Kracht A.M., 1992, internal report- VWS-Bericht Nr. 1202/92
Kracht, A.M., Jacobsen, A., 1992. D-Series Systematic Ex-
periments with Models of Fast Twin-Screw Displace-ment
Ship. SNAME Transactions, Vol. 100, 1992, pp. 199-222
Lu J., Gu M., 2012. An investigation on parametric rolling of a
Tumblehome hull. 11th International Conference on Stabil-
ity of Ships and Ocean Vehicles
Oakley O.H, Paulling, J. R., and Wood, P. D. 1974. Ship mo-
tions and capsizing in astern seas. Proc. 10th Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics, ACR-204, Office of Naval Re-
search, MIT.
Paulling, J. R., Kastner, S. and Schaffran, S. 1972. Experi-
mental studies of capsizing of intact ships in heavy seas..US

View publication stats