SHIP STABILITY IN PRACTICE

JAN BABICZ
Consulting Naval Architect & Ship Surveyor

BAOBAB NAVAL CONSULTANCY

www.betterships.com

GDASK 2011

Foreword
The main purpose of the present publication is first of all to make ship designers and operators realize
that stability rules are not perfect and their fulfillment does not mean that the ship will be safe in all conditions. Secondly, to present Onboard Stability Documentation standard which enables better understanding of ship stability and increasing its safety.
Each year new rules are developed aimed at increasing safety of ships operation. It concerns also the
ship stability rules. During the 52nd session of IMO Sub-Committee on Stability and Load Lines and Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF52) held in January 2010, i.a., development of dynamic intact stability criteria and
damage stability regulations for ro-ro passengers ships was discussed.
New rules always increase labour consumption related to a new ship design and number of documents
to be approved. Unfortunately, it does not affect the quality of stability documentation which is prepared
imperfectly due to the wrong assumption that in practice the master will use the stability instrument only.
Very often the documentation is difficult to understand and of little practical value. It is no surprise that it
is just put aside.
The solution which may lower costs of stability documentation preparation, increase its quality as well as
practical value is Onboard Stability Documentation standard. Easy to understand and logical standard
will significantly facilitate and accelerate documentation approval process in Classification Societies but
above all it will make officers work easier and increase ship stability safety. Proposal of such a standard
for dry cargo vessels is presented in Part II of the publication.
Part I includes basic knowledge on ship hydrostatics and stability, presentation of current rules requirements concerning stability as well as information on ships behaviour in waves. Furthermore, it contains
descriptions of stability accidents and proposals of design solutions which increase ship collision safety
and survivability after damage.
The book is addressed to a wide circle of professionals involved in ship design, approval of stability
calculations and documentations, survey and operation of ships. It should be of interest to ship design
offices, ship manufacturers, shipping companies (owners and operators), education institutes and others
concerned with ship stability. However, it does not replace any regulations.

Jan Babicz
Consulting Naval Architect & Ship Surveyor

Contents:
Foreword ............................................................................................................................................5

PART 1 SHIP HYDROSTATICS AND STABILITY..................................................................... 9

1.
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.2
1.3

SHIP GEOMETRY......................................................................................................................10
HULL FORMS............................................................................................................................10
Ship coordinate system...................................................................................................12
Graphic description of hull forms...........................................................................13
MAIN DIMENSIONS...................................................................................................................15
COEFFICIENTS OF FORM........................................................................................................22

2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10

FLOTABILITY............................................................................................................................23
ARCHIMEDES PRINCIPLE AND SHIP EQUILIBRIUM.............................................................23
SHIP MASS AND CENTRE OF GRAVITY.................................................................................25
IN SERVICE INCLINING TEST SYSTEM (ISITS)......................................................................31
DEADWEIGHT AND CARGO DEADWEIGHT...........................................................................32
MEAN THEORETICAL DRAUGHT dH.....................................................................................34
DRAUGHT MARKS....................................................................................................................36
FREEBOARD AND LOAD LINE MARK......................................................................................38
TERMS AND DIMENSIONS RELATED TO THE LOAD LINES CONVENTION........................41
FREEBOARD PLAN...................................................................................................................48
CAPACITY PLAN.......................................................................................................................48

3.
INTACT STABILITY...................................................................................................................50
3.1
DEFINITION OF STABILITY......................................................................................................50
INITIAL TRANSVERSE METACENTRE M AND METACENTRIC HEIGHT GM...................50
3.2
3.3
METACENTRIC DIAGRAM........................................................................................................53
3.4 RIGHTING ARM GZ...................................................................................................................54
3.5
CURVE OF STATICAL STABILITY.............................................................................................55
3.6
CROSS CURVES OF STABILITY..............................................................................................58
3.7
LOLL...........................................................................................................................................59
3.8
DESIGN FACTORS AFFECTING THE SHAPE OF THE GZ CURVE........................................61
3.8.1 Angle of deck immersion.................................................................................................61
3.8.2 Depth D....................................................................................................................................65
3.8.3 Maximum draught...............................................................................................................66
3.8.4 BREADTH B...............................................................................................................................67
3.9
OPERATIONAL FATORS AFFECTING SHIP STABILITY..........................................................70
3.9.1 List............................................................................................................................................70
3.9.2 Free surface effect.........................................................................................................71
3.9.3 Hanging loads......................................................................................................................73
3.9.4 Dry bulk cargoes...............................................................................................................74
3.9.5 Icing..........................................................................................................................................74
3.10 ANGLES OF DOWNFLOODING................................................................................................76
3.11 WIND HEELING ARM................................................................................................................80
3.12 INTACT STABILITY CRITERIA...................................................................................................82
3.13 MINIMUM OPERATIONAL METACENTRIC HEIGHT GMMIN CURVE.......................................89
3.14 MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE VCGMAX CURVE.............................................................................93
3.15 STABILITY DURING HEAVY LIFT OPERATIONS.....................................................................97
4.
DANGEROUS SITUATIONS IN ADVERSE WEATHER AND SEA CONDITIONS................102
4.0
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................102
4.1 WAVES PARAMETERS...........................................................................................................103
4.2
PHENOMENA OCCURING IN FOLLOWING AND QUARTERING SEAS...............................104
4.2.1 Surf-riding and broaching-to phenomenon ........................................................104
4.2.2 Reduction of stability in longitudinal waves......................................................105
4.3
SYNCHRONOUS ROLLING MOTION.....................................................................................105
4.4
PARAMETRIC ROLL RESONANCE .......................................................................................105
4.5
SUCCESSIVE HIGH-WAVE ATTACKS....................................................................................109
4.6
OTHER HAZARDS AND RISKS...............................................................................................109

5.
5.0
5.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.1.5
5.1.6
5.1.7

CAPSIZING..............................................................................................................................110
GENERAL................................................................................................................................ 110
CASE STUDIES....................................................................................................................... 111
Capsizing of the container ship DONGEDIJK........................................................... 111
Foundering of KARIN CAT............................................................................................... 111
Capsizing of the anchor handling tug STEVNS POWER..................................... 112
Capsizing of the heavy lift ship STELLAMARE......................................................... 113
Capsizing of the general cargo ship OMER N....................................................... 113
Capsizing of the ro-ro ship FINNBIRCH..................................................................... 114
Capsizing of the ro-ro freighter RIVERDANCE..................................................... 116

6.
DAMAGE STABILITY..............................................................................................................118
6.0
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 118
6.1
CASE STUDIES OF COLLISIONS AND GROUNDINGS........................................................ 118
6.1.1 Collision of the small coaster JOANNA with the ro-ro ferry STENA NAUTICA .. 118
6.1.2 Head collision between SKAGERN and SAMSKIP COURIER .................................. 119
6.1.3 Foundering of the 70,000dwt bulk carrier FU SHAN HAI....................................120
6.1.4 ROCKNES - Capsizing after grounding ....................................................................122
6.2
HULL WATERTIGHT SUBDIVISION .......................................................................................123
6.3
POGRESSIVE FLOODING......................................................................................................139
6.4
DAMAGE STABILITY CALCULATIONS ACCORDING TO SOLAS 2009................................139
6.5
DAMAGE STABILITY OF CHEMICAL AND PRODUCT TANKERS ........................................141
6.6
DESIGN FOR DAMAGE SURVIVABILITY ..............................................................................143
6.6.1 Protection of the Engine Room against flooding ...........................................144
6.6.2 Safer bows..........................................................................................................................146
6.6.3 Forepeak..............................................................................................................................147
6.6.4 Limiting progressive flooding...................................................................................149

PART 2 ONBOARD STABILITY DOCUMENTATION............................................................ 153

7.
ONBOARD STABILITY DOCUMENTATION..........................................................................155
7.0
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................155
7.1
SCOPE OF DOCUMENTATION...............................................................................................156
7.2
ONBOARD INTACT STABILITY DOCUMENTATION............................................................160
7.2.1 LOADING AND STABILITY MANUAL (LSM)............................................................................160
7.2.2 CARGO SPACE INFORMATION.............................................................................................182
7.2.3 TANK SPACE INFORMATION.................................................................................................182
7.2.4 HYDROSTATIC DATA TABLES................................................................................................182
7.2.5 CROSS CURVES OF STABILITY TABLES..............................................................................182
7.3
ONBOARD DAMAGE STABILITY DOCUMENTATION.........................................................192
7.3.1 SUBDIVISION AND DAMAGE STABILITY CALCULATIONS..................................................192
7.3.2 DAMAGE CONTROL INFORMATION (DCI)............................................................................196
7.3.2.1 DAMAGE CONTROL PLAN (DCP)..........................................................................................197
7.3.2.2 DAMAGE CONTROL MANUAL (DCM)....................................................................................198
7.3.2.3 EXTERNAL WATERTIGHT INTEGRITY PLAN........................................................................201
7.3.2.4 INTERNAL WATERTIGHT INTEGRITY PLAN.........................................................................201
Index .................................................................................................................................................202

BAOBAB NAVAL CONSULTANCY

www.betterships.com

3.5 CURVE OF STATICAL STABILITY

Z

CL

CL

Z
CL

CL

Heel 0

Heel 10

Heel 20

Heel 30

The righting arm of a typical cargo vessel increases as the angle of heel increases to some maximum
value GZMAX, then GZ decreases as the ship progressively heels. The plot of the righting arm GZ calculated as function of the heel angle, at constant displacement and vertical centre of gravity KG values is
used to measure the ship stability at large angles of heel. It is called the curve of statical stability or the
righting arm GZ curve. For symmetric forms like ships the curve will be symmetric with respect to =
0 and only right half of this curve is presented as in the figure below.

57.3
0.9

Righting arm GZ in metres

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

GZ max

0.4
0.3
0.2
GM
0.1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Angle of heel in degrees

Righting arm GZ curve
Such diagrams are used to evaluate the ship stability in a given loading case.

3.8 DESIGN FACTORS AFFECTING THE SHAPE OF THE GZ CURVE

Stability of any loaded ship depends on its main dimensions, a shape of the submerged hull and on the
actual location of her centre of gravity KG.
Investigations of effects of a change in freeboard on the GZ curve can be found in many books on ship
stability. However, two ships can have different freeboards only as a result of different depths or different
maximum draughts. Decisions on depth and maximum draught of a vessel are made at the design stage.
In operation of a ship, a change in freeboard might arise as a consequence of a change in draught resulting from loading and discharging of cargo, ballast or stores.
For these reasons, investigating the effect of various factors on the GZ curve it is necessary to divide
them into factors defined at the design stage and operational factors which can be defined either by
master or by environment during ship operation.
Among design factors affecting ship stability are hull shape, angles of deck immersion, depth, maximum
draught and beam, tank arrangement as well as location of unprotected openings such as engine room
air intakes.
Master has influence on the final mass of the loaded vessel and the location of the centre of gravity
defining amount of cargo, stores and ballast water as well as their locations. Suspended weights, free
surface effect, shifting cargoes, icing and water absorption are factors which affect location of the centre
of gravity during ship operation.
In this section most of the various factors are discusses separately, but it must be understood that in
practice the GZ curve representing ship stability will be affected cumulatively by a number of these factors.
3.8.1 Angle of deck immersion
Photo courtesy of Wrtsil Corporation

Offshore support vessels have low angle of deck immersion

due to small depth in way of open working deck

3.10 ANGLES OF DOWNFLOODING

There are many openings (hold accesses, air inlets, cargo hatchways, etc.) through which water can
enter and endanger a vessel. Usually such openings must be provided with closing arrangements of adequate strength to ensure watertightness and structural integrity of the surrounding structure. However,
there are also unprotected openings such as air inlets to the engine room, which must be always open in
order to enable work of the propulsion plant. Some dangerous goods require continuous ventilation and
the cargo hold ventilation must work all the time.
According to the Load Line Convention the lower edge of the ventilation opening that cannot be closed
shall be placed at least 4500mm above the freeboard deck or 2300mm above the superstructure deck.
The angle of heel at which the lower edges of any openings in the hull, superstructure or deckhouse
which lead below deck and cannot be closed weathertight submerge is called the angle of downflooding for intact stability. In cases where the ship would sink due to flooding through any openings, the
stability curve is to be cut short at the corresponding angle of downflooding and the ship is to be considered to have entirely lost its stability.
Diagrams of downflooding angle as the function of draught covering the intended trim range shall be a
part of onboard stability documents. The opening for which the downflooding angle had been calculated
shall be clearly defined and the diagram shall be accompanied with a sketch showing position of this
opening. Usually, there are several such critical openings. Therefore several diagrams shall be presented in the Loading and Stability Manual.
Ventilation of cargo holds for reefer containers
Cargo holds of container vessels are not provided with high ventilation such as used on multi-purpose
vessels. However, more and more reefer containers are transported in holds and closing of ventilation
openings can be a choice between ship safety and cargo damage.
In such situations diagrams of downflooding angles for hold critical ventilation openings should be part
of the LSM.
Photo J.Babicz

Ventilation of holds for reefer containers

Emergency Generator Room

Ventilation Outlet

Engine Room
Ventilation Inlet

Example of unprotected openings which, for proper ship operation, cannot

have closing appliances

Photos J.Babicz

High ventilation ducts between cargo holds

3.13 MINIMUM OPERATIONAL METACENTRIC HEIGHT GMMIN CURVE

As explained in the previous section the intact stability criteria regard properties of the righting arm GZ
curve.
During designing of a ship many calculations are made in order to define values of the minimum metacentric height necessary to meet all intact stability criteria. Values of GM which ensure compliance with
damage stability criteria are defined by a designer.
Basing on these values a set of the minimum operational metacentric height GMMIN curves can be
prepared for draught range from lightship draught to maximum draught. The limiting envelope curve
presents minimum operational metacentric heights which meet all criteria resulting from intact and damage stability for draught range from lightship draught to maximum draught.
In cases where a vessel is intended to operate with trim, the minimum operational GMMIN curves shall
extend over the full range of operational trims. The trim values are to correspond with those presented
for hydrostatic particulars and cross curves.
To obtain accurate guidance to the stability of the ship it is enough to calculate the actual metacentric
height GM corrected for free surface effects and check if it is higher or equal to miminum operational
GMMIN value required for the actual trim.
Very often tabulated values of GMMIN are used instead of curves. Values from lightship draught to above
maximum draught with steps not exceeding 0.10m shall be available. However diagrams are necessary
to understand how GMMIN values change with draught.
Some examples of real GMMIN diagrams are presented on the following pages. It is necessary to understand the diagrams are valid only for specific ships and are presented for educational purposes only.
The diagram on page 90 shows the minimum operational metacentric height GMMIN for a 1200TEU vessel. For draught range from 6.20m to 8.70m the minimum metacentric height necessary to meet damage stability governs. Only for smaller and larger draughts and 4, 5 or 6 tiers of containers on deck the
weather criterion requires higher GMMIN values.
The vessel without trim at draught of 8.0m meets all statutory stability requirements with very low value of
GMMIN = 0.283m. At the same draught a longer vessel CV1500 needs GMMIN = 0.337m to meet stability
rules, (see diagram on page 91).
The Panamax container vessel without trim at design draught of 12.00m needs only GMMIN = 0.30m to
fulfill statutory rules. For lower draughts GMMIN is larger and depends on the number of container tiers
on hatch covers.
However, having in mind inaccuracies in calculations of the vertical centre of gravity, it would be a mistake to use such small operational metacentric heights in practice. With very low error margin of +-1%
in the VCG value the error for this ship could be as large as +-0.13m which is a considerable fraction of
the minimum permissible GMMIN.

Minimum operational metacentric height GMMIN in metres

5.50

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

6.00

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50
9.00
9.50
Mean theoretical draught dH in metres

ALLOWABLE AREA

Minimum operational GMMIN curve for the CV1200 without trim

LBP=155.08m, B=25.00m, maximum draught 9.50m

6.50

NOT ALLOWABLE AREA

4-,5-, and 6- tiers of containers on deck

Container Vessel 1200TEU

6.6.1 Protection of the Engine Room against flooding

Step by step a double-skin hull in the cargo space area is going to be a common practice. Unfortunately
this is not the case in the way of machinery spaces where only double bottom is provided. As a result
even a minor damage to the ships side in this area can lead to the flooding of machinery spaces or even
to the loss of the vessel - see the case study 6.1.1.
Due to the hull shape, providing a full double skin in the way of the engine room can be impractical.
However it is possible to close side spaces in the upper part of the engine room, i.e. in the areas where
damages are more probable. Even such partial double skin can be valuable protection of the engine
room against flooding. In addition, void spaces at ships sides can be used for cables and fire-pipes not
allowed to be led through machinery spaces.

512.01
GLO
Tk

VOID
31UPS

WORKSHOP

WGTk
31PS
511.01

MGO
SETTk

SLTk

OLDTk

LOSERTk

WGTk
31SB
511.07

551.01

521.01

DBTk31
PS

VOID
31USB

OWDTk

FWTk2

DBTk31
SB

C.L.

Engine Room protected by voids, tanks and cofferdams

Designed by BNC
Protection of machinery spaces by a double hull is even more important for all Ro-Ro passenger vessels.
Unfortunately most of RoPax vessels have a double hull in the way of lower cargo hold only.

6.6.2 Safer bows

When a ship strikes another ship in the side-shell structure the most structural damage will be found in
the struck ship. The striking ships bulb and bow may be severely damaged, but usually not as critically
as the side-shell of the struck ship.
Ship designer has no influence on time and place of a collision. However, he can have influence on the
collision results by using more favourable bow geometry and stiffeners layout which increase a percentage of the collision energy absorbed by the striking ship. Experience shows that transversely stiffened
bow has a significantly lower resistance and in case of collision will be crushed absorbing more energy.
Photo J.Babicz

Meanwhile, some bulbous bows look as if they were specially designed for ramming other ships. Especially dangerous bows are those ice-strengthened and with a bulb. Being hit by such a bow may end in
the sinking of the rammed ship, whereas the striking ship may suffer a relatively small damage. An example of such a case may be Coscoss FU SHAN HAI foundered after being hit by the small multi-purpose
vessel GDYNIA outside Bornholm in May 2003 see 6.1.3.
It would be good to give more chances to the struck ship developing a bulbous bow that will deflect or
crumple in a collision, before it has penetrated the inner skin. A bulb structure stiffened by transverse
ring frames rather than longitudinal framing has been shown to collapse progressively frame by frame.
Decreasing section size at the bow root is expected to be another useful feature, since the bulb is then
easily bent under horizontal or vertical pressure.