Formulating Stability Requirements for
Anchor Handling Tug and Supply
(AHTS) Vessels
Dephne Chea Wei Peng, Arun Kr Dev, Ivan Tam, (Newcastle University)
Kenneth Hanks, Kalyan Chatterjea (EMAS Training Academy & Simulation Centre)
1
BACKGROUND
No specific internationally applicable stability requirements for
AHTS vessels.
After AHTS “Bourbon Dolphin” tragedy in April 2007, initiatives
were taken for improving
Design
Operational safety & specifically
Stability and the performance of anchor handling winches.
Probably the most important initiative is from the
Norwegian Maritime Directorate (NMD):
NMD Circular - Series V, RSV 04-2008, 14 July 2008.
2
IMO Guidelines…BV Presentations, 2010 @ KL
Refer to Intact Stability Code, 2008, IMO Res. MSC.267(85).
Code covers
intact stability criteria &
addresses offshore supply ships & special purpose ships,
requirement for a minimum freeboard at the stern of at least 0.005L
to be maintained in all operating conditions.
Code does not include any specific stability criteria for towing and
anchor handling operations
Minimum required GM0 = 0.15 m should NOT be considered
as sufficient stability margin for towing and anchor handling.
3 .
Max GZ of an OSV is allowed to
occur at much smaller angle of
heel than normal, providing
IMO Criteria for OSV that the positive stability up to
this angle of heel (area A) is
greater than for a cargo ship
This requires a large upright
GM
Minimum freeboard criteria for
OSV is inadequate for anchor-
handling operation
Clark & Hancox (2012)
4
Recommendation from
Marine Safety Forum (MSF)
Quoting from Anchor-handling Manual template by
Marine Safety Forum (MSF), incorporating
recommendations from NMD.
Prior to sailing, a document must be displayed on the
bridge, where it is visible to be navigator on duty, to
show the acceptable vertical and horizontal transverse
force/tensions to which the vessel can be exposed.
This should show a sketch of the GZ curve and a table
of the tension/forces which give the maximum
acceptable heeling moment. 5
Recommendation from
Marine Safety Forum (MSF)
Further quoting from the Anchor-handling Manual
template by MSF incorporating recommendations from
NMD.
Calculations must show the maximum acceptable tension in
wire/chain, including transverse force, that can be accepted
in order for the vessel’s maximum heeling to be limited by
one of the following angles, whichever occurs first:-
o Heeling angle equivalent to a GZ value equal to 50% of GZ max.
o The angle of flooding of the work deck – i.e. the angle which
results in water on working deck when the deck is flat.
o 15 degrees. 6
Heeling moment must be
NMD Criteria calculated as the total effect of
the horizontal & vertical
transverse components of the
Vessel‟s Maximum force /tension in the wire/chain
Heeling to be limited by The torque arm of the
one of the following horizontal components shall
angles, whichever be calculated as the distance
occurs first: from height of the work deck at
the guide pins to the centre of
1. Heeling angle the main propulsion propeller
equivalent to a GZ or to the centre of stern side
value equal to 50% of thruster if it projects deeper
GZ max. The torque arm of the vertical
2. The angle of flooding of components shall be
the work deck – i.e. the calculated from the centre of
angle which results in the outer edge of the stern
water on working deck roller & with a vertical straining
point on the upper edge of the
when the deck is flat.
stern roller
3. 15 degrees.
7
External Acting Forces & Healing Moments
…NMD Proposal to IMO
Application Point & Direction
of a Towline in the Stern of a
multi-operational mode vessel
α – angle between towline & ship’s centre line
β – angle between towline & the waterplane
y & v – refers to application point of the of the
line tension
Ft – towline tension
8
Unified Stability Criteria & Operational Guidance for AH Vessels
External Acting Forces & Healing Moments
…NMD Proposal to IMO
Application Point & Direction
of a Towline in the Stern of a
multi-operational mode vessel
Vertical
Component
Heeling Moment MH = (Ft .sin α.cos β x v)+(Ft .sin β x y)
Transverse
Component
Unified Stability Criteria & Operational Guidance for AH Vessels 9
Tension Directions vs Healing Moments MH
…NMD Proposal to IMO
α
A typical example
of Heeling Moments
with some specific
‘y’ & ‘v’ levers
β
So, in general,
As ‘α’ increases
MH is increasing
As ‘β’ increases
MH is decreasing
10
Unified Stability Criteria & Operational Guidance for AH Vessels
Influence of ‘α’ & ‘β’ on MH
…NMD Proposal to IMO
α
MH
As ‘α’ is increased
MH could reach to
β
an unacceptable
level!
11
Unified Stability Criteria & Operational Guidance for AH Vessels
Concept of Constant Heeling Moment
…NMD Proposal to IMO
The Norwegian proposal is based on a concept of α constant
heeling moment MH , providing limits
to the line tension only dependent on sideways angle ‘α’
Vertical
Component
Transverse
Component
12
Unified Stability Criteria & Operational Guidance for AH Vessels
Fixed Moment vs Tension
…NMD Proposal to IMO
Tension
distribution with a
constant Heeling
Moment
13
Unified Stability Criteria & Operational Guidance for AH Vessels
Operating Tension vs Angle Alpha
…NMD Proposal to IMO
15 30 60 90
Finally, a
simplified Angle
Alpha vs Tension
could be created
For use by the
operators
14
Unified Stability Criteria & Operational Guidance for AH Vessels
Graphical Presentation
…NMD Proposal to IMO
A simplified graphical
presentation on bridge
Sector-1
T1 – 0 to 150
Sector-2 T2 – 15 to 300
T3 - 30 to 600
Sector-3 T4 - 60 to 900
DF – 1.4 to 1.6 times
the static load is common
Sector-4
15
Unified Stability Criteria & Operational Guidance for AH Vessels
Stability Limiting Curves For AH-Operations,
the stability limiting
…NMD Proposal to IMO curves should be
developed as a
function of
draught/displacement
against initial KG or
GM & applied tension
Covering lightest
anticipated draught to
Summer Load Line &
trim range
Heeling Angle Flooding Angle 16
Unified Stability Criteria & Operational Guidance for AH Vessels
Stability Limiting Curves
…NMD Proposal to IMO The minimal residual
area between the
righting lever curve
and the heeling lever
curve ≥ 0.055 m-rad
[θe to θf or θc
whichever is less]
17
Unified Stability Criteria & Operational Guidance for AH Vessels
IMO Amendment - Part B 2008 IS Code
18
Ultra Deep Water Multifunctional AHTS Vessel
Lewek Fulmar
LOA – 93.4m AH/Towing Winch – 500 tonnes pull [600 tonnes brake]
LBP – 82.0m Propulsion - 23,467 BHP
B – 22.0m DP II
D – 9.5m (main deck) Deadweight Approx. 4,700 T
Design Draught – 6.5m 19
GRT Approx. 6,000 T
Bollard Pull – 300 tonnes
Lewek Fulmar uses AUTOLOAD 6
AUTOLOAD 6 ASUMPTIONS:
Tension from chain is placed at the full breath of aft roller, & the chain
angle (tension) is calculated from 0o(vertical) to 90o(horizontal)
The vertical moment arm from main thrusters (or aft side thrusters if
existing) and up to aft roller is kept constant, independent of vessels
heel angle.
The horizontal moment arm from end of aft roller to centerline is kept
constant, independent of vessels heel angle.
Both the effect of the horizontal forces and the tensions offset from CL
is converted to an external moment acting on the vessel.
To keep correct displacement during all calculations, the vertical
tension component (the weight) is placed at centerline on top of aft
roller. 20
Lewek Fulmar uses AUTOLOAD 6
Tank Sensors in AUTOLOAD 6:
Autoload installations can be fitted with a Tank Sensor
program that interfaces directly with Autoload
Thus providing immediate tank loadings for an accurate and
up-to-the-minute analysis of the vessel’s stability.
21
NMD stability criteria for anchor handling is
incorporated in AUTOLOAD 6
22
NMD stability criteria for anchor handling is
incorporated in AUTOLOAD 6
23
General Interface in AUTOLOAD 6
Hydrostatics Anchor-Handling Margins
24
IMO 469 Intact Stability in AUTOLOAD 6
Righting Arms vs. Heel - IMO 469, INTACT STABILITY
Heel angle (Degrees)
0.0 10.0p 20.0p 30.0p 40.0p 50.0p 60.0p
1.0
Righting Arm A
r
R. Area m
Flood Pt s
i
n
m
0.5
0.0
25
NMD Criteria in AUTOLOAD 6
Righting Arms vs. Heel - NMD ANCHOR HANDLING CRITERIA
Heel angle (Degrees)
0.0 10.0s 20.0s 30.0s 40.0s 50.0s 60.0s 70.0s
1.0
Righting Arm A
r
Heeling Arm m
Equilibrium s
Crit. Pt
i
n
0.5
m
0.0
-0.5
26
NMD Criteria in AUTOLOAD 6
Righting Arms vs. Heel - NMD ANCHOR HANDLING CRITERIA
Heel angle (Degrees)
10.0s 20.0s 30.0s 40.0s 50.0s 60.0s 70.0s
Righting Arm A
r
Heeling Arm m
Equilibrium s
Crit. Pt
0.5 i
n
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
27
NMD Criteria in AUTOLOAD 6
Righting Arms vs. Heel - NMD ANCHOR HANDLING CRITERIA
Heel angle (Degrees)
10.0s 20.0s 30.0s 40.0s 50.0s 60.0s 70.0s
Righting Arm A
r
Heeling Arm m
Equilibrium 0.5 s
Crit. Pt
i
n
m
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
28
Conclusions
Recommendation for Stability Requirements during Towing &
Anchor-handling Operations are likely to be covered by the Par „B‟
of the Intact Stability Code, 2008, IMO Res. MSC.267(85) in
2014
We should be prepared with a suitable course to support the
professionals at the operational level
We hope there will be continuous support from the academia
29
Thank You!!
30
