Damage Stability for B-100 type Bulk Carrier

Hi,

We're calculating the damage stability of one of the capesize bulk carrirer. This calculation is being performed because of the draught increase studies for this vessel.

As per to one of BV's remarks, during the damaging of any cargo holds, we should consider "no-run off" from the cargo holds. In Tribon, we use drop-in / drop-out selection but we're having abnormal results from this method.

If you have any information about this way of damage stability calculations, we kindly await to your feedbacks.

 

Typically, software work properly. So when we get "abnormal" results, what we must do is to thoroughly review our approach. It is most likely an user error that a program error.
I do not understand the difference between the two methods you use but I guess I know what you mean. Use Tribon with both methods and see what resutados you get in each case.

 

ICLL damage

Dear Mr. Navdes_E
ICLL requires all cargo hold/tank/compartments permeability assumed to be 0.95
and MAch space/ER to be 0.85 while doing damage stability.

i.e. the holds are to be treated virtually empty while doing the damage stability analysis.

This is different from a MARPOL damage stability, where we can assume cargo run off (oil outflow).

So if you run ICLL and MARPOL damge cases your results will be different, i.e. you will get favorable results in MARPOL damage stability as the water inflow is not much.



typically softwares like NAPA, AUTO HYDRO etc have options to do damags stability for simple inputs like Draught, trim, GM


Before we purchased napa in our organization, i used a fictitious weight (total displacement) with LCG assumed at LCB of the vessel with appropriate KG and did the computation and got approved by the class.

I got approval becase, my weight did not occupy any volume of any cargo hold and assumed permeability as per ICLL

I fully appreciate this problem of yours and remember my days how i struggled with our software.

Thank you

pradeep