Applied Ocean Research 64 (2017) 236–248

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

A method for breach assessment onboard a damaged passenger ship

Pekka Ruponen ∗ , Aappo Pulkkinen, Jarkko Laaksonen
NAPA, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Reliable analysis of stability and safety level in a flooding emergency onboard a damaged passenger ship is
Received 26 September 2016 extremely important for making correct decisions on evacuation and abandonment. Thus there is demand
Received in revised form for an automated system that detects flooding and analyzes the severity of the situation. This procedure
28 November 2016
requires estimation of the actual breach in the hull, and calculation of possible progressive flooding to
Accepted 23 January 2017
undamaged compartments. A new approach to the breach assessment, based on measurement data from
Available online 21 March 2017
the flood level sensors, is presented. The developed method is complemented by time-domain flooding
simulations in order to separate progressive flooding from direct inflow through the breaches in the hull
Keywords:
Damage stability
of the damaged ship. The developed approach is tested and demonstrated with a large passenger ship
Decision support design for various damage scenarios. The results show that the size and location of the breach can be
Flood level sensor evaluated with reasonable accuracy on the basis of the level sensor data, provided that there are enough
Simulation well-placed, working level sensors.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
The passenger ship designs have developed to larger and larger
vessels with an increasing passenger and crew capacity [1]. The
largest ships can carry over 8000 people onboard, and even though
incidents involving such large passenger ships are very rare, the
consequences of a serious flooding accident could be disastrous.
Thus the safety of large passenger ships is an extremely impor-
tant issue [2]. Most notably the flooding and damage stability of
a passenger ship have been emphasized [3], and included in most
risk assessment frameworks, e.g. [4]. In addition to the damage sta-
bility requirements of the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention,
the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has established new
regulations for Safe Return to Port (SRtP). In the design perspective,
mainly requirements for redundancy of systems are defined. But in
a real damage condition, this new regulation also provides support
for the decision making based on the flooding extent and residual
stability [5].
The grounding and subsequent capsizing of the Costa Concordia
in 2012, [6], clearly pointed out the need for a fast and reliable tool
for detection of the flooding extent, but also for prediction of the
outcome of the flooding. The crew needs to know the extent of the
damage, and a reliable estimation of available time for orderly evac-
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pekka.ruponen@napa.fi (P. Ruponen),
aappo.pulkkinen@napa.fi (A. Pulkkinen), jarkkola@gmail.com (J. Laaksonen).
uation and abandonment. If the ship is going to stay afloat, there is
no need for abandonment. And vice versa, immediate actions are
needed if the ship is expected to capsize or sink.
Previously Spanos and Papanikolaou [7] have concluded that for
actual damage incidents a reliable assessment of flooding onboard
is still a technical challenge, since the identification of the dam-
age extent and related survivability suffers from uncertainties. This
paper presents a new approach to this problem by utilizing exist-
ing flooding detection systems in modern passenger ships and an
advanced time-domain simulation tool for progressive flooding.
The developed method is tested with a realistic large passenger ship
design and generated reference results for various damage scenar-
ios. The combination of flood level sensor data and time-domain
flooding prediction is shown to provide reliable estimates of the
damage extent, and to provide valuable support to the decision
making in a flooding emergency.
2. Decision support systems for flooding emergency
When the hull of a ship is breached, floodwater starts to flow in.
The transient flooding phase involves complex dynamics [8], but
usually after a few roll cycles, i.e. within a couple of minutes, the
flooding process becomes more quasi-stationary [9], especially in
calm water or in a moderate seaway. Even if the ship survives the
transient flooding phase, it is still possible that progressive flood-
ing will result in capsizing or sinking. This may take from tens of
minutes to several hours. Alternatively, a steady state is eventu-
ally reached. For correct decision making even a rough estimation

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2017.01.017
0141-1187/© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.
0/).
 P. Ruponen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 64 (2017) 236–248
of the time-to-capsize is extremely valuable information to the
crew of the damaged ship, and the possible shore-based emergency
response service.
Various different decision support systems for a flooded ship
have been presented over the years. Lee et al. [10] presented a
framework for survivability assessment of a damaged ship, taking
into account critical stability parameters, such as the heeling angle
and the range of stability. Ölcer and Majumder [11] developed a
case based system that relied on pre-calculated damage scenarios.
Later Jasionowski [12] presented a method for vulnerability anal-
ysis that may be used also for decision support when the flooding
extent is known. Also Martins and Lobo [13] have described a deci-
sion support system for a damaged ship that requires the damage
size and location as user input. Several decision support systems
have been developed for active counter actions, mainly ballast
operations, for a damaged ship, for example Lee [14], Calabrese
et al. [15], Hu et al. [16,17] and Choi et al. [18]. Also these systems
require the damage extent as a user input. Moreover, the counter
actions are normally performed only when flooding has reached
a steady equilibrium. Thus new kinds of methods are needed in
order to get rapid detection of the breach and an estimation of the
outcome of flooding.
A real time-domain flooding prediction for use onboard a dam-
aged ship was introduced by Ruponen et al. [19]. Also Varela et al.
[20,21] have presented a decision support system that is based on
a time-domain flooding analysis and virtual environment [22]. An
enhanced tool with a more advanced assessment of the breach
and updated predictions based on the latest available measure-
ment data was described by Ruponen et al. [23]. The concept for
the applied decision support system was presented by Pennanen
et al., [24]. This approach also utilizes the Vessel TRIAGE method-
ology [25], for presentation of the severity of the damage case in
communication between the ship in distress, shore-based support
and SAR (search and rescue) personnel.
Although numerical flooding simulations are nowadays fast
enough to provide a prediction to support the decision making,
the results are reliable only if also the initial condition, including
the breach in the hull, is sufficiently accurately modelled. Thus an
essential part of a decision support system for flooding accidents
is a fast and reliable assessment of the breach in the hull, as well
as the extent of flooding inside the ship. For this purpose, mod-
ern passenger ships are equipped with level sensors also in the dry
compartments. In fact, well-placed level sensors are a prerequisite
for fast and reliable flooding detection and breach assessment.
3. Flooding detection
3.1. Definitions
Flooding detection involves some terminology that is often con-
fused. Damage extent refers to the actual extent of the breach in
the hull and flooding extent comprises of all flooded spaces, thus
including also progressive flooding to undamaged compartments.
These are illustrated in Fig. 1.
breaches
damage extent
flooding extent
Fig. 1. Schematic definition of damage extent and flooding extent.
237
3.2. Requirements
Passenger ships need to be equipped with a flooding detec-
tion system. SOLAS regulation II-1/22-1 requires passenger ships
carrying 36 or more persons, constructed on or after 1 July 2010,
to be provided with flooding detection in watertight (WT) spaces
below the bulkhead deck, [26]. In this context a flooding detection
means a system of sensors and alarms that detect and warn of water
ingress into watertight spaces. Continuous flood level monitoring
may be provided, but it is not required at the moment. In general,
the sensors can be divided into two categories:
• flooding switches, or detectors, that only indicate when the
switch is immersed in water
• level sensors that provide data on the water level at the sensor
location as a function of time
The flooding switches are suitable only for detecting flooded
rooms. The assessment of the breach size and location requires a
sufficient number of well-placed level sensors. It should be noted
that level sensors are necessary also for reliable calculation of the
current damage stability of the ship since the flooding switches
are inadequate for calculation of the current amount of floodwater.
Improved recommendations for placement of the flooding detec-
tion sensors [27], were developed as a part of the EU FP7 project
FLOODSTAND [28]. These guidelines can be summarized so that
on each deck two level sensors are needed in each watertight com-
partment; one on each side of the ship. This ensures that flooding is
detected rapidly. In general, the same is also required by the current
regulation [26], although it leaves more room for interpretations.
Especially, the paragraph 8.3, stating that:
“Any watertight space that extends the full breadth of the ship or
with arrangements that would seriously restrict the transverse
flow of water should be provided with sensors at both the port
and starboard sides”
However, it is not very clear what is meant by “serious restric-
tion of flow”. For SOLAS damage stability calculations the steel
bulkheads with A-class fire protection need to be considered, and
therefore, it is believed that the same level of flooding restriction
should be considered also for the sensor placement.
3.3. Available measurement data
The flood level sensors are in practice pressure sensors, either
pneumatic or electric. The floodwater level is calculated based on
the location of the measurement point and the floating position of
the ship (heel and trim). It is assumed that the air compression in
the flooded room is negligible, and atmospheric pressure is used as
a reference. For empty tanks and void spaces this is not realistic,
especially during transient flooding [29], but for well-ventilated
engine rooms, stores and accommodation areas this simplification
is considered to be well justified, especially when considering also
other sources of uncertainty, such as the room permeability.
If there are several level sensors in the room, the water level and
the level rate should be taken as the average from those sensors that
indicate flooding. Typically, the sensors are placed on both sides of
a wide room, and thus in a heeled condition it is possible that only
one of them is immersed.
If the ship is equipped with a sufficient number of sensors, the
flooding extent can easily be calculated from the sensor data. How-
ever, the assessment of the damage extent, i.e. the size and location
of the breach, or breaches, in the hull is a much more demand-
ing task since the breach can only be assessed indirectly from the
level sensor data. However, a reasonably good approximation of
the breach in the hull is a necessity for reliable prediction of pro-
238 P. Ruponen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 64 (2017) 236–248

Fig. 2. Illustration of the simplified approach with a fixed location for the modelled
breach.
Fig. 3. Calculation of net volume rate on the basis of measured level rate.

gressive flooding and available time for orderly evacuation and

abandonment.

4. Breach assessment using level sensor data

4.1. Principles

The level sensors provide the current floodwater level and the
level rate. This is not enough information for analyzing the exact
size and location of the breach. Previously, Penttilä and Ruponen
[30] proposed to solve this problem by performing a series of short
Fig. 4. Principles for calculation of an estimated breach based on level sensor data.
flooding simulations with variation in the unknown parameters.
The breach size and location were then selected from the case that
had the best match with the measured development of water level. where the semi-empirical discharge coefficient is:
In principle this approach worked quite well, but the problem was 1
that the simulations require quite a lot of computation time. Cd =  (3)
1 + kL
The situation can be simplified by applying a fixed breach loca-
tion for each room, Fig. 2, so that only the breach area is solved from The flow rate Q through a large opening is obtained by integra-
the measurement data. The initial approach, presented in [23], was tion over the area of the opening, so that at time t:
extremely straightforward:  
Q (t) = Cd 2g · H (t)dA (4)
• the rooms that are limited to the hull surface have breach loca- A
tion(s) on the side(s) The effective pressure head for a fully submerged opening is:
• other rooms have a breach in the bottom of the room
H (t) = Hsea (t) − Hi (t) (5)
In this paper the method is further improved to provide more and if the flow is discharging into air, the pressure head is:
realistic results, especially for modern passenger ship designs that
often have a double skin around the engine rooms. Thus collision H (t) = Hsea (t) − Hbreach (6)
damage can breach the side of the room even if the room is not
Here Hsea is the sea level, Hi is the water level in the breached room
limited to the hull surface. Also bottom damage to a room is very
i and Hbreach is the height of the breach. All of these are measured
unlikely if the room is not located close to the double bottom. The
from the same reference level. The sea level needs to be evaluated
improved methodology for defining the potential breach location
on the basis of the monitored draft, trim and heel.
for side and bottom damages is presented in the following sections.
The volume of water in the breached room, V(H), with a given
water level H can be calculated based on the 3D geometry of the
4.2. Assessment of breach size room and the measured heel and trim angles. Also the permeability
of the room must be taken into account. Consequently, the volumet-
The size of the breach can be approximated based on the mea- ric net flow rate to the room i can be approximated with a central
sured level rate in the damaged room and by applying a hydraulic difference method:
flow model, as described in the following.    
ıt dHi (t) ıt dHi (t)
The flow velocity in an opening can be calculated based on the  dVi
V Hi (t) + 2 dt
−V Hi (t) − 2 dt
water levels on both sides of the opening by applying Bernoulli’s Qij = ≈ (7)
dt ıt
equation for a streamline that goes from the sea (point A) to the j
breach opening (point B):
where ␦t is the time step, typically about 2.0 s, and dHi /dt is the
B measured level rate in the room. This is illustrated in Fig. 3. The
dp 1 2  1 measured level needs to be properly filtered in order to obtain a
+ uB − u2A + g (hB − hA ) + kL u2B = 0 (1)
 2 2 smoothed-curve representation of the measured time series that
A
is more sensitive to long-term than to short-term fluctuations. In
where p is air pressure above water level, ␳ is density, u is flow addition, a long enough period of measurement data is needed. This
velocity, g is acceleration due to gravity and h is the water level depends on the sampling frequency, but about 40 s ... 60 s should
height from the common reference level. All losses in the opening be enough.
are represented by the non-dimensional pressure-loss coefficient In reality, when flooding is detected by a level sensor, there may
kL . Consequently, by assuming that uA = 0, the flow through a small already be progressive flooding from the damaged room to other
opening with an area dA is: rooms through internal openings, Fig. 4. However, based on the
 level sensor data, only the net flow can be estimated. Therefore, it
dQ = Cd · 2g (hA − hB ) · dA (2) is necessary to simplify the problem, and assume that:
 P. Ruponen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 64 (2017) 236–248 239

• all inflow to the damaged room comes directly from the sea
through the breach
• there is no outflow to other rooms

Consequently, based on the Eqs. (4), (5) and (7), the approximate
submerged area of the breach can be calculated as:
dVi (t)
Ai ≈  dt
(8)
Cd 2g · H (t)

If the damaged room extends above the sea level, it is likely that
only the submerged area of the breach has been analyzed. Thus the
modelled breach for prediction of progressive flooding should be
extended to cover also the part of the room above the sea level, Fig. 5. Potential breach locations for a room that extends over the B/5 limits.
Fig. 4.
As the flooding progresses, both the effective pressure head
and the flow rate decrease. Therefore, the analysis of the breach
must be done soon after flooding has been detected. Otherwise,
the level rate data can be unsuitable for an accurate analysis since
both H and dHi /dt approach to zero, independent of the breach
size. In addition, as time passes progressive flooding to undamaged
compartments becomes much more likely.
The accurate measurement of the level rate is still a technical
challenge, especially if the level is changing very slowly. In order to
avoid extremely small breaches, an assumed level rate of 5 mm/s
is used if the calculated rate from the measurement data is smaller
than this limit value. In practice, this may result in too large breach
areas, but this simplification effectively prevents too optimistic
results with minimal inflow due to a very small breach size. Fig. 6. Potential breach location for a room inside the B/5 limits and above the double
bottom.

4.3. Discharge coefficient and permeability

The Eq. (8) for assessment of the breach area depends on the
discharge coefficient of the breach, accounting for all the pressure
losses in the flow. Previously, Li et al. [31] studied experimentally
the discharge coefficient for several simplified breach forms, taking
into account the petalling due to the deformation of hull structures.
Although there was notable variation in the results for different
breach forms, onboard a damaged ship the simplified assumption
of constant discharge coefficient Cd = 0.6 for breach estimation is
considered to be well-justified, especially since there are also other
sources of inaccuracy.
Another factor that can have a significant effect on the results
is the permeability, a factor that accounts for the percentage of
volume of the room that is occupied by seawater when flooded.
It is assumed that the permeability is uniformly distributed, so
that the surface permeability equals to the volumetric permeabil-
ity. The applied values can be taken from SOLAS Chapter II-1, Reg.
7-3, unless a more accurate value is known. However, it is recog-
nized that there is an obvious need for systematic analysis of typical
permeabilities in modern passenger ships, in order to improve the
accuracy and reliability of damage stability calculations.
In the experimental study by Domeh et al. [32] the effects of
permeability on the motions of a flooded ship were not very sig-
nificant. However, the effects on the draft, and especially on the
likelihood of up-flooding to bulkhead deck, may be crucial. Con-
sequently, more research on this is needed in order to improve
the reliability of damage stability calculations, both for design and
regulatory calculations, as well as for decision support onboard a
damaged ship.
4.4. Assessment of breach location
4.4.1. Breach on the side
The rooms that are close to the hull surface can be breached by
a collision damage. For definition of the potential breach locations,
collision is considered to have a maximum penetration to the B/5
limit, where B is the local breadth of the ship at the design draft. This
assumption is in line with the old SOLAS 90 regulation. The current
SOLAS 2009 treats penetration up to B/2, but especially for large
passenger ships with breadth of 30 m or larger, and dense internal
structures, a penetration of 6 m or deeper is considered to be very
unlikely.
If the room intersects the B/5 surface the potential breach is
considered to be located on the side of the room, Fig. 5. The port side
and starboard side are treated separately, so that a wide room will
have two potential breach locations, one on each side. The applied
breach location is selected based on the heeling direction when
flooding is detected in the room.
4.4.2. Breach in the bottom
If the room is fully inside the B/5 limits, the potential breach
is considered to be in the bottom of the room, Fig. 6. Grounding
damage statistics have been collected within some recent research
projects [33], and the detailed probability distributions for bottom
grounding damages have been presented in [34]. Based on this data,
90% of bottom grounding damages are limited below the vertical
distance:
 
hgro = 0.55 · min 0.503B0.636 , T (9)
from the baseline level. Here B is the breadth of the ship and
T is the design draft. Thus the rooms that are located below this
limit are more likely to have a breach in the bottom due to ground-
ing. The rooms that are above this level and inside the B/5 limits
should not be breached directly due to a collision or grounding.
However, detected floodwater in these rooms may be due to pro-
gressive flooding through some unknown connection like a broken
pipeline. In practice it is impossible to model all possible flooding
paths as openings. However, the time-domain prediction should be
able to produce realistic results if the unknown progressive flood-
ing is modelled as an additional small breach in the bottom of the
240 P. Ruponen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 64 (2017) 236–248
B/5 B/5
progressive flooding zone
collision collision
damage zone grounding damage zone damage zone
Fig. 7. Example of the limits for potential breach in the side(s) or in the bottom of
the room.
room, where flooding is detected. The “zones” for different kinds of
potential breach locations are illustrated in Fig. 7.
4.4.3. Maximum breach size
It is also practical to set a reasonable limit for the maximum
possible breach size since the simplified approach can result in too
large value if the level rate is very large. This is needed especially for
small rooms that can be filled up very rapidly. However, it is worth
noticing that the internal openings, such as doors, will restrict the
inflowing flooding in the case of large breach areas.
For the side damages the maximum possible breach area equals
to the side surface area of the room. For the grounding damages
in the bottom the maximum area is likely smaller than the bottom
area of the room, and thus it may be approximated by consider-
ing a triangle shaped damage penetration with a maximum width
of 0.45 B at the baseline of the ship. Based on the damage statis-
tics [34], this is valid for 90% of damages. The maximum breach
length should be taken as the length of the room. Then the maxi-
mum breach size is simply the product of maximum breach length
and width.
4.5. Breached tanks
The tanks that are intended for liquid loads need special han-
dling since the changes in the liquid level should not trigger alarm
for a flooding emergency. In addition, there are no connections
for progressive flooding from the tanks, excluding possible broken
pipelines. But in practice these are impossible to model accurately.
Consequently, the present approach is to consider damaged tanks
without a breach. Instead, the cargo volume is updated based on
the level data for updating the current loading condition. Thus the
flooding of tanks will eventually be accounted for. The mixing of liq-
uid load and floodwater is extremely complex process [35], and the
present approach is simplified and considers a constant unchanged
density for the tanks.
5. Identification of progressive flooding
5.1. Problem of delayed flooding detection
The level sensors provide data on the water level and the level
rate. For practical reasons, the sensors are located at some distance
above the deck level. In addition there is an alarm limit, meaning
that the water level must be about 10 cm before the alarm is trig-
gered. This practice minimizes the risk of false alarms, e.g. due to
sudden changes in air pressure. However, especially in a heeled
condition, it is possible that water flows past a level sensor without
being detected. This situation is illustrated in Fig. 8. Detected water
may also be progressive flooding through rooms without a sensor,
Fig. 9. In both cases, setting too large, or too many, breaches will
result in very pessimistic prediction of time-to-flood, and therefore
initially breached room
with a sensor
undetected flooding through
flooding is detected a room with a level sensor
by a level sensor
Fig. 8. Undetected flooding through a room with a sensor.
initially breached room
with a sensor
flooding through a room
flooding is detected without a level sensor
by a level sensor
Fig. 9. Undetected flooding through a room without a sensor.
it must be carefully analyzed if the detected floodwater is coming
from a breach in the hull, or from another room with a breach.
When flooding is detected in a new room, first it must be
checked if the water is progressive flooding from a previously
identified breach. For this purpose, all possible flooding paths, con-
sisting of the rooms and internal openings in the ship [36], need
to be checked. Connections through closed watertight doors are
ignored since these doors should not leak significantly. However,
closed fire doors need to be included since the leakage can be
notable, based on the full-scale tests [37]. Also the flooding paths,
where the measured water level does not reach the opening, or the
level is lower than in the room under investigation, are not likely
sources for the detected floodwater. This situation is illustrated in
Fig. 10. In addition, if an opening along the flooding path is above
the current sea level, the path cannot be the source for the detected
floodwater. If no possible source is found in the analysis of flooding
paths, the room is considered to be breached and the size of the
breach is estimated by using Eq. (8).
An example of flooding paths is shown in Fig. 11. In this case
flooding has recently been detected in the room R2. Only the path
from the previously breached room R1 is a potential source of pro-
gressive flooding since the path from the other breached room R5 is
blocked by a closed WT door. Since flooding has been detected in R1
before and the water level in R1 is higher than in R2, it can be con-
cluded that the detected floodwater is likely progressive flooding
from R1 and thus there is no breach in the room R2.
5.2. Time-domain prediction of progressive flooding
Several time-domain flooding simulation tools have been devel-
oped during the past decades, mainly based on a hydraulic model,
using Bernoulli’s equation and conservation of mass. An overview
 P. Ruponen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 64 (2017) 236–248 241

a) flooding path R1-R2 does not exist b) flooding path R1-R2 exists

water level is below the

opening, no down-flooding
initially breached room initially breached room
with a sensor with a sensor
R1 STR1 R1 STR1

R2 R2

Connections from R1 to R2 flooding through a room

flooding is detected exists, but R1 cannot be the flooding is detected without a level sensor
by a level sensor source of floodwater in R2 by a level sensor

Fig. 10. Illustration of the effects of water level on the possible flooding paths; if water does not reach the opening, the detected flooding in the room R2 must come from a
breach (left), otherwise there is a possible source in the room R1 (right).

Table 1
Main dimensions of the ship and the initial condition for the test cases.

Gross tonnage 125 000

Length over all 327 m
Breadth 37.4 m
Draft (studied loading condition) 8.47 m
Trim (studied loading condition) 0.05 m (bow)
Metacentric height (with free surface correction) 2.70 m
Passengers 4200
Crew 1400

the damage, it can be concluded that the numerical error is not a

critical issue.

5.3. Combination of level sensor data and prediction results

Fig. 11. Example of potential flooding paths to room R2, where flooding has been
detected.
of this evolution has been presented in [38], and nowadays, sim-
ulation is already a well-established approach to study the details
of a damage case, for example the cross-flooding time calculations
[39], and a valuable tool for accident investigations, e.g. [40].
In the present study progressive flooding is predicted with
a time-domain flooding simulation method described in [41,42].
The applied method is based on the conservation of mass
and Bernoulli’s equation, using implicit time integration with a
pressure-correction algorithm. This has proven to be an efficient
and accurate approach to calculation of extensive progressive
flooding to several compartments, and the method has been suc-
cessfully validated against measurement data from both model
tests [43] and full-scale tests [44].
At each time step the water levels in the flooded rooms are
solved iteratively, so that the conservation of mass is satisfied
and the flow velocities in the openings are solved by applying
Bernoulli’s theorem, Eq. (1). For closed non-watertight doors the
guideline values for leakage and collapse [37] are applied. A con-
stant discharge coefficient 0.6 is used for all openings. Sea is
assumed to be calm and the ship motions are considered to be fully
quasi-stationary.
Normally a time step between 0.5 s and 5 s is used in flooding
simulations [42], but in the breach assessment and flooding pre-
dictions onboard a damaged ship a relatively long time step of 30 s
is used in order to minimize the computation time. The numerical
truncation error will naturally increase with a longer time step, and
accumulate in the results. However, considering the other sources
of inaccuracy, such as permeability, leakage and collapse of closed
non-watertight doors, and even the actual loading condition before
When a new breach analysis is done, the results of the previous
flooding prediction for that moment in time are used as a comple-
mentary input to the level sensor data. For example, if a room is
predicted to be flooded but the level sensor shows zero level (see
Fig. 8), it must be checked if the opening along the flooding path is
below the sensor location, with the alarm limit taken into account.
In this case, the room may still be a potential source for the newly
detected flooding.
Progressive flooding to undamaged compartments through the
bulkhead deck is very problematic. Usually, there are no level
sensors on the bulkhead deck, although it is recommended in
SDC2/INF.6 [27]. Moreover, the water level can be so low that it does
not reach the alarm limit of the sensor. Thus the present approach
utilizes the results of the previous time-domain prediction of pro-
gressive flooding. If the room on the bulkhead deck is predicted to
be flooded at the time when analysis of a possible new breach is
done it can be the source for the newly detected flooding below
the bulkhead deck.
The algorithm for deciding if the detected flooding comes
directly from the sea through a breach or as progressive flooding
from another flooded room is illustrated in Fig. 12.
6. Demonstration and test cases
6.1. Sample ship and test method
The developed methodology for breach assessment is tested
with a 125 000 GT large passenger ship design [45], originally devel-
oped within the EU FP7 project FLOODSTAND. For the present study
the design has been modified, so that there is double skin around
the engine room compartments. This is a very typical arrangement
in new passenger ship designs after the Costa Concordia accident.
The main dimensions of the ship are listed in Table 1.
242 P. Ruponen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 64 (2017) 236–248
Fig. 12. Flow chart for analyzing if a room, where flooding has been detected, is breached, or whether observed water is progressive flooding (source found).
The required 3D model of the ship is very detailed, and includes
all steel bulkheads and vertical connections, such as staircases
and escape trunks. All doors in the modelled bulkheads are also
included. The applied parameters for leakage and collapse of closed
non-watertight doors are based on the full-scale tests [37] in the
FLOODSTAND project. The buoyant hull extends only two deck
heights above the bulkhead deck level (Deck 4). In reality, also the
superstructure provides some additional reserve buoyancy. How-
ever, it is not watertight, and therefore, a conservative approach is
adopted and the upper decks are excluded from the model. In total
the 3D model consists of 308 rooms and 357 openings.
The ship is considered to be equipped with 90 level sensors in
dry spaces, Fig. 13, so that 88.3% of the total dry space volume
(including voids) below the bulkhead deck is covered by the sen-
sors. In addition, there is a level sensor in every tank. The number
and location of the sensors follow the improved guidelines, pre-
sented in SDC2/INF.6 [27], below the bulkhead deck, but on the
bulkhead deck there are sensors only in the steering gear rooms.
This represents well the current situation with most of the modern
passenger ships.
The reference data is generated by defining the “real breaches” in
the hull surface and then performing a time-domain flooding sim-
ulation with a short time step of 2.0 s. The sea is assumed to be calm
and the ship motions are considered to be quasi-stationary. Based
on the simulated distribution of floodwater in the compartments
and the floating position of the ship, the time histories of water
levels are calculated for each flood level sensor. The measurement
frequency of the sensors is assumed to be 0.25 Hz, so that every
other time step from the simulation results is used. In addition, the
loading condition, including all liquid loads, and the current status
(open/closed) of the doors are used as input data for the breach
analysis.
Three different damage scenarios are studied. These have been
selected based on some real accidents, and each of them represents
different flooding mechanisms, including up and down-flooding, as
well as small and large breaches. A typical loading condition, with
GM0 of 2.70 m, draft of 8.47 m and small bow trim of 0.05 m, was
used as an initial intact condition for all studied damage scenar-
ios.
The results of the breach assessment include the breached
rooms and the areas of the approximated breaches. These are com-
pared to the real breaches that were used in the generation of the
reference data. However, the breach area alone is not sufficient for
judging the usefulness of breach assessment in decision support.
 P. Ruponen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 64 (2017) 236–248
WT compartments:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Fig. 13. General arrangement of the studied large passenger ship design with the locations of the level sensors.
Therefore, progressive flooding is predicted by using approximated
breaches. These results are then compared to the reference results.
The rooms are referred to with a code based on the watertight
compartment (Z#), and the deck (D#), supplemented by additional
definition when needed.
6.2. Case A – collision damage
The first studied scenario is a collision damage in the aft part
of the ship, Fig. 14. The bulbous bow of the striking ship causes
a small breach below the water line. In addition, there is a larger
breach above the intact waterline. Two WT compartments are dam-
aged, and there is up-flooding through the staircases and escape
trunks. Against the regulations and good seamanship, there is also
one open WT door that cannot be closed. Thus water spreads to a
third compartment. However, the bulkhead deck is not immersed
due to the limited flooding extent.
Comparison of the actual reference breach areas against the
results of the breach assessment is presented in Fig. 15. The dam-
aged rooms below the waterline are equipped with level sensors,
and thus all breaches below the waterline are correctly determined
very rapidly, during the first minute after damage. The algorithm
also correctly identifies progressive flooding through the open WT
door, and no additional breaches are defined at later stages in the
third flooded WT compartment.
243
Tank (with level sensor)
Dry space with level sensor(s)
Dry space without a level sensor
Level sensor location
Deck 5
Deck 4
Deck 3
Deck 2
Deck 1
Double bottom
The flooding is limited to three WT compartments, and conse-
quently the bulkhead deck is not immersed. In addition, there are
no level sensors on the bulkhead deck, and therefore the upper part
of the breach cannot be detected automatically.
The predicted heel angle and total volume of floodwater is
shown in Fig. 16, and compared to the reference results. Already the
first prediction captures accurately the development of heel angle
but the amount of floodwater is slightly underestimated, likely due
to the smaller breach areas.
6.3. Case B – bottom grounding
The second studied scenario is bottom grounding, similar to the
real accidents of the Sally Albatross in 1994 [46], and the Monarch of
the Seas in 1998 [47]. Double bottom is damaged very extensively,
and also the tank top is partly breached, resulting in progressive up-
flooding, Fig. 17. The damage is located slightly on the starboard
side, and there is notable asymmetry in the flooding due to the
breached tanks. Although the damage is extensive, water does not
reach the bulkhead deck and a stable floating position is eventually
reached in about two hours.
Five tanks are damaged, and these breaches are not identified
by the current algorithm, as explained in Section 4.5. However, the
changed filling levels are accounted for in the initial condition of
each time-domain prediction. In the WT compartments 14 and 15
the breached rooms on Deck 1 are not equipped with a level sen-
244 P. Ruponen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 64 (2017) 236–248
damage
Deck 3
open WT door
Deck 2
WT compartments:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fig. 14. Collision damage in Case A.
Fig. 15. Comparison of breach assessment against the reference breach areas.
sor. Therefore, these breaches are identified in the adjacent rooms,
where progressive flooding is eventually detected. In the compart-
ment 14 the flooding is rapid and the breaches are defined on both
sides (SB and PS) of the actually breached room. In the compartment
15 flooding is slower, and breach is detected on the SB side about
5 min after the damage. The comparison of the actual and approx-
imated breach areas is presented in Figs. 18 and 19. No further
breaches are found in the subsequent predictions as the algorithm
correctly identifies that the newly flooded rooms are caused by
progressive flooding.
The comparison of predictions for development of heel angle
and the total volume of floodwater in the dry spaces are shown in
Fig. 20. The first prediction does not include flooding of the tank
top in the compartment 15, and thus the amount of floodwater
is significantly underestimated, but already the second prediction
Fig. 16. Comparison of predicted heel angle and total volume of floodwater in dry
compartments against the reference data.
provides very good results, with all breached compartments cor-
rectly identified.
6.4. Case C – extensive side grounding
The last studied damage scenario is extensive side grounding,
similar to the Costa Concordia accident in 2012, [6] and [40]. The
breach is just below the water line and extents to six WT com-
partments on Deck 2. All WT doors are closed, but there is a small
unknown hole in the bulkhead on Deck 3 between the WT com-
partments 15 and 16, Fig. 21, that is not included in the 3D model
of the ship.
Initially, there is fast down-flooding through the staircases and
escape trunks to the lower deck. Eventually, draft and trim increase
so much that up-flooding to the bulkhead deck starts, and conse-
quently, there is further down-flooding to several undamaged WT
compartments. In two hours the heeling angle exceeds the limit of
15◦ for safe lowering of the lifeboats, which is a critical point for
the available time for orderly evacuation and abandonment.
The results of the breach assessment on the basis of the gen-
erated level sensor data are presented in Fig. 22. During the first
couple of minutes the breaches in the damaged compartments are
correctly identified. After 6 min progressive flooding through the
unknown hole in the WT bulkhead starts and water spreads to Deck
3 also in the WT compartment 16. The breach assessment algorithm
does not find a possible source for this newly detected flooding, and
consequently, a small additional breach is modelled. The assessed
breach areas are of the correct magnitude, although for some rooms
the difference to the reference value is notable.
The reference results and the predictions for the development
of the heel angle are shown in Fig. 23. A similar comparison of the
total amount of floodwater is presented in Fig. 24. The first pre-
diction does not include the more extensive flooding due to the
unknown hole in the WT bulkhead, and therefore, up-flooding to
the bulkhead deck is much slower than in the reference results.
Flooding below the bulkhead deck is very symmetrical after the
initial phase, meaning that the predicted heel angle is close to zero.
The second prediction, with the additional breach representing the
detected progressive flooding, results in a very accurate estimation
of the available time for orderly evacuation and abandonment.
After about 90 min there is significant progressive flooding
through the bulkhead deck to several undamaged WT compart-
ments and the heeling angle exceeds 10◦ . The breach assessment
algorithm fails to identify some of this progressive flooding and
110 min after damage a small additional breach of 0.3 m2 is defined
 P. Ruponen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 64 (2017) 236–248 245

Deck 3

Deck 2

Deck 1
breaches

Double bottom
WT compartments:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Fig. 17. Bottom grounding damage in Case B.

Fig. 18. Comparison of breach areas in the dry spaces for Case B.

Fig. 19. Comparison of breach areas in the double bottom for Case B.
246 P. Ruponen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 64 (2017) 236–248

in the undamaged WT compartment 10 on Deck 1. This is consid-

ered to be irrelevant for decision support since at this time the
heeling angle is already very close to the critical limit of 15◦ and
the small breach has only a little effect on the further progress of
flooding.
This damage scenario demonstrates the real value of the
breach assessment in decision support. After the initial heeling
has equalized, there is very little time for orderly evacuation and
abandonment as the heeling is less than 5◦ only for about 60 min.

7. Discussion

The breached rooms were predicted well by the developed algo-

Fig. 20. Comparison of predicted heel angle and total volume of floodwater in dry
compartments against the reference data for the bottom grounding, Case B.
rithm for all three studied damage scenarios. Also the breach sizes
were of the correct magnitude, and consequently the time-domain
prediction of development of heel and amount of floodwater
matched well with the reference results. Thus the simplified
approach with fixed breach locations seems to be suitable for deci-
sion support purposes.
The breach size needs to be evaluated rapidly after flooding has
been detected since the measurement data provides only the level

unknown opening

Deck 3

Deck 2

breach

Deck 1
WT compartments:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Fig. 21. Extensive side grounding damage in Case C.

Fig. 22. Comparison of breach assessment against the reference breach areas for the side grounding in Case C.
 P. Ruponen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 64 (2017) 236–248
Fig. 23. Development of heel angle in the side grounding, Case C.
Fig. 24. Development of the volume of floodwater in the side grounding, Case C.
rate, representing the net flow. For future research, corrections of
the breach sizes could also be considered on the basis of the mea-
sured progress of flooding and floating position, so that the breach
areas could be increased if flooding is faster than anticipated, and
vice versa.
The presented tests and demonstration of the developed breach
assessment method were performed by using reference results
that were created with exactly the same 3D ship model, with the
same permeabilities and opening definitions. It is noteworthy that
also differences in these parameters will affect the accuracy of the
breach assessment. Future studies on the subject should consider
also variation in the room permeabilities, as well as the leakage and
collapse characteristics of the closed doors. However, these factors
are assumed to have effect mainly on the accuracy of the time-
domain prediction of progressive flooding, and not that much on
the breach assessment.
Also waves can affect the flooding process and motions of the
damaged ship. However, especially for large passenger ships in
a moderate seaway the effect is usually quite small [48]. Thus
the assumption of calm water in simulations for decision support
seems to be justified.
A prerequisite for automatic breach detection and assessment is
an ample number of well-placed flood level sensors. Based on the
presented test cases the guidelines in [27] seem to be sufficient.
However, it must be noted that even better sensor coverage in the
dry spaces could ensure even faster and more reliable assessment
of the damage extent.
The breach assessment depends on the quality of the level sen-
sor data. If the measurement frequency is too low, less than 0.20 Hz,
it may not be possible to evaluate the level rate with reasonable
247
accuracy. In the current automation systems in large passenger
ships this frequency is typically about 0.20 Hz or 0.25 Hz. It is worth
noticing that with a higher measurement frequency the breach
assessment could provide even more reliable results. The effects of
the measurement frequency and noise in the signal due to sloshing
of floodwater should be thoroughly studied in the future.
Although the presented method for breach assessment was
found out to work properly, a decision support system for flood-
ing emergencies should also have a possibility for manual breach
definition, in order to complement the automatic analysis. Espe-
cially the breaches above the bulkhead deck are difficult to detect
since the water levels are so small.
8. Conclusions
Development of the tools and practices for post-accident vessel
safety assessment, and related decision making, is an important
aspect of improving maritime safety in practice. Automatic and
reliable estimation of the breach and consequent flooding is an
essential part of this development. The crew’s uncertainty about
the damage extent hinders effective communication, both onboard
and towards the SAR (Search and Rescue) response operators. This
easily leads to loss of time, during which the event can further esca-
late, as in the case of the Costa Concordia [6]. The presented method
for automatic breach assessment, using measurement data from
the level sensors, enables a rapid and reliable analysis of the dam-
age extent. In addition the time-domain prediction of progressive
flooding provides valuable information for decision making.
A novel method for breach assessment onboard a damaged pas-
senger ship has been presented, utilizing the data from the level
sensors and an advanced time-domain simulation tool for progres-
sive flooding. The developed algorithm for analysis of the breach
size requires the measured level rate in the compartment. There-
fore, only rooms with a working level sensor can be modelled as
breached for the prediction of progressive flooding. Thus if the ship
is equipped with a sufficient number of well-placed working level
sensors, automatic breach detection provides a good estimation of
the actual breach. The results can be utilized for time-domain pre-
diction of progressive flooding, forming a solid background to the
survivability analysis.
®
The test cases were calculated with Intel CoreTM i7-4800MQ
CPU @2.70 GHz. The assessment of breached rooms and breach sizes
took only a couple of seconds. In all cases the computation time for
a 3 h prediction of progressive flooding was less than 5 min. This
is fast enough for providing valuable support in decision making
onboard a flooding ship.
The presented test cases show that the breached rooms, as well
as the breach areas, are very well predicted. In some cases, the area
of the assessed breach differs significantly from the real value, espe-
cially for large ones. However, in these cases the breach area has
a little effect on progressive flooding since the internal openings
are much smaller, and thus act as “bottle necks” for the floodwater
flow. Further studies on the effects of inaccuracies in the 3D model
of the ship and in the signal from the level sensors are still needed.
However, in general the developed method for breach assessment
is believed to significantly improve the reliability and usefulness of
decision support systems for flooding emergencies.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mrs. Anna-Lea Routi from Meyer
Turku for providing the original passenger ship design for the case
study, and Mr. Daniel Lindroth and Mr. Esa Takkinen for preparing
the detailed 3D model and sensor definitions for the demonstration
and test study. Mr. Markus Tompuri is thanked for his valuable
comments on the manuscript.
248 P. Ruponen et al. / Applied Ocean Research 64 (2017) 236–248
References
[1] K. Levander, Goal based ship safety – application in large cruise ship design,
Trans. Soc. Nav. Archit. Mar. Eng. (2011) http://www.sname.org/sd3stability/
viewdocument/goal-based-ship-safety-application.
[2] E. Vanem, R. Skjong, Designing for safety in passenger ships utilizing
advanced evacuation analyses – a risk based approach, Saf. Sci. 44 (2006)
111–135, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2005.06.007.
[3] D. Vassalos, Passenger ship safety: containing the risk, Mar. Technol. 43 (4)
(2006) 203–212.
[4] J. Montewka, S. Ehlers, F. Goerlandt, T. Hinz, K. Tabri, P. Kujala, A framework
for risk assessment for maritime transportation systems – a case study for
open sea collisions involving RoPax vessels, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 124 (2014)
142–157, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.11.014.
[5] D. Vassalos, Safe return to port – a framework for passenger ship safety, in:
Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships
and Other Floating Structures, Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2007.
[6] MIT, Cruise Ship Consta Concordia Marine Casualty on January 13, 2012 –
Report on the Safety Technical Investigation, Ministry of infrastructures and
transports, 2013.
[7] D. Spanos, A. Papanikolaou, On the time for the abandonment of flooded
passenger ships due to collision damages, J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 19 (2014)
327–337, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00773-013-0251-0.
[8] T. Manderbacka, T. Mikkola, P. Ruponen, J. Matusiak, Transient response of a
ship to an abrupt flooding accounting for the momentum flux, J. Fluids Struct.
57 (2015) 108–126, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2015.06.001.
[9] T. Manderbacka, P. Ruponen, The impact of the inflow momentum on the
transient roll response of a damaged ship, Ocean Eng. 120 (2016) 346–352,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.02.012.
[10] D. Lee, S.-S. Lee, B.-J. Park, S.-Y. Kim, A study on the framework for
survivability assessment system of damaged ships, Ocean Eng. 32 (2005)
1122–1132, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2004.10.019.
[11] A.I. Ölcer, J. Majumder, A case-based decision support system for flooding
crises onboard ships, Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 22 (2006) 59–78, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/qre.748.
[12] A. Jasionowski, Decision support for ship flooding crisis management, Ocean
Eng. 38 (2011) 1568–1581, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.06.002.
[13] P.T. Martins, V.S. Lobo, Real-Time decision support system for managing ship
stability under damage, in: Proceedings of OCEANS 2011 IEEE, Spain, 2011,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/Oceans-Spain.2011.6003643.
[14] D. Lee, Knowledge-based system for safety control of damaged ship,
Knowl.-Based Syst. 19 (2006) 187–191, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.
2005.11.005.
[15] F. Calabrese, A. Corallo, A. Margherita, A.A. Zizzari, A knowledge-based
decision support system for shipboard damage control, Expert Syst. Appl. 39
(2012) 8204–8211, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.146.
[16] L.-F. Hu, K. Ma, Z.-S. Ji, A M–H method-based decision support system for
flooding emergencies, Ocean Eng. 58 (2013) 192–200, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.oceaneng.2012.10.012.
[17] L.-F. Hu, Z. Tian, Z. Sun, Q. Zhang, B. Feng, Genetic algorithm-based
counter-flooding decision model for damaged warship, Int. Shipbuild. Prog.
62 (2015) 1–15, http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISP-140114.
[18] J. Choi, D. Lee, H.J. Kang, S.-Y. Kim, S.-C. Shin, Damage scenarios and onboard
support system for damaged ships, Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 6 (2014)
236–244, http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/ijnaoe-2013-0175.
[19] P. Ruponen, M. Larmela, P. Pennanen, Flooding prediction onboard a damaged
ship, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Stability of Ships
and Ocean Vehicles, STAB2012, Athens, Greece, 2012, pp. 391–400.
[20] J.M. Varela, J.M. Rodrigues, C. Guedes Soares, On-board decision support
system for ship flooding emergency response, Procedia Comput. Sci. 29
(2014) 1688–1700, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.154.
[21] J.M. Varela, J.M. Rodrigues, C. Guedes Soares, 3D simulation of ship motions to
support the planning of rescue operations on damaged ships, Procedia
Comput. Sci. 51 (2015) 2397–2405, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.
416.
[22] J.M. Varela, C. Guedes Soares, A virtual environment for decision support in
ship damage control, IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 27 (4) (2007) 58–69, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2007.74.
[23] P. Ruponen, P. Pennanen, D. Lindroth, Prediction of survivability for decision
support in ship flooding emergency, in: Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on the Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles, STAB 2015, Glasgow,
UK, 2015, pp. 987–997.
[24] P. Pennanen, P. Ruponen, H. Ramm-Schmidt, Integrated decision support
system for increased passenger ship safety, in: Proceedings of Damaged Ship
III, 25–25 March 2015, London, UK, Royal Institute of Naval Architects, 2015.
[25] J. Nordström, F. Goerlandt, J. Sarsama, P. Leppänen, M. Nissilä, P. Ruponen, T.
Lübcke, S. Sonninen, Vessel TRIAGE: a method for assessing and
communicating the safety status of vessels in maritime distress situations,
Saf. Sci. 85 (2016) 117–129, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.01.003.
[26] IMO 2008. Guidelines for Flooding Detection Systems on Passenger Ships,
MSC.1/Circ.1291, 9 December 2008.
[27] IMO 2014. Guidelines for Flood Sensor Placement and Technical
Requirements, SDC2/INF.6, submitted by Finland.
[28] R. Jalonen, P. Ruponen, A. Jasionowski, P. Maurier, M. Kajosaari, A.
Papanikolaou, FLOODSTAND – overview of achievements, in: Proceedings of
the 11th International Conference on Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles,
STAB2012, Athens, Greece, 2012, pp. 819–829.
[29] P. Ruponen, P. Kurvinen, I. Saisto, J. Harras, Air compression in a flooded tank
of a damaged ship, Ocean Eng. 57 (2013) 64–71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
oceaneng.2012.09.014.
[30] P. Penttilä, P. Ruponen, Use of level sensors in Breach estimation for damaged
ship, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Collision and
Grounding of Ships, ICCGS 2010, Finland, 2010, pp. 80–87.
[31] Y. Li, A.J. Sobey, M. Tan, Investigation into the effects of petalling on coefficient
of discharge during compartment flooding, J. Fluids Struct. 45 (2014) 66–78,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2013.11.016 (February 2014).
[32] V.D.K. Domeh, A.J. Sobey, D.A. Hudson, A preliminary experimental
investigation into the influence of compartment permeability on damaged
ship response in waves, Appl. Ocean Res. 52 (2015) 27–36, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apor.2015.05.001.
[33] A. Papanikolaou, R. Hamann, B.S. Lee, C. Mains, O. Olufsen, D. Vassalos, G.
Zaraphonitis, GOALDS – goal based damage ship stability and safety
standards, Accid. Anal. Prev. 60 (2013) 353–365, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2013.04.006.
[34] G. Bulian, D. Lindroth, P. Ruponen, G. Zaraphonitis, Probabilistic assessment of
damaged ship survivability in case of grounding: development and testing of
a direct non-zonal approach, Ocean Eng. 120 (2016) 331–338, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.02.018.
[35] X. Wang, A. Li, A.J. Sobey, M. Tan, Investigation into the effects of two
immiscible fluids on coefficient of discharge during Compartment Flooding,
Ocean Eng. 111 (2016) 254–266, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.
10.050.
[36] H. Dankowski, A Fast and Explicit Method for Simulating Flooding and
Sinkage Scenarios of Ships, Doctoral Dissertation, Technischen Universität
Hamburg, Harburg, 2013 (p. 107).
[37] R. Jalonen, P. Ruponen, M. Weryk, H. Naar, S. Vaher, A study on leakage and
collapse of non-watertight ship doors under floodwater pressure, Mar. struct.
51 (2017) 188–201, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2016.10.010.
[38] A.D. Papanikolaou, Review of damage stability of ships recent developments
and trends, in: Proceedings of the 10th Int. Symposium on Practical Design of
Ships and Other Floating Structures (PRADS 2007), Houston, U.S.A., 2007.
[39] P. Ruponen, P. Queutey, M. Kraskowski, R. Jalonen, E. Guilmineau, On the
calculation of cross-flooding time, Ocean Eng. 40 (2012) 27–39, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.12.008.
[40] H. Dankowski, P. Russell, S. Krüger, New insights into the flooding sequence of
the costa Concordia accident, in: Proceedings of the ASME 2014, 33rd
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering,
OMAE2014, June 8–13, 2014, San Francisco, USA, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1115/OMAE2014-23323.
[41] P. Ruponen, Progressive flooding of a damaged passenger ship, dissertation
for the degree of doctor of science in technology, TKK Dissertations 94 (2007)
124.
[42] P. Ruponen, Adaptive time step in simulation of progressive flooding, Ocean
Eng. 78 (2014) 35–44, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.12.014.
[43] P. Ruponen, T. Sundell, M. Larmela, Validation of a simulation method for
progressive flooding, Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 54 (4) (2007) 305–321.
[44] P. Ruponen, P. Kurvinen, I. Saisto, J. Harras, Experimental and numerical study
on progressive flooding in full-Scale, Transactions of royal institute of naval
architects, Int. J. Marit. Eng. 152 (Part A4) (2010) A-197–A-207.
[45] J. Kujanpää, A.-L. Routi, Concept Ship Design A, FLOODSTAND Deliverable
D1.1a, 2009 http://floodstand.aalto.fi/Info/Files/deliverable D1.1a v03.pdf.
[46] MoJF, Accident Investigation Report on the Grounding of the m/s Sally
Albatross, Ministry of Justice, Finland, 1996 (in Finnish) http://www.
turvallisuustutkinta.fi/material/attachments/otkes/tutkintaselostukset/fi/
vesiliikenneonnettomuuksientutkinta/vanhemmattutkinnat/FHLgxlFV1/1
1994 Tutkintaselostus.pdf.
[47] MI&USCG 2003. Report of investigation into the circumstances surrounding
the grounding of the Monarch of the Seas on Proselyte Reef in Great Bay,
Philipsburg, St. Maarten, Netherlands Antilles on December 15, 1998,
Maritime Investigator, Oslo, Norway, and United States Cost Guard, http://
www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg545/docs/documents/monarch.pdf.
[48] R. van’t Veer, 2004. Time to Flood (TTF) Simulations for a Large Passenger Ship
−Final Study, MARIN Report No. 19289-1-CPS (published in Annex of IMO
SLF48/INF.2).