ARGOMARINE Final Conference - SUSY presentation -


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

ARGOMARINE Final Conference - SUSY presentation -

  1. 1. SUSY projectArgomarine conference21st November 2012
  2. 2. BMT
  3. 3. Oil Spill Information System: OSIS•  Spill trajectory and weathering prediction tool•  Based on 25 years of laboratory work into oil spills•  Validated against 18 sea trial spills (see picture) and real life incidents (Sea Empress, Rose Bay, Braer)•  GIS-based, designed for use by spill responders and consultants•  Contains >120 oil types, laboratory analysed for weathering and dispersibility•  Underlying databases of oceanography and maps for rapid set-up•  Works on laptop, PC and potential to operate on LAN or Internet
  4. 4. OSIS Outputs •  GIS-based outputs showing slick trajectory, spread and contours of thickness or dispersed concentrations •  Status panels showing spill volume, viscosity, flash point •  Beaching locations •  On screen graphs track history of volumes, viscosity, flash point
  5. 5. Shoal•  An intelligent AUV team to monitor pollution in seaports and harbours.•  Developments in AI, Robotics, Communications and Sensors.•  Evaluation and Testing in Gijon.
  6. 6. Localisation and Commuiccation
  7. 7. Surfacing  system  for  ship  recovery         BALance ® Technology Consulting
  8. 8. SUSY: Objectives
  9. 9. Concepts evaluatedThe development of a combination of satellite booster technology with airpressure systems and balloon technology to create a multi purpose modularsystem for ship rescue purposes. Fishing ROPAX Deployable Internal Double vessel Curtain salvage tool bottom installation
  10. 10. Technical Details / Work done in period 1 DESCRIPTION OF TASK 2.3ROPAX Curtain concept Technical Details / Work done in period 1 Curtain Concept DESCRIPTION OF TASK 2.3 Curtain Concept Fitting arrangement Bars are envisioned to be rigidly attached to the inner structure of the ship Fitting arrangement Bars are envisioned to be rigidly attached to the inner structure of the ship bars bars Or be stored with the balloon on (or below) the car deck and be lifted as the balloon inflates Or be stored with the balloon on (or below) the car deck and be lifted as the balloon inflates Steel bars Steel bars balloon balloon balloon balloon
  11. 11. Technical Details / Work done in period 1 DESCRIPTION OF TASK 2.3 ROPAX Curtain concept Concept Curtain Conclusion•  Curtain doesn’t hold even with cables of 16mm even Curtain doesn’t hold with cables of 16 mm diameter. diameter and plate material of steel. Hydrostatic loads are way less than hydrodynamic loads. Textile thickness seems to be the most detrimental property for structural integrity
  12. 12. Marine Salvage Techniques Floating crane ROV Lifting bag Uncontrolled vertical acceleration 3
  13. 13. Salvage concept•  HAZID analysis completed•  Evaluation of shear forces and bending moments and corresponding fatigue damage thresholds•  Live Testing.Single Input Fuzzy Sliding ModeController(SIFSMC)

  14. 14. ρg 1.017 kgm commanded target depth, even though the simulation Iyy 1481.31 kgm2 0.03 time is variable, it has a slight effect on the response Z w" values because of the sliding-mode controller - 15.7x As a & action. 10 -3 0.02 Sliding mode controller result, Figure 13 displays Z " different patterns – i.e. 3 reduction, maintenance and q & - 0.41x10-3 further reduction to zero 0.01 value – of the flow rate, as inM " Figure 8. w& - 0.53x10-3 0.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1000 Variation in assent velocity 50 M q" & - 0.79x10 -3 Variation in pitch angle Time (s) 45 30 m Figure 5: Case 1 - Variation of ship ascent velocity 40 m 0.09am 40 50 m Some input physical and empirical parameters are given 0.0 30 m 0.08 35 in 40 m 1 for the pontoon model. The inflation time of Table 30 m -0.5 e with 0.07 filling gas inside the balloons depends on the initial flow 50 m 40 m 30 50 m period rate whereas the breakout time of the pontoon from the -1.0 z (m) of the 0.06 25 seafloor is assumed to be 100 s. The latter would be -1.5 within 20 changed if the appropriate suction force model was 0.05 w (m/s) ascent considered. In the following, two cases of numerical θ (deg.) -2.0 15creases 0.04 simulations are considered for different target depths -2.5e pitch 10 being equal to 30, 40 and 50 m. In the first case, the 0.03 s the 5 initial flow rate is variable for different depths, whereas -3.0ntroller 0.02 in the second case the initial flow rate is fixed. The latter 0 error. 0 would 300 400 in500different numerical 1000 100 200 result 600 700 800 900 simulation time -3.5 0.01 by the depending on the sliding-mode control. Time (s) -4.0 gle to 0.00 ates of Figure 100 Case 2 300 400 500 ship vertical position 0 9: 200 - Variation of 600 700 800 900 1000 -4.5 4.1 CASE Time (s) 1: VARYING INITIAL FLOW RATE 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000hen the Time (s) Figure 5: Case 1 - Variation of ship ascent velocity 0.09 • the app With 3 target (30, 40 and 50 m) depths, 3 different initial 0.0 Figure 6: Case 1 - Variation of ship pitch angle flow m 30 rates (0.15, 0.1875 and 0.25 m3s-1, respectively) are evalua given n from 0.08 0.0 40 m -0.5 30 m considered such that the payload reaches the desired 40 m • the effme t = (at of 50 m 30 m 0.0002 50 m 0.07 -0.5 depths at the same time (about 1000 s). m 40 The inflation time -1.0 howev flowces the 0.06 50 m of filling gas inside the balloons is suitably taken as 100, 30 m whichm the0.25 to -1.0 -1.5 40 m 80 & 60 s respectively. The obtained vertical dynamic 0.0001 as a Fu ld be der to 0.05 50 m θ (deg.)w (m/s) -1.5 • the ela q (rad/s) θ (deg.) -2.0 wasnduced responses (vertical trajectory, ascent velocity, pitch angle 0.04 and pitch rate) and the variation of the control parameter conditi ottom. erical -2.0 -2.5 (i.e. the flow rate) are presented in Figures 4-7 and 8, 0.0000 variatidepthsa ains 0.03 target -2.5 respectively. -3.0 pressue, thentroller 0.02 velocithereas -3.0 50 -0.0001 -3.5ue. The • the ev latter 0.01 30 m to the -3.5 45 -4.0 mome time 40 m relief 0.00 -4.0 0 100 40 200 300 50 m 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 -0.0002 -4.5 thresho 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 mode 35 Time (s) -4.5TE and g 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 -0.0003 Time (s) nt rate 30 Figure 10: Case 2 - Variation (s) ship ascent velocity of 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 5. CONC Time Figure 11: Case 2 - Variation of ship pitch angle m)
  15. 15. Results & Discussion
  16. 16. Results & Discussion (Contd….)
  17. 17. For a safe and viable salvage operation, the ascent velocity and pitch angleshould be controlled by the combined use of an adaptive fuzzy sliding modecontroller and pressure relief valve FSMCs shows 30 % of improvement in tracking performance over SMC. SIFSMCis proved to be the preferred option among these controllers with less tuningeffort and computational time. Live testing soon
  18. 18. Double bottom concept DPAM – Method • Stress Intensity Factors evaluation • Bottom Damage – Grounding • Side and Deck Damages - Collision • Crack Propagation Equation • Resolution of a differential equation • Implementation : Octave script 4.9813 m
  19. 19. Double bottom Concept overview concept Prediction of structural integrity time as decision making tool. Optimisation of the loads to increase the Structure Integrity Time. • Ballasts • Tanks • Additional buoyancy due to SuSy balloon system
  20. 20. Double bottom concept   Double  Bo8om  Sec9on  –  both  balloons  packed  and  stored  
  21. 21.   Double  Bo8om  Sec9on  –  One  balloon  packed,  but  the  other  inflated.  
  22. 22. Description of Damage control cases applied to the damage vessel Loading case B1- 100% Sagging of the • Ballasting the Common Structural double skin and Rules for Oil-Tankers. Ballast hopper tanks opposite to the damaged ones. • Attachment 2nd SuSy points of SuSy Damage Devices devices on Scenario Case bulkheads. • Attachment points of SuSy SuSy Rectangular damage Devices devices on both • 10m longitudinal webs and bulkheads. • 5.5m above WL • 8.5m below WLchool of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Shipbuilding Technology Laboratory
  23. 23. Results Remarks • Cases (a) & (b) similar stress distribution. • Case (a) slightly higher stress distribution on deck. • Case (c) lower stress distribution below damage area.School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Shipbuilding Technology Laboratory
  24. 24. Double bottom concept Results Remarks• Cases (a) & (b) similar stress distribution.• Case (c) lower stress distribution.• Average stresses for case (c) more than 50% lower than cases (a) & (b)
  25. 25. Double bottom concept•The application of SuSy devices on both bulkheads and webs compared toballasting, exhibits over 50% less average stresses, on hopper plating,relevant longitudinal stiffeners and side skin, situated on the damaged side.
•Between the upper deck and upper section of damage, SuSy cases exhibitsslightly lower stress distribution than the cases where the SuSy devices areapplied. •Proper selection of attachment points for the SuSy devices is essentialregarding structural response of the damaged compartment
  26. 26. Double bottom concept
  27. 27. Design  update   • A"achment  lacing  set  to  the   maximum  length  to  reduce  the   balloon  movement  during  infla7on.   • Addi7onal  s7ffener  behind  clamping   bar  to  provide  mechanical  resistance   against  slipping.   • Addi7onally  both  rubber  faces  will  be   • The  packed  balloon  will  be  geAng  longer,   buffed  to  improve  fric7on  inside  the   but  more  slim.   clamping  area.   • All  contact  areas  of  the  balloon  to  the   • The  thickness  of  the  clamping  bar  will   s7ffeners  will  be  reinforced  by  applying  a   be  of  6mm  and  made  of  steel.   second  layer  of  material.  
  28. 28. Thank Benjamin HodgsonSenior Research ScientistBMT Group Ltd,Goodrich House, 1 Waldegrave RoadTeddington, Middlesex, TW11 8LZ, UKTel:         +44 (0) 20-8614-4216
  29. 29. works and possible exchanges, it is highly unlikely that Data of this basic maritime traffic picture is not clas- one single technical solution will fit each and every sified and could be shared without any restrictions exchange of information within the CISE. For this between all Communities provided the necessary reason the CISE architecture should be designed as safeguards are put into place.CISE & e-maritime Example of information layers (non-hierarchical) Common information sharing environment National authorities Information layers Fishery control VMS Maritime authority SAFESEANET Defence PT MARSUR Internal security EUROSUR Information sharing User-defined COP
  30. 30. Secretary of States Representative for 
Maritime Salvage and Intervention –(SOSREP) oversee, control and if necessary to intervene and exercise “ultimatecommand and control”, acting in the overriding interest of the UnitedKingdom in salvage operations within UK waters involving vessels orfixed platforms where there is significant risk of pollution. SOSREP should be:• On site, able to act without delay •  Free to act without recourse to higher authority.• The involvement of Ministers in operational decisions is not a practicaloption. •  The “Trigger Point” for Intervention is when there is a significant threat of pollution to the UK’s pollution control zone, territorial waters or coastline. •  By not issuing a direction the SOSREP is adopting and approving the proposed course of action proposed by those dealing with the incident.
  31. 31. also the space in which inclusive and sustainable economic development takes place.Oxfam donut Source: Oxfam. The 11 dimensions of the social foundation are illustrative and are based on governments’ priorities for Rio+20. The nine dimensions of the environmental ceiling are based on the planetary boundaries set out by Rockström et al (2009b)