Risk-Based Hybrid Light-Weight Ship Structural Design Accounting for Carbon Footprint
Source abstract
Abstract
The study aims to develop an integrating risk-based formulation and cost-benefit analysis for identifying an optimal ship hull structural design solution where the steel cargo holds aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels to replace inner side shells. The risk of progressive structural failure includes hazards related to environmental pollution due to accidental fuel and oil spills, possible loss of cargo, crew members and ship during operations, and air pollution during shipyard construction and ship voyages. The structural failure incorporates progressive time-dependent structural degradation coupled with ship hull load-carrying capacity in predicting structural integrity during the service life. The ship hull structural failure and associated risk are estimated over the ship’s service life as a function of the design solution. The carbon footprint and cost to mitigate the impact for the entire steel and hybrid ship hull structural solution implemented as a sustainable life cycle solution are analysed where the steel ship hull structure is built through primary construction. The cost of structural measures accounts for redesigning the ship structure and implementing aluminium honeycomb composite panels instead of steel plates, reducing steel weight, environmental pollution and cost and increasing the transported cargo and corrosion degradation resistance. It has been found that design solutions AHS1 and AHS2, in which aluminium honeycomb panels replace the inner steel shell plates, enhance the corrosion degradation resistance, and reduce the ship hull’s lightweight, reflecting a better beta-reliability index at the time of the first repair with a lower repair cost and more transported cargo. The cost of the ship associated with the design solutions AHS1 and AHS2 is about 11% lower than the steel solutions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Structural Integrity and Reliability Analysis · Marine and Offshore Engineering Studies · Corrosion Behavior and Inhibition
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Centre for Marine Technology and Ocean Engineering (CENTEC), Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
Department of Engineering, University of Messina, 98122 Messina, Italy
References (58)
Show source-provided references
1. IMO (2020). Fourth IMO GHG Study, IMO.
2. IEA (2020). Tracking Transport, IEA.
3. Summerscales, J., Singh, M.M., and Wittamore, K. (2016). Disposal of Composite Boats and Other Marine Composites, Woodhead Publishing.10.1016/B978-1-78242-250-1.00008-9 ↗
4. Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing for assessing maritime transport: A comprehensive literature review10.1080/03088839.2021.1972486 ↗
5. Life-cycle assessment of ships: The effects of fuel consumption reduction and light displacement tonnage
6. Amdahl, J., and Guedes Soares, C. (2022). Developments in the Analysis and Design of Marine Structures, Taylor & Francis Group.10.1201/9781003230373 ↗
7. Economic and Environmental Evaluation of Aluminium Recycling Based on a Belgian Case Study10.1016/j.promfg.2019.04.080 ↗
8. Experimental Study on the Dynamic Behaviour of Aluminium Honeycomb Sandwich Panel Subjected to Ice Wedge Impact10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.115092 ↗
9. Palomba, G., Corigliano, P., Crupi, V., Epasto, G., and Guglielmino, E. (2022). Static and Fatigue Full-Scale Tests on a Lightweight Ship Balcony Overhang with Al/Fe Structural Transition Joints. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 10.10.3390/jmse10101382 ↗
10. Aluminium Honeycomb Sandwich as a Design Alternative for Lightweight Marine Structures10.1080/17445302.2021.1996109 ↗
11. Palomba, G., Scattareggia Marchese, S., Crupi, V., and Garbatov, Y. (2022). Cost, Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint Analysis of Hybrid Light-Weight Bulk Carrier. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 10.10.3390/jmse10070957 ↗
12. Alternative hybrid lightweight ship hull structural design
13. IMO (2008). Formal Safety Assessment on Crude Oil Tankers, International Maritime Organization Publishing.
14. IMO (2022, June 18). Revised Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for Use in the IMO Rule-Making Process. Available online: https://www.liscr.com/revised-guidelines-formal-safety-assessment-fsa-use-imo-rule-making-process.
15. Papanikolaou, A.D., Guedes Soares, C., Jasionowski, A., Jensen, J.J., McGeorge, D., Poylio, E., and Vassalos, D. (2009). Risk-Based Ship Design, Springer.
16. Preliminary design of a tanker ship in the context of collision-induced environmental-risk-based ship design10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.04.003 ↗
17. A systemic hazard analysis and management process for the concept design phase of an autonomous vessel10.1016/j.ress.2019.106584 ↗
18. Bolbot, V., Theotokatos, G., Wennersberg, L.A., Faivre, J., Vassalos, D., Boulougouris, E., Rodseth, O.J., Andersen, P., Pauwelyn, A.S., and Van Coillie, A. (2021). A novel risk assessment process: Application to an autonomous inland waterways ship. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part O J. Risk Reliab., 1748006X211051829.10.1177/1748006X211051829 ↗
19. Núñez-Sánchez, M.J., and Pérez-Rojas, L. (2020). Proceedings of the VI International Ship Design & Naval Engineering Congress (CIDIN) and XXVI Pan-American Congress of Naval Engineering, Maritime Transportation and Port Engineering (COPINAVAL), Springer.
20. Risk-based conceptual ship design of a bulk carrier accounting for energy efficiency design index (EEDI)10.5750/ijme.v163iA1.5 ↗
21. ABS (2022). News Brieef: MEPC 79, ABS.
22. Noury, P., Hayman, B., McGeorge, D., and Weitzenböck, J. (2002, January 11–15). Lightweight Construction for Advanced Shipbuilding-Recent Development. Proceedings of the 37th WEGEMT Summer School, Madrid, Spain.
23. On Structural Design of Energy Efficient Small High-Speed Craft10.1016/j.marstruc.2011.01.001 ↗
24. A Review of Impact Testing on Marine Composite Materials: Part III—Damage Tolerance and Durability10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.01.042 ↗
25. Barrass, C.B. (2004). Ship Design and Performance for Masters and Mates, Elsevier.
26. The Influence of Ship Operational Parameters on Fuel Consumption
27. Aluminum Recycling—Challenges and Opportunities
28. Schlesinger, M.E. (2014). Aluminum Recycling, CRC Press.10.1201/b16192 ↗
29. Grimes, S., Donaldson, J., and Gomez, G.C. (2008). Report on the Environmental Benefits of Recycling, BIR.
30. MAN (2021, July 18). MAN Diesel & Turbo, Energy Efficiency Design Index. Available online: https://marine.mandieselturbo.com/docs/default-source/shopwaredocumentsarchive/eedi.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
31. Nonlinear time dependent corrosion wastage of deck plates of ballast and cargo tanks of tankers10.1115/1.2426987 ↗
32. Guedes Soares, C., and Teixeira, A. (2018). Maritime Transportation and Harvesting of Sea Resources, Taylor & Francis Group.
33. Risk-based framework for ship and structural design accounting for maintenance planning10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.07.058 ↗
34. IMO (2022, June 18). Consolidated Text of the Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for Use in the IMO Rule-Making Process. Available online: https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/HumanElement/Documents/1023-MEPC392.pdf.
35. Formal Safety Assessment: An updated review10.1007/s00773-012-0175-0 ↗
36. Smith, C. (1977, January 18–20). Influence of Local Compressive Failure on Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of a Ship Hull. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Practical Design in Shipbuilding (PRADS), Tokyo, Japan.
37. Risk-based corrosion allowance of oil tankers10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107753 ↗
38. Reliability of deteriorated marine structures based on measured data
39. DNV-GL (2017). DNVGL-RU-9111:2015-7, Rules for Classification, DNV GL.
40. Reliability Based Ship Structural Design
41. Garbatov, Y., and Guedes Soares, C. (2016, January 4–8). Reliability assessment of a container ship subjected to asymmetrical bending. Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures, Copenhagen, Denmark.
42. Combination of Primary Load Effects in Ship Structures10.1016/0266-8920(92)90013-8 ↗
43. Stochastic and deterministic combinations of still water and wave bending moments in ships10.1016/0951-8339(95)00022-4 ↗
44. Stochastic Modelling of Maximum Still-Water Load Effects in Ship Structures10.5957/jsr.1990.34.3.199 ↗
45. Statistical Analysis of Still-Water Load. Effects in Ship Structures
46. DnV (2011). Hull Structural Design, Ships with Length 100 Metres and above, DNV GL.
47. DnV (2010). Fatigue Assessment of Ship Structures, Classification Notes No 30.7, DNV GL.
48. MARS2000 (2011). Bureau Veritas, Rules for the Classification of Ships and IACS Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Tankers, Bureau Veritas.
49. A Probability Based Structural Code
50. Rackwitz, R. (1977, January 19-21). First order reliability theories and stochastic models. Proceedings of the International conference ICOSSAR’77I, Munich, Germany.
51. Gollwitzer, S., and Rackwitz, R. (1985, January 27–29). First-Order System Reliability of Structural System. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, Kobe, Japan.
52. Multiobjective reliability-based design of ship structures subjected to fatigue damage and compressive collapse10.1115/1.4046378 ↗
53. Data on consequences following ship accidents
54. Horte, T., Wang, W., and White, N. (2007, January 1). Calibration of the hull girder ultimate capacity criterion for double hull tankers. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures (PRADS), Houston, TX, USA.
55. Bayesian updating in the reliability assessment of maintained floating structures10.1115/1.1493200 ↗
56. Structural maintenance planning based on historical data of corroded deck plates of tankers10.1016/j.ress.2009.05.013 ↗
57. Guedes Soares, C. (1998). Risk and Reliability in Marine Technology, A.A. Balkema.
58. Ship structural safety and reliability10.1002/pse.74 ↗