Second Generation Stability Methodology

  • Philip A. WilsonEmail author


New intact stability criteria are being developed since the re-establishment in 2002 of the Sub-Committee on stability and Load Lines and on Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF) at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in order to take into account five particular stability failure modes (see Belenky et al., Development of second generation intact stability. Criteria, Naval Surface Warfare Center, US Navy, [1]). These are parametric rolling, pure loss of stability in astern waves, broaching-to, dead ship condition and excessive acceleration. For each failure mode, three levels are defined to assess the ship vulnerability with a gradually increasing level of accuracy in the prediction of ship response. The first level aims to be the more conservative and applicable with simple means such as pocket calculator. The second level could require the use of Excel spreadsheet or coding software while the third one consists of Direct Stability Assessment (DSA) carried out through the use of software implementing state-of-the-art ship dynamics models. We might also observe a rather static analysis at the first level evolving into a totally dynamic analysis at the third level. A ship is required to comply with one of the three criteria for each failure mode. If a vessel is considered as vulnerable according to the first level, then the second level check is carried out. A vessel failing the second level check must be subject to a DSA. In the case of a vessel being still considered vulnerable, operational guidance and/or limitations should be applied. Figure 1 is a summary diagram of the criteria.


  1. 1.
    V. Belenky, C.C. Bassler, K.J. Spyrou, Development of Second Generation Intact Stability. Criteria, Naval Surface Warfare Center, US NavyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Proceedings of The 11th International Ship Stability Workshop, Current Status of New Generation Intact Stability Criteria Development, Alberto Francescutto, University of Trieste, Naoya Umeda Osaka UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Current Status of Second Generation Intact Stability Criteria Development and Some Recent Efforts, Naoya Umeda Osaka UniversityGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    IMO SLF55/INF15Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Revision Proposals of Draft Vulnerability Criteria and Standards For Parametric Roll and Pure Loss of Stability Japan Submission to the Iscg, 3rd March 2014Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Proposed Amendments to Part B of the 2008 IS Code to Assess The Vulnerability of Ships to the Parametric Rolling Stability Failure Mode, IMO, 2014Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guide for the Assessment of Parametric Roll Resonance in the Design of Container Carriers American Bureau Of Shipping, June 2008Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    IMO SLF52/INF2Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Maki, N. Umeda, S. Shiotani, E. Kobayashi, Parametric rolling prediction in irregular seas using combination of deterministic ship dynamics and probabilistic wave theory. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 16(13), 294310 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Kruger, H. Hatecke, H. Billerbeck, A. Bruns, F. Kluwe, Investigation of the 2nd generation of intact stability criteria for ships vulnerable to parametric rolling in following seas. Hamburg University of Technology Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft(2013). Accessed 9–14 June 2013Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Draft Explanatory Notes on the Vulnerability of Ships to the Parametric Rolling Stability Failure Mode, IMO 2014Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V.N. Belenky, N.B. Sevastianov, Stability and Safety of Ships Risk of Capsizing, 2nd edn. (Jersey City, SNAME, 2007), pp. 195–198Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Sadat-Hosseini, F. Stern, A. Olivieri, E. Campana, H. Hashimoto, N. Umeda, G. Bulian, A. Francescutto, Head-waves parametric rolling of surface combatant. Ocean Eng. 37, 859–878 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Proposed Amendments to Part B of the 2008 IS Code to Assess the Vulnerability of Ships to the Pure Loss of Stability Failure Mode, IMO 2014Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    IMO MSC267.85Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    IMO SLF53/INF10Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    IMO SLF54/INF12Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Bulian, A. Francescutto, A simplified modular approach for the prediction of the roll motion due to the combined action of wind and waves. J. Eng. Marit. Environ. 218(M3), 189–21 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Bulian, A. Francescutto, A. Maccari, Possible simplified mathematical models for roll motion in the development of performance-based intact stability criteria extended and revised version. Quaderno Di Dipartimento N 46, Department Dinma, University Of Trieste (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    IMO SLF54/Wp3Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    IMO SLF55/WP3Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    G. Bulian, A. Fancescutto, Second generation intact stability criteria: on the validation of codes for direct stability assessment in the framework of an example application. Pol. Marit. ResGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Draft Guidelines of Direct Stability Assessment Procedures as a Part of the Second Generation Intact Stability Criteria, SDC 1. INF8. Annex 27, IMO, 2014Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and the EnvironmentUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations