1053 - Explanatory Notes To The Standards For Ship Manoeuvrability

 

Ref. T4/3.01                                                                                                               MSC/Circ.1053

16 December 2002

 

1          TheMaritimeSafetyCommittee,atitsseventy-sixthsession(2to13December2002), adoptedresolutionMSC.137(76)onStandardsforshipmanoeuvrability.InadoptingtheStandards, the  Committee  recognized  the  necessity  of  appropriate  explanatory  notes  for  the  uniform interpretation, application and consistent evaluation of the manoeuvring performance of ships.

 

2          To   this   end,   the   Maritime   Safety   Committee,   at   its   seventy-sixth   session   (2   to 13 December 2002),approvedtheExplanatoryNotestotheStandardsforshipmanoeuvrability (resolutionMSC.137(76)),setoutintheannextothepresentcircular,aspreparedbytheSub- Committee on Ship Design and Equipment at its forty-fifth session.

 

3          TheExplanatoryNotesareintendedtoprovideAdministrationswithspecificguidanceto assistintheuniforminterpretationandapplicationoftheStandardsforshipmanoeuvrabilityandto providetheinformationnecessarytoassistthoseresponsibleforthedesign,construction,repairand operation ofships to evaluate the manoeuvrability ofsuch ships.

 

4          Member Governments are invited to:

 

.1         use  the  Explanatory  Notes  when  applying  the  Standards  contained  in  resolution MSC.137(76); and

 

.2         usetheformcontainedinappendix5oftheannextothepresentcircularifsubmitting manoeuvring data to the Organization for consideration, as appropriate.

 

5          This circular supersedes MSC/Circ.644

 

Annex

EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE STANDARDS FOR SHIP MANOEUVRABILITY

Chapter 1 General Principles

1.1 Philosophy And Background

1.1.1    ThepurposeofthissectionistoprovideguidancefortheapplicationoftheStandardsfor ShipManoeuvrability(resolutionMSC.137(76))alongwiththegeneralphilosophyandbackground for the Standards.

 

1.1.2    Manoeuvringperformancehastraditionallyreceivedlittleattentionduringthedesignstages ofacommercialship.  Aprimaryreasonhasbeenthelackof manoeuvringperformancestandards fortheshipdesignertodesignto,and/orregulatoryauthoritiestoenforce.Consequentlysomeships havebeenbuiltwithverypoormanoeuvringqualitiesthathaveresultedinmarinecasualtiesand pollution.  Designershavereliedontheshiphandlingabilitiesofhumanoperatorstocompensatefor anydeficienciesininherentmanoeuvringqualitiesofthehull.  Theimplementationofmanoeuvring standards will ensure that ships are designed to auniformstandard,sothatanundueburdenisnot imposedonshiphandlersintryingtocompensatefordeficienciesininherentshipmanoeuvrability.

 

1.1.3    IMO  has  been  concerned  with  the  safety  implications  of  ships  with  poor  manoeuvring characteristicssincethemeetingoftheSub-CommitteeonShipDesignandEquipment(DE)in 1968.  MSC/Circ.389titled"InterimGuidelinesforEstimatingManoeuvringPerformanceinShip Design",dated10January1985,encouragestheintegrationofmanoeuvrabilityrequirementsintothe shipdesignprocessthroughthecollectionandsystematicevaluationofshipmanoeuvringdata. Subsequently,  the  Assembly,  at  its  fifteenth  session  in  November  1987,  adopted  resolution A.601(15),entitled"ProvisionandDisplayofManoeuvringInformationonboardShips".   This processculminatedattheeighteenthAssemblyinNovember1993,where"InterimStandardsfor Ship Manoeuvrability" were adopted by resolution A.751(18).

 

1.1.4    AftertheadoptionofresolutionA.751(18),theMaritimeSafetyCommittee,atitssixty-third session,  approved  MSC/Circ.644  titled  ìExplanatory notes  to  the  Interim  Standards  for  ship manoeuvrabilityî,dated6June1994,toprovideAdministrationswithspecificguidancesothat adequatedatacouldbecollectedbytheOrganizationonthemanoeuvrabilityofshipswithaviewto amendingtheaforementionedInterimStandards.   Thisprocessculminatedattheseventy-sixth session  of  the  Maritime  Safety  Committee  in  December  2002,  where  ìStandards for  ship manoeuvrabilityî were adopted by resolution MSC.137(76).

 

1.1.5    TheStandardswereselectedsothattheyaresimple,practicalanddonotrequireasignificant increaseintrialstimeorcomplexityoverthatincurrenttrialspractice.  TheStandardsarebasedon thepremisethatthemanoeuvrabilityofshipscanbeadequately judged fromthe results of typical shiptrialsmanoeuvres.  Itisintendedthatthemanoeuvringperformanceofashipbedesignedto complywiththeStandardsduringthedesignstage,andthattheactualmanoeuvringcharacteristicsof theshipbeverifiedforcompliancebytrials.  Alternatively,thecompliancewiththeStandardscan

bedemonstratedbasedontheresultsoffull-scaletrials,althoughtheAdministrationmayrequire remedialactioniftheshipisfoundinsubstantialdisagreementwiththeStandards.Uponcompletion ofshiptrials,theshipbuildershouldexaminethevalidityofthemanoeuvrabilitypredictionmethods used during the design stage.

1.2 Manoeuvring Characteristics

The "manoeuvring characteristics" addressed by the IMO Standards for ship manoeuvrability are typical measures of performance quality and handling ability that are of direct nautical interest. Each can be reasonably well predicted at the design stage and measured or evaluated from simple trial-type manoeuvres.

1.3 Tests Required By The Standards

Chapter 2 Guidelines For The Application Of The Standards

2.1 Conditions At Which The Standards Apply

2.2 Guidance For Required Trials And Validation

Chapter 3 Prediction Guidance

3.1 General

3.1.1 To be able to assess the manoeuvring performance of a new ship at the design stage, it is necessary to predict the ship manoeuvring behaviour on the basis of main dimensions, lines drawings and other relevant information available at the design stage.

3.1.2 A variety of methods for prediction of manoeuvring behaviour at the design stage exists, varying in the accuracy of the predicted manoeuvres and the cost of performing the prediction. In practice most of the predictions at the design stage have been based on three methods.

3.1.3 The first and simplest method is to base the prediction on experience and existing data, assuming that the manoeuvring characteristics of the new ship will be close to those of similar existing ships.

3.1.4 The second method is to base the prediction on results from model tests. At the time these notes were written, model tests must be considered the most reliable prediction method. However, it may be said that traditionally the requirements with regard to accuracy have been somewhat more lenient in this area than in other areas of ship model testing. The reason for this has simply been the absence of manoeuvring standards. The feedback of full-scale trial results has generally been less regular in this area than in the case of speed trials. Consequently the correlation basis for manoeuvrability is therefore of a somewhat lower standard, particularly for hull forms that may present a problem with regard to steering and manoeuvring characteristics. It is expected that this situation will improve very rapidly when it becomes generally known that a standard for ship manoeuvrability is going to be introduced. Model tests are described in section 3.2.

3.1.5 The third method is to base the prediction on results from calculation⁄simulation using a mathematical model. Mathematical models are described in section 3.3.

3.2 Model Tests

There are two commonly used model test methods available for prediction of manoeuvring characteristics. One method employs a free-running model moving in response to specified control input (i.e. helm and propeller); the tests duplicate the full-scale trial manoeuvres and so provide direct results for the manoeuvring characteristics. The other method makes use of force measurements on a "captive" model, forced to move in a particular manner with controls fixed; the analysis of the measurements provides the coefficients of a mathematical model, which may be used for the prediction of the ship response to any control input.

3.3 Mathematical Model

A "mathematical model" is a set of equations which can be used to describe the dynamics of a manoeuvring ship. But it may be possible to predict the manoeuvrability for the conventional ship's form with certain accuracy from the practical point of view using some mathematical models which have already been published. In this section, the method used to predict the manoeuvring performance of a ship at full load for comparison with the Standards is explained. The following details of the mathematical model are to be indicated:

.1 when and where to use;

.2 how to use;

.3 accuracy level of predicted results; and

.4 description of mathematical model

3.4 Corrections From Non-Standard Trial Conditions

3.5 Uncertainties

Appendix 1 Nomenclature And Reference Systems

                                                        

Appendix 2 General View Of Prediction Of Manoeuvring performance

1 A mathematical model of the ship manoeuvring motion can be used as one of the effective methods to check whether a ship satisfies the manoeuvrability standards or not, by a performance prediction at the full load condition and from the results of the sea trial in a condition such as ballast.

2 Existing mathematical models of ship manoeuvring motion are classified into two types. One of the models is called a 'response model', which expresses a relationship between input as the control and output as its manoeuvring motion. The other model is called a "hydrodynamic force model", which is based on the hydrodynamic forces that include the mutual interferences. By changing the relevant force derivatives and interference coefficients composed of a  ydrodynamic force model, the manoeuvring characteristics due to a change in the ship's form or loading condition can be estimated.

3 Furthermore, a hydrodynamic force model is helpful for understanding the relationship between manoeuvring performance and ship form than a response model from the viewpoint of design. Considering these situations, this Appendix shows the prediction method using a hydrodynamic force model. Certainly, the kind of mathematical model suitable for prediction of the performance depends on the kind of available data. There are many kinds of mathematical models.

4 In figure A2-1, the flow chart of prediction method of ship manoeuvring performance using a hydrodynamic force model is shown. There are in general various expressions of a hydrodynamic force model in current practice, though their fundamental ideas based on hydrodynamic considerations have little difference. Concerning the hydrodynamic force acting on a ship in manoeuvring motion, they are usually expressed as a polynomial term of motion variables such as the surge, sway and angular yaw velocities.

5 The most important and difficult work in performance prediction is to estimate such derivatives and parameters of these expressions to compose an equation of a ship manoeuvring motion. These hydrodynamic force coefficients and derivatives may usually be estimated by the method shown in figure A2-1.

 6 The coefficients and derivatives can be estimated by the model test directly, by data based on the data accumulated in the past, by theoretical calculation and semi-empirical formulae based on any of these methods. There is also an example that uses approximate formulae for estimation derived from a combination of theoretical calculation and empirical formulae based on the accumulated data. The derivatives which are coefficients of hydrodynamic forces acting on a ship's hull, propeller and rudder are estimated from such parameters as ship length, breadth, mean draught, trim and the block coefficient. Change of derivatives due to a change in the load condition may be easily estimated from the changes in draught and trim.

7 As mentioned above, accuracy of manoeuvring performance predicted by a hydrodynamic force model depends on accuracy of estimated results by hydrodynamic forces which constitutes the equation of a ship manoeuvring motion. Estimating the hydrodynamic derivatives and coefficients will be important to raise accuracy as a whole while keeping consistency of relative accuracy among various hydrodynamic forces.

8 A stage in which theoretical calculations can provide all of the necessary hydrodynamic forces with sufficient accuracy has not yet been reached. Particularly, non-linear hydrodynamic forces and mutual interferences are difficult to estimate with sufficient accuracy by pure theoretical calculations. Thus, empirical formulae and databases are often used, or incorporated into theoretical calculations.

Flow chart for prediction of ship manoeuvring performance

Figure A2-1

Appendix 3 Stopping Ability Of Very Large Ships

1          ItisstatedintheStandardsforshipmanoeuvrabilitythatthetrackreachinthefullastern stoppingtestmaybemodifiedfrom15shiplengths,atthediscretionoftheAdministration,where shipsizeandformmakethecriterionimpracticable.  Thefollowingexampleandinformationgiven

intablesA3-1,2and3indicatethatthediscretionoftheAdministrationisonlylikelytoberequired

in the case of large tankers.

 

2          Thebehaviourofashipduringastoppingmanoeuvreisextremelycomplicated.However,a fairlysimplemathematicalmodelcanbeusedtodemonstratetheimportantaspectswhichaffectthe stoppingabilityofaship.  Foranyshipthelongeststoppingdistancecanbeassumedtoresultwhen

theshiptravelsinastraightlinealongtheoriginalcourse,aftertheasternorderisgiven.Inreality

theshipwilleitherveerofftoportorstarboardandtravelalongacurvedtrack,resultinginashorter track reach, due to increased hull drag.

 

3          Tocalculatethestoppingdistanceonastraightpath,thefollowingassumptionsshouldbe made:

 

.1         the resistance ofthe hull is proportional to the square ofthe ship speed.

 

.2         theasternthrustisconstantthroughoutthestoppingmanoeuvreandequaltothe asternthrustgeneratedbythepropellerwhentheshipeventuallystopsdeadinthe water; and

 

.3         the propeller is reversed as rapidly as possible after the astern order is given.

 

4          Anexpressionforthestoppingdistancealongastraighttrack,inshiplengths,canbewritten in the form:

 

S = A loge (1 + B) + C, where:

S :        is the stopping distance, in ship lengths.

 

A :        isacoefficientdependentuponthemassoftheshipdividedbyitsresistance coefficient.

 

R :        isacoefficientdependentontheratiooftheshipresistanceimmediately beforethestopping manoeuvre,totheasternthrustwhentheshipisdeadin the water.

 

C :        is a coefficient dependent upon the product ofthe time taken to achieve the astern thrust and the initial speed ofthe ship.

 

5          ThevalueofthecoefficientAisentirelyduetothetypeofshipandtheshapeofitshull. Typical values of A are shown in table A3-1.

 

 

 

 

6          ThevalueofthecoefficientBiscontrolledbytheamountofasternpowerwhichisavailable fromtheDowerplant.Withdieselmachinery,theasternpoweravailableisusuallyabout85%ofthe ahead power, whereas with steamturbine machinery this figure could be as low as 40%.

 

Table A3-1

Ship type	Coefficient A
Cargo ship Passenger/car ferry Gas carrier Products tanker VLCC	5-8 8-9 10-11 12-13 14-16

 

 

7          AccordinglythevalueofthecoefficientBissmallerifalargeamountofasternpowerand hence astern thrust, is available.  Typical values of the coefficient B are given in table A3-2.

 

Table A3-2

Type of machinery	Percentage power astern	Coefficient B	Log (1+B)
Diesel Steamturbine	85% 40%	0.6-1.0 1.0-1.5	0.5-0.7 0.7-0.9

 

 

8          ThevalueofthecoefficientCishalfthedistancetravelled,inshiplengths,bytheship, whilsttheengineisreversedandfullasternthrustisdeveloped.  Thevalueof Cwillbelargerfor smaller ships and typical values are given in table A3-3.

 

Table A3-3

Ship length (metres)	Time to achieve astern thrust (s)	Ship speed (knots)	Coefficient C
100 200 300	60 60 60	15 15 15	2.3 1.1 0.8

 

 

9          Ifthetimetakentoachievetheasternthrustislongerthen60seconds,asassumedintable A3-3,oriftheshipspeedisgreaterthan15knots,thenthevaluesofthecoefficientCwillincrease pro rata.

 

10        AlthoughallthevaluesgivenforthecoefficientsA,BandCmayonlybeconsideredas typicalvaluesforillustrativepurposes,theyindicatethatlargeshipsmayhavedifficultysatisfying the adopted stopping ability criterion of15 ship lengths.

 

11        ConsideringasteamturbinepropelledVLCCof300metreslength,travellingat15knots, andassumingthatittakes1minutetodevelopfull-asternthrustinastoppingmanoeuvre,theresults using tables A3-1, 2 and 3 are:

 

A = 16,

B = 1.5, and

C = 0.8

 

 

12        Using the formula for the stopping distance S, given above, then:

 

S = 16 loge (1 + 1.5) + 0.8

= 15.5 ship lengths,

 

which exceeds the stopping ability criterion of 15 ship lengths.

 

13        InallcasesthevalueofAisinherentintheshapeofthehullandsocannotbechangedunless resistanceissignificantlyincreased.  ThevalueofBcanonlybereducedbyincorporatingmore asternpowerintheengine,anoptionwhichisunrealisticforasteamturbinepoweredship.  The valueofCwouldbecomelargerifmorethanoneminutewastakentoreversetheengines,fromthe astern order to the time when the full-astern thrust is developed.

Appendix 4 Additional Manoeuvres

1 Additional Methods To Assess Course Keeping Ability

1.1 The Standards note that additional testing may be used to further investigate a dynamic stability problem identified by the standard trial manoeuvres. This appendix briefly discusses additional trials that may be used to evaluate a ship's manoeuvring characteristics.

1.2 The Standards are used to evaluate course-keeping ability based on the overshoot angles resulting from the 10°⁄10° zig-zag manoeuvre. The zig-zag manoeuvre was chosen for reasons of simplicity and expediency in conducting trials. However, where more detailed analysis of dynamic stability is required some form of spiral manoeuvre should be conducted as an additional measure. A direct or reverse spiral manoeuvre may be conducted. The spiral and pullout manoeuvres have historically been recommended by various trial codes as measures that provide the comprehensive information necessary for reliably evaluating course-keeping ability. The direct spiral manoeuvre is generally time consuming and weather sensitive. The simplified spiral can be used to quickly evaluate key points of the spiral loop curve.

2 Spiral Manoeuvres

2.1 Direct Spiral Manoeuvre

2.1.1 The direct spiral manoeuvre is an orderly sequence of turning circle tests to obtain a steady turning rate versus rudder angle relation (see figure A4-2).

2.1.2 Should there be reasons to expect the ship to be dynamically unstable, or only marginally stable, a direct spiral test will give additional information. This is a time-consuming test to perform especially for large and slow ships. A significant amount of time is needed for the ship to obtain a steady rate of change of heading after each rudder angle change. Also, the test is very sensitive to weather conditions.

2.1.3 In the case where dynamic instability is detected with other trials or is expected, a direct spiral test can provide more detailed information about the degree of instability that exists. While this test can be time consuming and sensitive to weather conditions, it yields information about the yaw rate/rudder angle relation that cannot be measured by any other test.

2.1.4 The direct spiral is a turning circle manoeuvre in which various steady state yaw rate/rudder angle values are measured by making incremental rudder changes throughout a circling manoeuvre. Adequate time must be allowed for the ship to reach a steady yaw rate so that false indications of instability are avoided.

2.1.5 In cases where the ship is dynamically unstable it will appear that it is still turning steadily in the original direction although the rudder is now slightly deflected to the opposite side. At a certain stage the yaw rate will abruptly change to the other side and the yaw rate versus rudder angle relation will now be defined by a separate curve. Upon completion of the test the results will display the characteristic spiral loop as presented in figure A4-3.

2.1.6 A direct spiral manoeuvre can be conducted using the following general procedure:

.1 the ship is brought to a steady course and speed according to the specific initial condition;

.2 the recording of data starts;

.3 the rudder is turned about 15 degrees and held until the yaw rate remains constant for approximately one minute;

.4 the rudder angle is then decreased in approximately 5 degree increments. At each increment the rudder is held fixed until a steady yaw rate is obtained, measured and then decreased again;

.5 this is repeated for different rudder angles starting from large angles to both port and starboard; and

.6 when a sufficient number of points is defined, data recording stops.

2.2 Reverse Spiral Manoeuvre

2.2.1 The reverse spiral test may provide a more rapid procedure than the direct spiral test to define the instability loop as well as the unstable branch of the yaw rate versus rudder angle relationship indicated by the dotted curve as shown in figure A4-2. In the reverse spiral test the ship is steered to obtain a constant yaw rate, the mean rudder angle required to produce this yaw rate is measured. and the yaw rate versus rudder angle plot is created. Points on the curve of yaw rate versus rudder angle may be taken in any order.

2.2.2 This trial requires a properly calibrated rate of turn indicator and an accurate rudder angle indicator. Accuracy can be improved if continuous recording of rate of turn and rudder angle is available for the analysis. Alternatively the test may be performed using a conventional autopilot. If manual steering is used, the instantaneous rate of turn should be visually displayed to the helmsman.

2.3 Simplified Spiral Manoeuvre

2.3.1    Thesimplifiedspiralreducesthecomplexityofthespiralmanoeuvre.  Thesimplifiedspiral consistsofthreepointswhichcanbeeasilymeasuredattheendoftheturningcircletest.  Thefirst pointisa measurementofthesteadystateyawrateatthemaximumrudderangle.  Tomeasurethe secondpoint,therudderisreturnedtotheneutralpositionandthesteadystateyawrateismeasured. If  the  ship  returns  to  zero  yaw  rate  the  ship  is  stable  and  the  manoeuvre  may  be  terminated. Alternatively,thethirdpointisreachedbyplacingtherudderinthedirectionoppositeoftheoriginal rudderangletoanangleequaltohalftheallowableloopwidth.  Theallowableloopwidth maybe defined as:

 

 

0 degrees	for		L/V < 9    seconds
-3 + 1/3 (L/V)	for	9 <	L/V < 45  seconds
12 degrees	for	45 <	L/V          seconds

 

 

Whentherudderisplacedathalftheallowableloopwidthandtheshipcontinuestoturninthe

directionoppositetothatoftherudderangle,thentheshipisunstablebeyondtheacceptablelimit.

3 Pull-Out Manoeuvre

After the completion of the turning circle test the rudder is returned to the midship position and kept there until a steady turning rate is obtained. This test gives a simple indication of a ship's dynamic stability on a straight course. If the ship is stable, the rate of turn will decay to zero for turns to both port and starboard. If the ship is unstable, then the rate of turn will reduce to some residual rate of turn (see figure A4-1). The residual rates of turn to port and starboard indicate the magnitude of instability at the neutral rudder angle. Normally, pull-out manoeuvres are performed in connection with the turning circle, zig-zag, or initial turning tests, but they may be carried out separately.

4 Very Small Zig-Zag Manoeuvre

4.1 The shortcomings of the spiral and 10°/10° zig-zag manoeuvres may be overcome by a variation of the zig-zag manoeuvre that quite closely approximates the behaviour of a ship being steered to maintain a straight course. This zig-zag is referred to as a Very Small Zig Zag (VSZZ), which can be expressed using the usual nomenclature, as 0°/5° zig-zag, where ? is 0 degrees and d is

4.2 VSZZs characterized by 0°/5° are believed to be the most useful type, for the following two reasons:

       .1 a human helmsman can conduct VSZZs by evaluating the instant at which to move the wheel while sighting over the bow, which he can do more accurately than by watching a conventional compass.

        .2 a conventional autopilot could be used to conduct VSZZs by setting a large proportional gain and the differential gain to zero.

4.3 There is a small but essential difference between 0°/5° VSZZs and more conventional similar zig-zags, such as 1°/5° zig-zag. The 0°/5° zig-zag must be initialised with a non-zero rate-of-turn.

In reality, this happens naturally in the case of inherently unstable ships.

4.4 A VSZZ consists of a larger number of cycles than a conventional zig-zag, perhaps 20 overshoots or so, rather than the conventional two or three, and interest focuses on the value of the overshoot in long term. The minimum criterion for course-keeping is expressed in terms of the limit-cycle overshoot angle for 0°/5° VSZZs and is a function of length to speed ratio.

A

B

C

Appendix 5 Background And Biblography

1 Background Data

MSC/Circ.389 and MSC/Circ.644 invited Member Governments to submit ship manoeuvrability data for use in ship design and for establishing manoeuvrability standards. In response, ship trials data and other manoeuvring research and information were submitted to the Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment by Member Governments. This data, along with other available information, were used in the development of the Standards for ship manoeuvrability (resolution MSC.[ ]( )) and Explanatory notes, as appropriate.

2 Bibliography

1 "Technical Basis for Manoeuvring Performance Standards", December 1981, U.S. Coast Guard.

2 "Development and Application of an Enhanced Ship Manoeuvring Database", October 1989, U.S. Coast Guard.

3 Norrbin, N.H., "Shiphandling Standards - Capabilities and Requirements", International Conference on Ship Manoeuvring, Tokyo, June 1990.

4 Asinovsky, V., "Review and Analysis of Ship Manoeuvrability Criteria", Naval Engineers Journal, American Society of Naval Engineers, May 1989.

5 Clarke, D., "Assessment of Manoeuvring Performance", Ship Manoeuvrability - Prediction and Achievement, RINA Symposium April/May 1987.

6 Trials Data on Stopping Performance submitted by France to the IMO Correspondence Group on Manoeuvrability, dated 14 October 1991.

7 "Design and Verification for Adequate Ship Manoeuvrability", Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New York, 1983.

8 "Guide for Sea Trials", Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, June 1990.

9 NORSK STANDARD: Testing of new ships (NS 2780), August 1985.

10 IMO - Resolution A.601(15): Provision and display of manoeuvring information on board ships - 19 November 1987.

11 Shipbuilding Research Institute (IRCN): Etablissement d'un code d'essais de vitesse et de manoeuvrabilitÈ - 8 Novembre 1989.

12 CETENA: Manoeuvrability of full-scale ships - Polish-Italian Seminar on ship research GDANSK - January 1977.

13 IMO: MSC/Circ.389 - Interim guidelines for estimating manoeuvring performance in ship design.

14 BSRA: Code of procedure for steering and manoeuvring trials - 1972.

15 ITTC 1975: Manoeuvring Trial Code.

16 Ankudinov, V., "Simulation Analysis of Ship Motion in Waves", Proc. of International Workshop on Ship and Platform Motion, UC Berkeley, 1993.

17 Nobukawa, T., et al ., "Studies on Manoeuvrability Standards from the viewpoint of Marine Pilots", MARSIM & ICSM 90, June 1990.

18 Koyama, T. and Kose, Kuniji, "Recent Studies and Proposals of the Manoeuvrability Standards", MARSIM & ICSM 90. June 1990.

19 Nobukawa, T., Kato, T., Motomura, K. and Yoshimura, Y. (1990): Studies on maneuverability standards from the viewpoint of marine pilots, Proceedings of MARSIM & ICSM 90

20 Song, Jaeyoung: Occurrence and Countermeasure of Marine Disaster, Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Korea , Vol. 30, No. 4 (1993).

21 IMO: Interim standards for ship manoeuvrability, resolution A.751(18) (1993).

22 Yoshimura, Yasuo, et al.: Prediction of Full-scale Manoeuvrability in Early Design Stage, Chapter 3 of Research on ship Manoeuvrability and its Application to Ship Design, the 12th Marine Dynamic Symposium, the Society of Naval Architects of Japan (1995).

23 Sohn, Kyoungho: Hydrodynamic Forces and Manoeuvring Characteristics of Ships at Low Advance Speed, Transaction of the Society of Naval Architects of Korea , Vol. 29, No. 3 (1992).

24 Inoue, Shosuke, et al .: Hydrodynamic Derivatives on Ship Manoeuvring, International Shipbuilding Progress , Vol. 28, No. 320 (1981).

25 Sohn, Kyoungho, et al.: A study on Real Time Simulation of Harbour Manoeuvre and Its Application to Pusan Harbour, Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment and Safety, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1997).

26 Van Lammeren, W.P.A., et al .: The Wageningen B-Screw Series, Transaction of SNAME , Vol. 77 (1969).

27 Sohn, Kyoungho, et al: System Configuration of Shiphandling Simulator Based on Distributed Data Processing Network with Particular Reference to Twin-screw and Twin-rudder Ship, Proceedings of Korea-Japan Joint Workshop on Marine Simulation Research, Pusan, Korea (2001).

28 Sohn, Kyoungho, Yang, Seungyeul, Lee, Dongsup : A Simulator Study on Validation of IMOís Ship Manoeuvrability Standards with Particular Reference to Yaw-checking and Course-keeping Ability, Proceedings of Mini Symposium on Prediction of Ship Manoeuvring Performance, Tokyo, Japan (2001).

29 Thor I. Fossen : Guidance and Control of Ocean Vehicles, 1994.

30 Gong, I. Y. et al .: Development of Safety Assessment Technologies for Tanker Route (I), KRISO Report , UCN031-2057.D, Dec. 1997.

31 Rhee, K. P., Kim, S. Y., Son, N. S. and Sung, Y. J.: Review of IMO Manoeuvring Standards in View of Manoeuvring Sea Trial Data, Proceedings of Mini Symposium on Prediction of Ship Manoeuvring Performance, Tokyo, Japan (2001).

• Informatietype: Internationaal
• Documentsoort: Circulaire niet in wetten.nl
• Toegangsrechten: Extern
• Identificatie: PUC_1807_14
• Versie: 1
• Datum beschikbaarheid: 07-11-2007
• Geldigheid van: 16-12-2002
• Wijzigingsdatum: 24-11-2016
• Titel: 1053 - Explanatory Notes To The Standards For Ship Manoeuvrability
• Organisatie: International Maritime Organization (IMO)
• Taal: Nederlands
• Onderwerp: Veiligheid / Safety
• Hoofdtaak: Koopvaardij / Merchant Shipping
• Thema: Zeevaart / Seagoing ships / Information / IMO Instruments (Informative) / Circulars (Informative) / MSC Circulars (Informative) / 1000 until 1099