IMO Second Generation Intact Stability Criteria: General Overview and Focus On Operational Measures
IMO Second Generation Intact Stability Criteria: General Overview and Focus On Operational Measures
IMO Second Generation Intact Stability Criteria: General Overview and Focus On Operational Measures
Marine Science
and Engineering
Article
IMO Second Generation Intact Stability Criteria:
General Overview and Focus on Operational Measures
Nicola Petacco * and Paola Gualeni
Department of Electric, Electronic and Telecommunication Engineering and Naval Architecture (DITEN),
University of Genova, 16126 Genova, Italy; paola.gualeni@unige.it
* Correspondence: nicola.petacco@edu.unige.it
Received: 10 June 2020; Accepted: 3 July 2020; Published: 5 July 2020
Abstract: At the beginning of 2020, after a long and demanding process, the Second Generation
Intact Stability criteria (SGISc) have been finalized at the 7th session of the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) sub-committee on Ship Design and Construction (SDC). At present, SGISc are
not mandatory, nevertheless IMO endorses their application in order to assess their consistency and
validity. It is envisaged that SGISc can support the design of safer ships, nevertheless such a rules
framework might have an impact also on the ship operational aspects in a seaway. In fact, within the
SGISc framework, Operational Measures have also been implemented providing guidance and
limitations during navigation. After a comprehensive overview about SGISc vulnerability levels and
direct stability assessment, this paper provides a specific insight into the methodological approach
for the Operational Measures extensively addressed as a complementary action to ship design.
Keywords: second generation intact stability criteria; operational guidance; operational limitations;
vulnerability levels; direct stability assessment; Ro-Ro ferry
1. Introduction
The so called Second Generation Intact Stability criteria (SGISc) have been finalized during the
7th session of the IMO sub-committee on Ship Design and Construction (SDC) in 2020. Currently,
the criteria are intended not to be mandatory but they received the endorsement of IMO, to be
extensively applied in the shipping community. It is foreseen that they need further refinement, but it
is expected that SGISc will positively influence the ship design process in the next years. The ship
stability performance in waves has been addressed by the SGISc, with specific focus on five dynamic
phenomena that is, parametric roll, pure loss of stability, dead ship condition, surf-riding and excessive
accelerations. An interesting innovation introduced by the SGISc is the multi-layered approach
which defines three assessment levels, characterized by different level of accuracy and therefore
conservativeness. Adopting this structure, a designer may choose the kind of analysis to be carried out
about the ship stability performance.
Moreover, within the SGISc framework, ship operational aspects during navigation have been
introduced. It is recognized that, in order to get a safer ship performance, addressing only design
aspect cannot be enough. Operational measures should be also taken into account and indications
should be provided to the master. For this reason, both Operational Limitations and Operational
Guidance have been developed in the SGISc framework.
In the following sections, an overview of the development process that lead to the finalized
version of SGISc is given. Moreover, all the five stability failure modes have been presented with a
brief description of the vulnerability level requirements. Finally, a focus on the Operational Measures
defined by the SGISc is provided with considerations about the relevant approach and the possible
acceptable scenarios.
2. From the Intact Stability Code to the Second Generation Intact Stability Criteria
For a long time, through the Rahola criteria [1] and the Weather criterion [2], until the Intact
Stability (IS) code issued at the beginning of the 21st Century, the stability of intact ships in calm water
has been one of the main topics in the naval architecture field and in the rule making environment.
An exhaustive description of the history of intact stability criteria, from the origin up to the IS code,
can be found in References [3,4].
During the discussion about the finalization of the IS code, the need to consider more attentively
the physics of what may lead to stability failure has been pointed out. This approach, which is less
dependant on database of previous incidents, could guarantee criteria in principle applicable regardless
the ship typology, adaptable also for new ship projects but above all able to take into account also the
dynamic behaviour of ships due to the presence of waves. In the discussion, the new modality has been
often named as a physical approach, implying therefore also the possibility to take into consideration the
hydrodynamic aspects of a ship in a seaway condition. Adopting such approach requires an enhanced
knowledge of the complex behaviour of ship in a rough sea and of the strong non linearities that might
entail even the ship capsizing phenomena [5–8].
The IS code has been finalized in 2008 and the need of performance-based criteria addressing ship
stability in a seaway condition has been introduced and highlighted in its text, more precisely within
the general provisions of its mandatory part [9] (Part A—Section 1.1).
The stability failure modes identified by the IS code are the ones addressed within the new intact
stability criteria [10–12] and already previously taken into consideration in some IMO Circulars [13,14]:
• Restoring moment variation due to waves profile (Parametric Rolling and Pure Loss of Stability);
• Stability failure in the Dead Ship condition;
• Manoeuvring-related stability failure (Surf-Riding and Broaching-to).
In the early 2008, during the 51st session of the IMO Sub-committee on Stability and Load lines
and on Fishing vessels safety (SLF), an inter-sessional correspondence group was established ad hoc [15]
(Section 4.27) with the aim to develop a set of criteria for the above identified stability failure modes.
At the 53rd session of SLF in 2010 instead of new generation criteria, it has been proposed the current
name of criteria, that is, Second Generation Intact Stability criteria (SGISc). Moreover, the excessive
acceleration stability problem was added as a further phenomenon to be addressed in the SGISc
framework [16,17]. The framework and the relevant terminology have been identified along with
the development of the process for the methodology and the criteria identification. Soon, the task
appeared to be complex and the required time for its accomplishment long accordingly.
and a sort of long-term analysis is requested to be carried out. The direct stability assessment (DSA)
represents the so called third level of the multi-layered approach. It should predict as close as practically
possible the actual ship motions in a seaway condition. It should consist of a non-linear time domain
numerical simulations considering at least four degrees of freedom and some of their coupling factors.
Model tests ensuring the same level of accuracy can be adopted as well. The DSA therefore is the
most accurate, but also the most computationally time-consuming level in the SGISc framework. As a
supplementary level, the SGISc introduces some measures acting on the environmental conditions and
ship operational aspects—such Operational Measure (OM) respectively are named as the Operational
Limitations (OL) and Operational Guidance (OG). The latter is a document containing information and
recommendation about ship navigation with the aim to reduce the likelihood of failures. Differently,
the OL identify restrictions to the ship operability in relation with specific geographical area and
environmental conditions, with the aim to avoid stability failures.
The multi-layered structure has been introduced in the SGISc framework with the aim of avoiding
unnecessary high computational burden when not necessary, that is, when ships are nor likely to
be vulnerable. In the framework, the higher is the level, the more complex is the required analysis.
On the other hand, as an inherent consequence, a relevant conservative safety margin is introduced at
lower levels. Therefore, the sequential application of levels would be desirable—if a ship is deemed
vulnerable by Lv1, the second level criteria should be used in order to understand whether it is really
an issue or not; in the case where the ship is also considered vulnerable by Lv2, the DSA should be
applied as the last level, as the one characterised by the best possible reliability, before the introduction
of operational measures.
Nevertheless, the finalized version SGISc deem it acceptable that the user can directly apply
any design assessment (Lv1, Lv2 or DSA) or operational measures option (OG or OL), without any
hierarchy as the one described above. This allow the user to start the design assessment analysis
from the DSA or even to directly move to the operational level and apply OL without performing any
design assessment. The simplified scheme of the application logic of SGISc is given in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Representation of the simplified application scheme of the application logic in the Second
Generation Intact Stability criteria (SGISc) framework.
Applying the multilayered approach in a sequential logic (from Lv1 to DSA), it is expected
that the higher level gives a more reliable answer in confirming the vulnerability of the ship or in
rejecting it. On the contrary, a consistency problem between levels can be identified when a lower
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 494 4 of 20
level considers the ship not vulnerable while a higher level deems the opposite. In this perspective,
during the development of the different criteria for the various vulnerability assessments, concerns
about consistency of results rose, especially when Lv1 and Lv2 criteria are compared [18–21]. Most of
the issues have been fixed during the refinement of the criteria formulation, even if some consistency
problem still remains. In this perspective, failure modes have different evidences, for example, Lv1 and
Lv2 for dead ship condition may provide non consistent results or Lv2 for pure loss of stability may
appear too much conservative for ship with low freeboard. In order to bypass these consistency issues,
the sequential application of the multilayered approach is not binding and the user can take advantage
of the criteria support in the way it is deemed as the most appropriate.
This phenomenon may lead to two different stability failures, that is, pure loss stability and
parametric rolling. The typical scenario, that better characterizes PLS, considers a longitudinal wave
as long as the vessel, approaching from stern with a celerity just faster than the ship speed. In this
situation, the wave takes a long time to pass the vessel and the critical situation, with the wave crest
amidship, lasts considerably decreasing the stability performance for a not negligible time.
PR can happen when the ship interacts with a train of waves having the length comparable to the
ship length and an encounter period that is half of the ship natural roll period. The typical scenario
for PR can be depicted as follows: when the ship is far away from its upright position and the wave
trough is amidships, the righting arm is “stronger” and therefore the ship is vigorously pushed back
to the upright position. When the ship is in the upright position, the wave crest has already moved
amidship. In this condition, the righting moment is “weaker” and the ship rolls to an even larger heel
angle on the opposite side. If the wave trough moves again amidships when the maximum heel angle
on the opposite side is reached, the cycle starts again leading to heel angles larger and larger.
where GMmin is the metacentric height calculated for the hydrostatics at the drafts defined above.
The assessed loading condition of a ship is not judged vulnerable to PR when condition (2)
is verified.
∆GM1
≤ R PR , (2)
GM
where GM is the metacentric height in calm water for the considered loading condition; ∆GM1 is
IT − IT
defined as H2·∇ L ; ∇ is the immersed volume; ITH and ITL are the transverse moment of inertia of the
waterplane located respectively at the drafts corresponding to the wave crest and the wave trough.
The standard R PR is defined as a function of breadth, length, amidship coefficient and the bilge keel
projected area; it ranges from 0.17 (−) to 1.87 (−).
Moreover, both criteria consider a ship vulnerable if the condition (3) is not verified.
∇D − ∇
≥ 1.0. (3)
AW · ( D − d )
C= ∑ ∑ CS · W ( HS ; TZ ). (4)
HS TZ
Second vulnerability level for PLS judges a ship not vulnerable if condition (5) is verified.
max CR1 ; CR2 ≤ R PL0 , (5)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 494 6 of 20
where R PL0 = 0.06 (−); CR1 and CR2 are the long-term indexes evaluating respectively the capsizing
angle in waves and the static equilibrium heel angle under the action of a heeling lever l PL2 considering
the restoring moment in waves. The wave to be considered are obtained by filtering the wave scatter
diagram by means of the Grim’s wave theory [26,27].
Second vulnerability level for PR considers a ship not vulnerable if condition (6) is verified.
where R PR1 = 0.06 (−); R PR2 = 0.025 (−); C1 and C2 are the long-term indexes. The first long-term
index takes into account the actual GM variation in waves evaluated for 16 different waves defined
within the criterion. The long-term index C2 needs a 1-DoF model able to reproduce roll motions when
the ship interacts with longitudinal waves. The waves required by the latter analysis are obtained as
specified in the second level criteria for PLS.
where L is the ship length and Fn is the Froude number at the service speed.
C ≤ RSR , (8)
For this stability failure mode the short-term index is evaluated as defined in Equation (9).
Nλ Na
CS ( HS ; TZ ) = ∑ ∑ wij · C2ij , (9)
i =0 j =0
where wi,j is a statistical weighting factor calculated with the joint distribution of local wave steepness
and lengths; C2i,j is a coefficient as a function of the critical Froude number and the service ship speed.
The coefficient C2 is evaluated by an iterative procedure where the equilibrium among ship resistance,
propeller thrust and wave surge are pursued.
C ≤ R DS0 , (10)
where C is the long-term index and R DS = 0.06 (−) is the standard threshold.
Since the angular roll velocity is constant along the whole ship, the highest point has the fastest linear
velocity in order to cover in the same time a longer distance. Since every half roll period the roll motion
changes its direction, also the linear velocity direction changes and this leads to a linear transverse
acceleration. The faster is the linear velocity change, the larger is the transverse acceleration due to roll
motion. With reference to the close relationship between the roll period and the metacentric height,
if the latter is higher the roll period is shorter and in turns this implies that large transverse acceleration
may occur during roll motion.
Transverse acceleration is very dangerous onboard, both for the cargo and the crew members.
Beside seasickness, it may cause loss of balance, fall or even being thrown against bulkheads or
furniture. The same for the cargo, which may fall outboard or get damaged.
where R EA1 = 4.64 (m/s2 ) is the standard; ϕ is the characteristic roll amplitude; k L is a coefficient
taking into account simultaneous action of roll, yaw and pitch motions; g is the gravity acceleration;
Troll is the roll period and hr is the vertical distance between the roll axis and the highest point where
crew or passenger may be present.
R22
CS = exp − 2 , (12)
2 σLA
where R2 = 9.81 (m/s2 ) and σLA is the standard deviation of the lateral accelerations at zero speed in a
beam sea. The short-term index CS represents the probability to exceed a specified lateral acceleration.
Table 1. Degrees of freedom required in the simulation of particular stability failure modes.
Stability Failure Mode Surge Sway Heave Roll Pitch Yaw General Note
Dead Ship Condition - X X X X - Aerodynamical forces should be taken into account.
Excessive Acceleration - - X X X - When sway motion is not modelled, care about lateral acceleration reproduction should be paid.
Parametric Rolling - - X X X - -
Pure Loss of Stability X X - X - X -
Surf-Riding/Broaching-to X X - X - X Hydrodynamical forces due to vortex shedding should be properly modeled.
For those degrees of freedom not included in the dynamic modelling, static equilibrium should be assumed.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 494 11 of 20
The first method reproduces as accurately as possible the actual ship operative life, considering
every combination of sea states, ship speeds and headings. The criterion is the estimate of the mean
long-term stability failure rate, which is calculated as the average over all the combinations that have
been simulated. All the stability failures, except for DS, should be simulated considering the heading
ranging uniformly from 0◦ to 180◦ as well as the ship forward speed should be distributed from zero
to the maximum speed. For the DS stability failure, simulations should be carried out considering
beam seas and zero speed condition. Since stability failures may be rare, the full probabilistic method
requires additional effort in the solution of the problem of rarity, especially when the mean time to
failure is very long with respect to the ship natural roll period. In order to circumvent this issue,
methods relying on a selection of assumed design situations have been introduced.
The assumed design situations are specifically defined for each stability failure mode, addressing
the wave directions, ship speeds and wave periods to be considered in the simulation. Introducing
these constrains, the amount of simulations and their duration is notably decreased. The assumed
design situation can be assessed with either probabilistic or deterministic criteria. The probabilistic
criteria takes into account the maximum stability failure rate over all the simulations for the considered
failure mode. To reduce further the simulation time, the deterministic criterion takes into account the
greatest mean three-hour maximum roll amplitude or lateral acceleration. Because of the large level of
inaccuracy introduced by the deterministic procedure, an additional margin has been added in the
selection of the standard: the thresholds have been halved.
In addition to the specifications and requirements for the assessment procedures described above,
in Reference [25] (Chapter 3) judging criteria are reported as well, to verify whether the failure recorded
during a simulation can be considered as the failure mode for which the numerical tool is validated.
Since the validation of the numerical tool or model test procedure is failure-mode specific, for each
phenomenon a set of different criteria is provided in the Guidelines for DSA.
height that the vessel is able to safely cope with during navigation. It is named Operational Limitations
related to maximum significant wave height by IMO document.
OL need an assessment tool in order to be identified, for example, vulnerability levels or direct
stability assessment. For this reason, OL may be considered a tool able to tune the considered
operational profile in the design assessment. This concept is facilitated by the modularity structure
of the SGISc which are formulated to easily introduce modifications to selected methodologies or
boundary conditions. Therefore, OL should be considered as a complementary instrument to the
assessment process and not as a stand-alone assessment tool. A graphical representation of this concept
is proposed on Figure 2.
In the SGISc, the environmental conditions can be modified by directly acting on the wave
scatter diagram which is considered for the evaluation of the long term stability failure rate for each
phenomena. Possible restrictions are aimed to reduce at an acceptable level the risk that a stability
failure event occurs in a seaway. As regards the OL related to the geographical area, the whole
scatter diagram is replaced accordingly, thus, real time weather forecasts are not required for this
restrictions. On the contrary, OL related to the significant wave height modify the wave scatter
diagram cutting-off sea states having a significant wave height greater than the selected threshold.
The obtained scatter table is named limited scatter table. This limitation implies that detailed weather
forecast, including significant wave heights, must be available to the master in real time, in order to
avoid the limited sea states. Interesting applications of OL have been presented in References [35,36].
beneficial for the master to plan the safest sailing condition (i.e., ship speed and heading) according to
the OG.
In the SGISc framework, three different approaches have been defined in order to prepare the
OG for each loading condition. They differ for the methodology which predicts the stability failure
rate. According to their accuracy, an appropriately conservative threshold is introduced in order to
guarantee the same level of safety. The three OG approaches are the following:
The simplified OG are based on simple methodologies such as those introduced in the
vulnerability levels. The other two approaches share the same method adopted in DSA, that is,
a model test or a numerical calculation tool able to reproduce ship motions in the time domain
with at least three degrees of freedom, considering coupling factors and necessary non linearities in
irregular seas. More precise technical requirements for these methodologies are given in Reference [25]
(Chapter 4).
As a consequence of the requirements briefly described above, OG can be considered an additional
assessment level independent from the design assessment (i.e. Lv1, Lv2 and DSA). Although it may
share the same methodology, OG can be directly performed without assessing the ship vulnerability
for a specific stability failure with another assessment tool. This concept is schematically represented
in Figure 3.
1. Acceptable for unrestricted operation. This case is applicable when the design assessments have
been satisfied for each stability failure mode. Thus, no OG or OL are provided for the considered
loading condition.
2. Acceptable for limited operation. In this case, the design assessment of one or more stability failure
modes have been passed with operational limitations (e.g., limitations on wave height or on
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 494 14 of 20
geographical area), while the remaining stability failure have been accepted with unrestricted
operation, that is, without any kind of restrictions.
3. Acceptable for operation using onboard operational guidance. In this configuration, the loading
condition is deemed acceptable if operational guidance are provided without any restrictions
for one or more stability failure, and the remaining stability failure satisfy the design assessment
either with unrestricted or limited operation.
4. Acceptable for operation in a specified area or in a specified route during a specified season. This configuration
is achieved when the design assessment for one or more stability failure mode has operational
limitations related to areas or routes and season. The remaining stability failure modes do not
evidence any vulnerability during the design assessment for unrestricted operation.
5. Acceptable for limited operation in a specified area or in a specified route during a specified season.
This option allows the loading condition to have an operational limitation related to the significant
wave height in a specific area or route and season for one or more stability failure modes.
The remaining stability failure mode can be satisfied either with operational limitation related
to the area or route and season (i.e., no limitations on the wave height) or without any other
restriction nor guidance.
6. Acceptable for operation using onboard operational guidance in a specified area or in a specified route during
a specified season. In this configuration, the loading condition is judged acceptable if operational
guidance are provided together with limitations related to the area or route and season for one
or more stability failure modes. The remaining stability failure can be provided either with
operational limitations for the same area or route and season, otherwise without any restrictions
on the design assessments.
A schematic representation of all possible cases is proposed in Figure 5. Design assessment made
up of vulnerability levels (Lv1 and Lv2) and the DSA is represented. The OG and the OL are evidenced
as well. The latter is divided in two sub-domains making reference to the two typologies of limitations
(i.e., those related to the significant wave height and to a specific area or route and season). The number
in the square stands for the possible configuration, while the arrows indicate which tools are combined
in it (i.e., design assessment, operational limitation or operational guidance). Looking at the graph,
it is possible to point out that only design assessment and OG may exist alone (configuration 1 and 3)
while this is not true for the OL.
Figure 4. Summary table of each possible configuration of Operational Measure (OM). (1) Unrestricted
operation; (2) Limited operation; (3) operation using onboard OG; (4) operation in a specified area or in
a specified route during a specified season; (5) limited operation in a specified area or in a specified
route during a specified season; (6) operation using onboard OG in a specified area or in a specified
route during a specified season.
It is important to highlight that operational guidance may indicate as safe some sailing conditions
in relation to the roll motion disregarding other technical aspects, for example, limits of propulsion and
steering systems, excessive vertical loads as well as slamming. This should be taken into account in order
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 494 15 of 20
to avoid misleading OG that can jeopardise vessel navigation because of other problems. For example,
sometimes transverse excessive accelerations can be reduced with increasing forward ship, but high
speeds cannot be reached in some sea states or may lead to larger vertical motions and slamming.
Figure 5. Graphical representation of all configuration of OM. (1) Unrestricted operation; (2) Limited
operation; (3) operation using onboard OG; (4) operation in a specified area or in a specified route
during a specified season; (5) limited operation in a specified area or in a specified route during a
specified season; (6) operation using onboard OG in a specified area or in a specified route during a
specified season.
Main Dimensions
Length overall LOA 211.20 (m);
Length according IS code LISc 200.55 (m);
Maximum breadth Bmax 30.40 (m);
Design draught d 7.82 (m);
Displacement ∆ 28,234 (t);
Service speed VS 22.0 (kt);
Block coefficient CB 0.650 ( - );
Bilge keel length LBK 66.0 (m);
Bilge keel span bBK 0.30 (m);
Design vertical centre of gravity KG 13.43 (m);
Design metacentric height GMdesign 1.43 (m).
Results are presented in terms of vertical position of center of gravity (KG) limiting curves,
as shown in Figures 6–8. It is worth to note that results for EA are given by minimum KG curves.
Drafts are presented on the horizontal axis, while the limiting KG are on the vertical axis. In each
graph, the limiting curves obtained by the application of Lv1, Lv2, Lv2 with a limitation on the
significant wave height and Lv2 with a limitation on the geographical area are shown. The first OL set
an admissible significant wave height of HS = 7.5 (m), while in the second limitation the unrestricted
navigation has been replaced by a navigation confined in the Mediterranean sea.
The design domain is defined as the area below the maximum KG limiting curve (vice-versa
for the minimum KG limiting curve due to EA), where the design centre of gravity of the ship may
be placed safely. Outcomes point out that there is a significant difference in terms of design domain
between first and second vulnerability levels. As expected, this is due to the caution factor inherent
with the structure of first levels. Looking at the application of OL, it seems that no noticeable effect of
these restrictions are evident on the second vulnerability level of DS. OL increases the design domain
for PLS and EA; in particular for this vessel, the restriction on the geographical area gives the greatest
improvement in term of KG domain range.
Figure 6. Vulnerability assessment in terms of maximum KG limiting curve for the pure loss of stability
failure mode. Curves obtained according to the results for the application of Level 1, Level 2, Level 2
for North Atlantic Ocean limited to HS = 7.5 (m) and Level 2 for Mediterranean.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 494 17 of 20
Figure 7. Vulnerability assessment in terms of maximum KG limiting curve for the dead ship failure
mode. Curves obtained according to the results for the application of Level 1, Level 2, Level 2 for North
Atlantic Ocean limited to HS = 7.5 (m) and Level 2 for Mediterranean.
Figure 8. Vulnerability assessment in terms of minimum KG limiting curve for the excessive
acceleration failure mode. Curves obtained according to the results for the application of Level 1,
Level 2, Level 2 for North Atlantic Ocean limited to Hs = 7.5 (m) and Level 2 for Mediterranean.
6. Conclusions
An overview of the SGISc has been outlined, comprehensive of the first and second vulnerability
level criteria (Lv1 and Lv2), the so called direct stability assessment and the Operational Measures that
in turn are inclusive of Operational Limitations and Operational Guidance. Graphical representations
to better describe the mutual relation among the whole set of different rules have been provided,
able to deliver the complex SGISc framework at a glance. The set of rules is the results of a very
innovative trade off on different domains:
The point of strength of SGISc is the ability to introduce into the stability assessment the dynamic
interactions of the ship with the environment. Nevertheless, it is to be demonstrated now that such
set of rules is really and effective asset to design and operate safer ships. The calculation burden and
procedure complexity in some cases are really demanding and the sensitivity of results to significant
design and operational parameters is to be investigated. Therefore an intensive application campaign
of this innovative set of rules is encouraged by IMO in order to possibly improve the SGISc in terms of
formulations, procedures and standards.
As an example, the vulnerability assessments for pure loss of stability, dead ship condition and
excessive acceleration modes have been presented; operational limitations in terms of maximum
significant wave height and geographical area have been further investigated as well. Outcomes show
how in this case, the consistency of the multilayered philosophy has been respected between levels of
the same stability failure mode. Nevertheless, the application of OL for the dead ship failure mode
shows how the influence of this option is very limited compared to other stability failure modes.
For this case study, SGISc do not imply any severe constrains to the design of the vessel.
The application of OL was actually not needed for the analysed vessel, although it shows that
introducing restrictions—with a relatively low-impact on the operative life of a ship (i.e., maximum
admissible wave height equal to 7.5 (m))—may further enlarge the design domain available to the
designer. Furthermore, a proper integration of design modifications with operational measures may
lead to an improvement of ship safety without any significant issue on the project. In any case,
the study and definition of OG as a support to the master represents a significant aid to the navigation.
It becomes an important tool to be complemented with the master experience at sea, with the aim to
further improve the ship safety performance.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.P. and P.G.; Software, N.P.; Supervision, P.G.; Writing—original
draft, N.P.; Writing—review & editing, P.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest during preparation and publishing of this work.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
DS Dead Ship condition;
DSA Direct Stability Assessment;
EA Excessive Acceleration;
IMO International Organization Maritime;
IS Intact Stability;
Lv1 First vulnerability level;
Lv2 Second vulnerability level;
MSC Maritime Safety Committee;
OG Operational Guidance;
OL Operational Limitations;
OM Operational Measures;
PLS Pure Loss of Stability;
PR Parametric Rolling;
SDC Sub-committee on Ship Design and Construction;
SGISc Second Generation Intact Stability criteria;
SLF Sub-committee on Stability and Load lines and on Fishing vessels safety;
SR Surf-Riding;
1-DoF Dynamic model with one Degree of Freedom;
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 494 19 of 20
References
1. Rahola, J. The Judging of the Stability of Ships and the Determination of the Minimum Amount of Stability
Especially Considering the Vessels Navigating Finnish Waters. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Finland,
Helsinki, Finland, 1939.
2. IMO. Recommendation on a Severe Wind and Rolling Criterion (Weather Criterion) for the Intact Stability of
Passenger and Cargo Ships of 24 Metres in Length and Over; Resolution A.562(14); International Maritime
Organization: London, UK, 1982.
3. Francescutto, A. Intact stability criteria of ships—Past, present and future. Ocean Eng. 2016, 120, 312–317.
[CrossRef]
4. Kobyliński, L. Stability Criteria—Present status and perspectives of improvement. Int. J. Mar. Navig. Saf. Sea
Transp. 2014, 8. [CrossRef]
5. Kobyliński, L. Rational stability criteria and the probability of capsizing. In Proceedings of the 1st
International Ship Stability Workshop, Glasgow, UK, 24–27 March 1975.
6. Francescutto, A. Is it really impossible to design safe ships? Trans. R. Inst. Nav. Archit. 1993, 135, 163–173.
7. Spyrou, K. Ship capsize assessment and non linear dynamics. In Proceedings of the 4th International
Workshop Theoretical Advance in Ship Stability and Pratical Impact, Piraeus, Greece, 29–30 June 1998.
8. Spyrou, K.; Papanikolaou, A. Ship Design for dynamic stability. In Proceedings of the 7th International
Marine Design Conference, Kyongju, Korea, 21–24 May 2000; pp. 167–178.
9. IMO. Adoption of the International Code on Intact Stability; Resolution MSC.267(85); International Maritime
Organization: London, UK, 2008.
10. SLF 48/4/7. Dynamic Intact Stability or Stability Problems in Waves; Submitted by Germany; International
Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2005.
11. SLF 48/WP.2. Review of the Intact Stability Code; Report of the Working Group (Part 1); International Maritime
Organization: London, UK, 2005.
12. SLF 52/WP.1. Development of New Generation Intact Stability Criteria; Report of the Working Group (Part 1);
International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2010.
13. IMO. Guidance to the Master for Avoiding Dangerous Situations in Following and Quartering Seas; Circular
MSC/707; International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 1995.
14. IMO. Revised Guidance to the Master for Avoiding Dangerous Situations in Adverse Weather and Sea Conditions;
Circular MSC.1/1228; International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2007.
15. SLF 52/17. Report to the Maritime Safety Committe; Report; International Maritime Organization: London,
UK, 2008.
16. SLF 53/3/5. Comments on the Structure of New Generation Intact Stability Criteria; Submitted by Poland;
International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2010.
17. SLF 53/19. Report to the Maritime Safety Committee; Report; International Maritime Organization: London,
UK, 2010.
18. SLF 53/INF.8. Sample Calculations on the Level 2 Vulnerability Criteria for Parametric Roll; Submitted by Sweden;
International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2010.
19. SLF 54/3/5. Sample Verification and Proposal of Draft Level 1 Criteria on Parametric Roll and Pure Loss of Stability;
Submitted by China; International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2011.
20. SLF 55/INF.5. Sample Calculations for Level 1 and Level 2 Vulnerability Criteria; Submitted by Germany;
International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2012.
21. Krüger, S.; Hatecke, H. The impact of the 2nd generation of intact stability criteria on RoRo—Ship design.
In Proceedings of the 12nd International Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating
Structures, Changwon, Korea, 20–25 October 2013; pp. 641–649.
22. SLF 54/WP.3. Development of Second Generation Intact Stability Criteria and Any Other Business; Report of the
Working Group (Part 1); International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2012.
23. SDC 4/5/1. Finalization of Second Generation Intact Stability Criteria—Report of the Correspondence Group;
Submitted by Japan; International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2016.
24. SDC 1/INF.8. Information Collected by the Correspondence Group on Intact Stability Regarding the Second
Generation Intact Stability Criteria Development; Submitted by Japan; International Maritime Organization:
London, UK, 2013.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 494 20 of 20
25. SDC 7/WP.6. Finalization of Second Generation Intact Stability Criteria; Report of the Drafting Group on Intact
Stability; International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2019.
26. Grim, O. Beitrag zu dem Problem der Sicherheit des Schiffes im Seegang. Schiff Hafen 1961, 6, 191–201.
27. Bulian, G. On an improved Grim effective wave. Ocean Eng. 2008, 35, 1811–1825. [CrossRef]
28. Umeda, N.; Matsuda, A.; Hamamoto, M.; Suzuki, S. Stability assessment for intact ships in the light of model
experiments. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 1999, 45, 45–57. [CrossRef]
29. Renilson, M. An investigation into the factors affecting the likelihood of broaching-to in following seas.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Stability of Ships and Ocean Vehicles, Tokyo,
Japan, 24–29 October 1982; pp. 551–564.
30. IMO. Interim Guidelines for Alternative Assessment of the Weather Criterion; Circular MSC.1/1200; International
Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2006.
31. Shigunov, V.; Themelis, N.; Spyrou, K. Contemporary Ideas on Ship Stability; Springer: Cham, Switzerland,
2019; Volume 119, pp. 407–421.
32. Kuroda, T.; Hara, S.; Houtani, H.; Ota, D. Direct Stability Assessment for excessive acceleration failure mode
and validation by model test. Ocean Eng. 2019, 187. [CrossRef]
33. Bačkalov, I.; Bulian, G.; Rosén, A.; Shigunov, V.; Themelis, N. Improvement of ship stability and safety in
intact condition through operational measures: Challenges and opportunities. Ocean Eng. 2016, 120, 353–361.
[CrossRef]
34. Liwång, H. Exposure, vulnerability and recoverability in relation to a ship’s intact stability. Ocean Eng. 2019, 187.
[CrossRef]
35. Rudaković, S.; Bačkalov, I. Operational limitations of a river-sea container vessel in the framework of the Second
Generation Intact Stability Criteria. Ocean Eng. 2019, 183, 409–418. [CrossRef]
36. Petacco, N.; Gualeni, P.; Stio, G. Second Generation Intact Stability criteria: Application of operational
limitations & guidance to a megayacht unit. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Maritime
Technology and Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 16–19 November 2020.
c 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).