Operability analysis of traditional small fishing boats in Indonesia with different loading conditions

Figures & data

Table 1. The accident types for fishing vessels.

References	Accident Types	Total	Percentage
(Ugurlu et al. 2020)	Collision	56	27.05
	Sinking	55	26.57
	Occupational Accident	39	18.84
	Grounding	26	12.56
	Man Overboard	26	12.56
	Fire-Explosion	2	0.97
	Others	3	1.45
(Wang et al. 2005)	Machinery damage	233	62.97
	Foundering and flooding	57	15.41
	Grounding	31	8.38
	Collisions and contacts	22	5.95
	Fires and explosions	15	4.05
	Capsizing and listing	7	1.89
	Heavy weather damage	2	0.81
	Others	2	0.54

Figure 1. Position of KM, KG, and GM.

Figure 2. Coordinate system of the boat.

Figure 3. Overview of the operability analysis procedure.

Figure 4. Body Plan of the Research Object (Liu et al. 2019).

Table 2. Main Dimension of the Boat (Tezdogan et al. 2018).

Parameters	Value
Length between perpendicular, LPP (m)	5.000
Breadth at water line, B (m)	1.934
Depth to 1st deck, D (m)	1.196
Loaded draft, T (m)	0.350
Displacement, Δ(ton)	1.858
Block coefficient, Cb (-)	0.537
Mid-boat section coefficient, Cm (-)	0.764
Wetted surface area, Aw (m^2)	10.201
Froude number, Fr (-)	0.590

Table 3. Load Scenario.

Load Case	Description	Ship Weight (kg)	LCG (m)	KG (m)
1	Empty load of fish	712.00	1.550	0.844
2	Half load of fish, upper deck	1285.00	1.751	0.914
3	Half load of fish, below deck	1285.00	1.751	0.557
4	Full load of fish, upper deck	1858.00	1.828	1.064
5	Full load of fish, below deck	1858.00	1.828	0.57

Table 4. Equilibrium Condition.

Parameters	LC 1	LC 2	LC 3	LC 4	LC 5
Displacement (kg)	712	1285	1285	1858	1858
KMt (m)	1.607	1.37	1.37	1.227	1.227
GMt (m)	0.763	0.456	0.813	0.163	0.657
Draft Amidships (m)	0.171	0.265	0.266	0.344	0.345
Draft at FP (m)	0.123	0.237	0.239	0.317	0.32
Draft at AP (m)	0.219	0.293	0.292	0.372	0.37
Draft at LCF (m)	0.185	0.272	0.272	0.35	0.349
Trim (+ve by stern) (m)	0.096	0.056	0.053	0.055	0.05
Trim angle (+ve by stern) (°)	1.0959	0.6391	0.608	0.6274	0.5743

Figure 5. AVS and DFA of Load Case 1–5.

Table 5. AVS and DFA for Load Case 1–5.

Load Case	AVS (deg)	DFA (deg)
LC 1	63.15	40.35
LC 2	53.09	31.80
LC 3	85.98	31.80
LC 4	32.96	26.00
LC 5	82.27	26.00

Table 6. Seakeeping Criteria for Fishing Vessel (Tello et al. 2011).

No	Criteria	Limit
1	RMS roll	6.00°
2	RMS pitch	3.00°
3	Probability of green water (GW)	0.05
4	Probability of slamming (SL)	0.03
5	RMS vertical acceleration at working area / bridge deck (VA)	0.20 g
6	RMS lateral acceleration at working area / bridge deck (LA)	0.10 g

Figure 6. Location of Wave Scatter (www.bing.com/maps).

Table 7. Wave Scatter Diagram (https://app.metoceanview.com/hindcast/).

Hs (m) \ Tp (s)	0–1	1–2	2–3	3–4	4–5	5–6	6–7	7–8	8–9	9–10	Hs Occurrence
0.0–0.5	6	139	8192	25249	7677	518	48	21	3	0	39.8%
0.5–1.0	0	0	3	11863	28587	6764	88	6	0	0	45.0%
1.0–1.5	0	0	0	0	2650	10558	801	13	0	0	13.3%
1.5–2.0	0	0	0	0	0	840	830	32	0	0	1.6%
2.0–2.5	0	0	0	0	0	4	188	77	0	0	0.3%
2.5–3.0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	52	1	1	0.1%
3.0–3.5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	6	0	0.0%
3.5–4.0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%
4.0–4.5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%
4.5–5.0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.0%
Tp Occurrence	0.0%	0.1%	7.8%	35.3%	37.0%	17.8%	1.9%	0.2%	0.0%	0.0%	100%

Figure 7. Definition of ORI for RMS Roll Motion (a), and Expected Maximum of Roll (b).

Figure 8. Heave RAO in Head Seas (0°) at 0 knot (a), 4 knot (b), and 8 knot (c).

Figure 9. Pitch RAO in head seas (0°) at 0 knot (a), 4 knot (b), and 8 knot (c).

Figure 10. Roll RAO in Beam Seas (90°) in 0 knot (a), 4 knot (b), and 8 knot (c).

Figure 11. Ratio KG and GM to KM.

Figure 12. Operability limiting boundary in wave heading 60°, at 8 knots for Load Case 1 (a), Load Case 2 (b), Load Case 3 (c), Load Case 4 (d), Load Case 5 (e).

Figure 13. Percentage Operability for Criterion 1 and Criterion 2.

Figure 14. Percentage Operability for Criteria 3 and Criteria 4.

Figure 15. Percentage Operability for Criteria 5 and Criteria 6.

Figure 16. Percentage Operability for All Criteria.

Figure 17. Percentage Operability for Expected Maximum of Roll with a different limiting angle.

Figure 18. Operability Robustness Index (ORI) Value for RMS Roll Motion.

Figure 19. Operability Robustness Index (ORI) Value for Expected Maximum Roll Motion with different maximum limiting angle.

Figure 20. ORI calculation for same load case with different maximum limiting angle (AVS and DFA).

Ugurlu F, Yildiz S, Boran M, Ugurlu Ö, Wang J. 2020. Analysis of fishing vessel accidents with Bayesian network and Chi-square methods. Ocean Eng. 198:106956.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang J, Pillay A, Kwon YS, Wall AD, Loughran CG. 2005. An analysis of fishing vessel accidents. Accid Anal Prev. 37:1019–1024.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu W, Demirel YK, Djatmiko EB, Nugroho S, Tezdogan T, Kurt RE, Supomo H, Baihaqi I, Yuan Z, Incecik A. 2019. Bilge keel design for the traditional fishing boats of Indonesia’s east java. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng. 11:380–395.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tezdogan T, Shenglong Z, Demirel YK, Liu W, Leping X, Yuyang L, Kurt RE, Djatmiko EB, Incecik A. 2018. An investigation into fishing boat optimisation using a hybrid algorithm. Ocean Eng. 167:204–220.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tello M, Ribeiro E Silva S, Guedes Soares C. 2011. Seakeeping performance of fishing vessels in irregular waves. Ocean Eng. 38:763–773. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.12.020.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar