INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · Prof. Kaj Riska Prof. Rodolfo Tedeschi Mr. C. Dean...

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO

E

MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE 83rd session Agenda item 5

MSC 83/5/1 3 July 2007 Original: ENGLISH

GOAL-BASED NEW SHIP CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

Report of the Pilot Panel on the trial application of the Tier III verification process using IACS Common Structural Rules (CSR)

Note by the Co-ordinator of the Pilot Panel

SUMMARY

Executive summary:

The document contains the report of the Pilot Panel on the trial application of the Tier III verification process using IACS Common Structural Rules (CSR)

Action to be taken:

Paragraph 25

Related documents:

MSC 82/24, section 5 and annex 15; and MSC 82/WP.5

Introduction 1 The Committee, at its eighty-second session, approved the Plan for a pilot project on the trial application of the Tier III verification process using IACS Common Structural Rules (CSR), as set out in document MSC 82/24, annex 15. The following terms of reference were established for the Pilot Project:

.1 conduct a trial of the GBS Tier III evaluation process using the IACS Common Structural Rules (CSR);

.2 examine and evaluate:

.1 the verification framework of Tier III (MSC 81/WP.7, annex 3);

.2 any necessary documentation and information needed to support Tier III, based on documents MSC 82/5, annex 1, MSC 82/5/6, MSC 82/5/9 and any other relevant comments and proposals, including those submitted to previous MSC sessions;

.3 the necessity, extent and proper location in the tier structure of evaluation

criteria needed to support Tier III;

MSC 83/5/1 - 2 -

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

.4 the criteria for the nomination of members to participate in the future IMO Group of Experts; and

.5 the reporting format of the future Group of Experts; and

.3 prepare the report of the pilot project for MSC 83.

2 Specifically, the Pilot Panel (PP) was requested to produce the following deliverables in a report to MSC 83:

.1 Procedures as to how a Tier III verification process should be carried out. .2 Information and documentation requirements for the rules to be assessed. .3 Evaluation criteria to be used by the future Group of Experts to determine if rules

meet the goals and functional requirements of IMO GBS. .4 Criteria and procedures for nominating candidates for the future Group of Experts. .5 If identified, potential modifications to Tiers I and II. .6 Reporting format that should be used by the future Group of Experts.

3 Following the recommendation made by the GBS Working Group to MSC 82 (MSC 82/24, paragraph 5.26), the PP also considered the �net scantling� approach in the trial verification of GBS Tier III within the framework of Tier II using the IACS CSR. 4 The Committee designated Mr. Patrick Little as Project Co-ordinator, and selected Mr. Koichi Yoshida as a member. The following individuals were selected by the MSC Chairman in consultation with the IMO Secretariat to participate on the Pilot Panel following the procedures outlined in the project plan:

Mr. Hossein Abbas-Nejad Mr. John Andreopoulos Mr. Juan Carlos Cubisino Prof. Francisco J. del Moral Mr. Alistair Hull Mr. ManSoo Kim Mr. Qingping Li

Dr. Donald Liu Mr. Keith Michel Prof. Kaj Riska Prof. Rodolfo Tedeschi Mr. C. Dean Tseretopoulos Mr. Peter Weber Mr. George Zarvanos

General 5 In carrying out the tasks contained in the terms of reference, the PP held meetings on 22 and 23 February 2007, 12 to 14 March 2007, 26 to 28 April 2007 and 4 to 6 June 2007, and worked through correspondence between meetings. All meetings were held in London, United Kingdom. Meeting summaries were provided to the co-ordinator of the Correspondence Group on GBS for Oil Tankers and Bulk Carriers (CG-GBS) established at MSC 82, which had been instructed, inter alia, to monitor the pilot project, for further distribution to the members of the correspondence group. Additionally, the CG-GBS co-ordinator attended all PP meetings as an observer.

- 3 - MSC 83/5/1

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

6 IACS prepared a comprehensive report entitled �IACS Documentation Package for the IMO GBS Pilot Project� and other documentation for the PP*. The report was provided prior to the first PP meeting as an example of how IACS in the future may provide the background documentation illustrating how classification rules meet the GBS and was intended to assist IMO in conducting a pilot trial application of Tier III of the GBS for oil tankers and bulk carriers. The demonstration package only addressed IACS CSR for double hull oil tankers (hereafter referred to as CSR for tankers). The verification of the CSR was not within the scope of the PP. The PP noted IACS� intention to submit a copy of the Demonstration Package, in addition to all other documentation provided by IACS to the PP, to MSC 83 (see document MSC 83/INF.5). 7 In addition to the Demonstration Package, IACS provided a detailed presentation on CSR for tankers to the PP on 12 March 2007. During the presentation, IACS fielded numerous questions from PP members, including a list of questions provided in advance of the meeting. Additionally, IACS made their GBS Project Manager available during the PP meetings to provide clarification on the Demonstration Package and address technical questions regarding CSR, on an �as needed� basis. The IACS GBS Project Manager attended the first two meetings at the request of the PP. Procedures for carrying out a Tier III verification process and report format 8 The PP developed Guidelines for the verification of compliance with GBS (hereafter referred to as the Guidelines), consisting of part A, Tier III verification process, and part B, Information/documentation requirements and evaluation criteria. 9 The PP developed text to describe the process for carrying out a Tier III verification process as part A of the draft Guidelines as shown in annex 1, based on document MSC 81/WP.7, annex 3. The text also addressed criteria and procedures for the nomination of members to the Group of Experts. Additionally, the text includes a draft reporting format for the Group of Experts and a template to aid in the preparation of a request for verification. 10 The PP did not come to a consensus on the text shown in square brackets in annex 1, including the number of members for the Group of Experts (7, 9, or 11 members) or the decision-making procedure for determining compliance of the Rules submitted with the GBS (simple majority, two-thirds majority, or consensus). The PP considered that the number of members of the Group of Experts needed to be sufficient to ensure adequate representation of the appropriate disciplines, while not be so large as to be unwieldy or create logistical hurdles. With regard to the decision-making procedure, use of a simple majority ensures there is always a decision, whereas two-thirds majority may result in a non-decision. However, two-thirds majority does ensure that the decision is more widely supported. 11 The PP believes that appropriate resources will be needed on the IMO Secretariat staff to support the Group of Experts and manage the information and documentation associated with the GBS process. The administrative needs associated with a proper verification scheme may be substantial and therefore require thorough consideration by the Committee.

* Other IACS documentation submitted to the PP: �Tier II.2 Net Scantlings� (23 February 2007),

�IACS Technical Presentation to IMO GBS Pilot Project� (12 March 2007), �Steel Weight Impact from Net Scantling Definition� (24 April 2007) and �Impact of Applying the CSR Corrosion Addition on the Hull Girder Section Modulus� (3 June 2007).

MSC 83/5/1 - 4 -

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

12 The PP recommends that as part of the finalization of GBS, ample consideration be given to the need for sufficient phase-in time between adoption and entry into force of the GBS requirements. The time required for Rule verification may be significant, especially considering the general scope and complexity of classification society Rules, the number of Rules that will require review, and the need to allow the Group of Experts sufficient time to evaluate and request additional information or clarification as necessary. Additionally, recognized organizations will need ample time to prepare verification requests and perhaps to adjust their Rules as necessary to fully comply with GBS. Information and documentation requirements 13 The PP conducted a detailed assessment of information and documentation requirements for the verification process, starting with the baseline proposal from Spain, as contained in document MSC 82/5, annex 1, and considering the documents listed in paragraph 1.2.2, the IACS Demonstration Package, and numerous other IMO documents, including all GBS working and correspondence group reports, and foundational GBS papers submitted at the start of the GBS initiative. Recommended information and documentation requirements are included as part B of the draft Guidelines as shown in annex 2. 14 The PP developed a statement of intent for each Tier III requirement to provide guidance to the Rules submitter, as well as the Group of Experts, on the intent of both the information and documentation requirements, and evaluation criteria. Tier III evaluation criteria 15 The PP developed detailed evaluation criteria to ensure consistent and repeatable verification over time for different rule submissions and evaluators. The PP placed the evaluation criteria in Tier III for each functional requirement and the relevant information and documentation requirements, as shown at annex 2. The PP took great care to separate information and documentation requirements from evaluation criteria, while ensuring there was linkage between the two. The PP did not develop evaluation criteria for Tier III.15 (Recycling) pending the adoption of an International Convention on Recycling and its relevant requirements. Additionally the information/documentation requirements for Tier III.15 were placed in square brackets. Potential modifications to Tiers I and II 16 It was the unanimous opinion of the PP members that GBS will be most effective if a transparent process for continuous performance monitoring is established which requires a recognized organization to perform a continuous self-assessment of the effectiveness of their Rules and report back to the IMO on a regular basis. Such a requirement would establish a feedback loop for Rule performance. Therefore, the PP recommends the development of such a requirement. A preliminary proposal has been prepared and is attached at annex 3. 17 The PP recommends continuous performance monitoring be established as a high-level requirement as it reflects all aspects of ship design, construction, survey and maintenance. The PP was not able to conclude whether the structural performance monitoring provisions should be included in the GBS or elsewhere within SOLAS. One member expressed that in addition to being a high-level requirement, performance monitoring could also be established directly within the existing Tier III structure. Considering the current GBS structure, other members were of the opinion that first there should be a functional requirement followed by the development of relevant information/documentation and evaluation criteria in Tier III.

- 5 - MSC 83/5/1

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

18 The general consensus of the PP was that there is insufficient information currently available to develop specific evaluation criteria for Tier III.5 (Residual strength). Therefore, the PP decided to approach Tier III.5 by requiring the submitter to demonstrate, through the analysis of representative designs, that their Rules require a reasonable level of residual strength after damage considering existing IMO requirements. To develop specific evaluation criteria, additional consideration will need to be given to the application of the extents of damage and associated environmental conditions of existing IMO requirements. 19 During the drafting of the Guidelines, the PP identified the need to introduce some improvements to the Tier II functional requirements, including:

.1 reformatting of Tier II.3, Structural strength, in order to clearly indicate the different components that comprise the structural strength assessment;

.2 revision of Tier II.7, Structural redundancy, to require load-carrying redundancy

in the next hierarchal level according to structural design practice and in line with circular SLS.14/Circ.250 on interpretation of SOLAS regulation XII/6.5.3 for bulk carriers; and

.3 a minor revision to Tier II.13 to clarify the linkage between design parameter

selection and in-service survey and maintenance requirements. Proposed text for relevant modifications to the Tier II functional requirements is included at annex 4. Net scantlings 20 When considering the net scantling approach during the trial verification of how the IACS CSR meet the functional requirements, the PP could not come to an agreement as to how to apply the definition contained in the footnote of Tier II.3. This footnote has been interpreted to mean that there should be one net scantling to be used for all structural calculations (local and global structural responses). However, there is no reference or clarification on this issue in Tier II.4 (Fatigue). In any case, it is clear that IACS CSR for tankers apply a different approach for determining nominal design scantlings for each of the strength modes being evaluated, i.e. local, hull girder and fatigue strength. 21 The majority of the PP members felt that the application of a �single� or �pure� net scantlings for all structural calculations is too simplistic and does not allow for the efficient optimization of structure. These members felt scantlings should be determined based on a methodology that accounts for the potential diminution of hull steel over the service life, recognizing that renewal of an element, from a local perspective, will be required when the steel thickness approaches its �pure� net scantling (100% corrosion addition wastage), or from a global perspective when the diminution of hull girder section modulus approaches the requirements of the Rules and SOLAS requirements (10% limit of reduction in section modulus). Additionally, these members felt that the fatigue assessment should recognize the change in steel thickness over the service life and allow a different net scantlings approach for fatigue calculation. In all cases, the strength assessment of local scantlings should be based upon net scantlings. 22 Other members felt that the definition of net scantlings as defined in Tier II.3 should be used throughout Tier III because it is transparent, simple, and easy to apply and monitor. It will provide future members of the Group of Experts with a simple approach, which can be readily checked. Furthermore, and in the absence of any justification and benchmarking of different

MSC 83/5/1 - 6 -

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

approaches, these members believe it is presently the only possible option that should be used from a purely scientific point of view to fulfil Tier I goals. These members recommend that the current Tier II footnoted definition shall remain as is, and that assumed loads, safety factors and acceptance criteria shall be adjusted as needed within the scope of Tier I goals. 23 In any case, the PP agreed that the appropriate thickness to be applied in scantlings� assessment must be considered in conjunction with other factors, such as extreme loads, safety factors and acceptance criteria, and that all methods should be appropriately justified and benchmarked with service history. Recommendations for future work 24 The PP recommends that the Guidelines should undergo additional refinement and development through a second, more detailed trial application with CSR. This is primarily because there was not a consolidated version of the Tier III verification process available to allow IACS and the PP to conduct a proper trial application. Rather, the PP spent the majority of the available timeframe developing the Guidelines, which limited the depth of the trial verification. As a result, the Guidelines, as included in annexes 1 and 2, have not been tested. Action requested of the Committee 25 The Committee is invited to approve the report of the PP in general and, in particular, to:

.1 further consider part A (Tier III verification process) of the proposed Guidelines for the verification of compliance with GBS and take action as appropriate (paragraphs 6 to 10 and annex 1);

.2 approve, in principle, part B (Tier III information/documentation requirements

and evaluation criteria) of the Guidelines for the verification of compliance with GBS (paragraphs 11 to 13 and annex 2);

.3 consider the PP recommendation to establish a requirement for continuous

performance monitoring and take action as appropriate (paragraphs 16 and 17 and annex 3);

.4 note the approach utilized by the PP to develop evaluation criteria for Tier III.5,

Residual strength (paragraph 18); .5 consider the proposed modifications to Tier II functional requirements and take

action as appropriate (paragraph 19 and annex 4); .6 note the discussion on the application of net scantlings (paragraphs 20 to 23); and .7 consider the PP recommendation regarding the need to conduct a second, more

in-depth, trial application with CSR before the Guidelines for the verification of compliance with GBS are approved (paragraph 24).

***

MSC 83/5/1

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

ANNEX 1

DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR THE VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH GBS

PART A

TIER III VERIFICATION PROCESS Scope of verification 1 These guidelines are intended for the verification of compliance with the goal-based new ship construction standards (GBS) for tankers and bulk carriers operating in unrestricted, worldwide service. This part establishes the procedures to be followed in order to verify that ship construction rules (Tier IV) satisfy the Goal-based new ship construction standards (GBS) established in the SOLAS Convention. It includes sections on initial verification, maintenance of verification, and the Group of Experts. Initial verification 2 Any IMO Member State who wishes to verify that their ship construction rules, or those developed by an organization recognized by the Administration (hereinafter referred to as the Submitter), satisfy the GBS should submit a written request to the Secretary-General, provided the recognized organization has not already verified its Rules through another Administration. The request should be submitted with all information specified in paragraph 3. 3 The documentation package submitted for verification should be provided in English and include:

.1 A complete set of rules to be verified as Tier IV. .2 Summary list linking the rules to the functional requirements of Tier II. .3 All the items listed under information and documentation requirements in Part B

of these Guidelines. .4 Clear indication of any instance where a functional requirement or portions of it

are satisfied by mandatory instruments that are not part of the submitted rules (for example, SOLAS or MARPOL requirements).

.5 Any other documentation which in the Submitter�s opinion may assist the Group

of Experts (as defined in paragraph 10). .6 The Submission Template, included as appendix 1, may be used as guidance in

the preparation of the submission. 4 The initial verification is an iterative process based on the following steps:

.1 The Secretary-General forwards the request for rule verification to the Group of Experts.

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 1 Page 2

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

.2 The Submitter1 appears before the Group of Experts to present their case for verification of their Rules.

.3 The Group of Experts verifies the submitted information through their own

independent review and assessment of the information and documentation provided based on the evaluation criteria contained in part B of these Guidelines. During the review and assessment process, the Group of Experts can request additional information from the Submitter, or can ask the Submitter to be available to answer questions during their presentations.

.4 After reviewing the information provided, the Group of Experts prepares an

interim report that contains the preliminary results of the verification, requests for additional information as needed, and possible non-compliances using the specified Report Format, included as appendix 2. The interim report will be sent to the Submitter.

.5 Upon receipt of the interim report�s findings, the Submitter responds to the

interim report by submitting additional documentation to address the reported non-compliances and/or respond to requests for additional information. The Submitter may be requested to re-appear before the Group of Experts to further clarify their submittal. The Group of Experts then continues their verification, and determines if the non-compliance(s) have been resolved. Further information may be requested from the Submitter as required.

.6 After the completion of their review, the Group of Experts completes a final report

in accordance with the Report Format (appendix 2), with recommendation, and provides it to the Secretary-General. Where the Group of Experts has identified non-compliance, they are to provide specific information on action to be taken to achieve compliance.

.7 The Secretary-General forwards the final report from the Group of Experts to the

Maritime Safety Committee with copies to the relevant Administration and recognized organization.

5 The Maritime Safety Committee considers the report prepared by the Group of Experts with a view to confirming that the information provided demonstrates that the Rules comply with the Goal-based new ship construction standards of the Convention. Upon approval of the report from the Group of Experts by the Maritime Safety Committee, the Secretary-General (or his/her nominee) notifies the relevant Administration and recognized organization as to whether the submitted rules comply or not with Tier I Goals and Tier II Functional Requirements. In the case of non-compliance, the notification letter shall include specific details to support the determination. The Maritime Safety Committee issues the results of successful verifications via Circular letter. The Secretary-General maintains a list of all Tier IV rules that have been verified as well as the original copy of the rule submission. 6 The Submitter can appeal a non-compliance finding to the Maritime Safety Committee. The appeal must be made within 60 days after receiving the Group of Experts� final report, and should include specific reasons and supporting documentation to substantiate the request. In 1 The IMO Member State may authorize direct liaison between the recognized organization and Group of Experts,

if desired.

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 1

Page 3

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

making a decision upon appeal, the Maritime Safety Committee considers the appeal request and the recommendation of the Group of Experts after their review of the supporting documentation submitted with the appeal. Maintenance of verification 7 Changes to Tier IV rules already verified as complying with GBS established in SOLAS shall be processed as follows:

.1 On an annual basis each recognized organization whose Tier IV rules have been verified as complying with GBS shall notify and make available their proposed rules changes to all Administrations by whom they are recognized. The notification should clearly indicate why those changes will not affect the compliance with GBS of those Rules already verified.

.2 When the Administration has been notified in accordance with paragraph 7.1 on

changes affecting the initial verification or considers that changes in the Rules of a recognized organization could lead to non-compliance with GBS, it may request the Secretary-General to conduct a review. The request should include justification supporting why such a review is required. The Secretary-General shall forward the changes to the Group of Experts for consideration.

.3 Every five years, each recognized organization whose Tier IV rules have been

verified as complying with GBS, shall submit a report to the Secretary-General through their sponsoring Administration that describes the changes that have been made to their rules over the past five years. The Secretary-General shall forward the changes to the Group of Experts for consideration. Based on the information submitted the Group of Experts may conduct verification of the changes to ensure the Rules remain in compliance with GBS.

.4 Any Administration whose Tier IV Rules have been verified as complying with

GBS should notify IMO of changes to its Rules as per paragraphs 7.1 to 7.3. 8 The Maritime Safety Committee may request re-verification of Tier IV rules if significant changes are made to GBS or other IMO mandatory instruments. Group of Experts 9 A Group of Experts will be established under the auspices of the Maritime Safety Committee to verify that Tier IV rules proposed by a Submitter comply with the Goal-based new ship construction standards established in the SOLAS Convention. The Group of Experts will serve as an independent panel of technical experts whose decisions are not affiliated with any Member State or organization. The Group of Experts shall consist of [7][9][11] members. Three will serve for terms lasting three years that are staggered by a year each and shall not serve successive three-year terms. The remainder shall serve on an ad hoc basis. A [simple][two-thirds] majority will be required for all Group of Experts findings. The voting of individual members will be kept confidential, with the resulting outcome considered as a decision of the Group of Experts.


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

10 The members of the Group of Experts will be selected from a list of experts maintained by the Secretary-General. Administrations or non-governmental organizations with consultative status in IMO may nominate individuals for inclusion on the list of experts. Nominations will be provided to the Secretary-General and should include curriculum vitae. Members of the Group of Experts will be selected with due consideration to the qualifications listed in paragraph 11 to ensure appropriate representation and expertise for the specific rules being considered. Additionally, the Secretary-General shall identify a chairman, who shall be responsible for overall co-ordination of the Group of Experts. 11 Nominees should have adequate knowledge of and experience in ship structural design and construction, GBS and classification society rules, rule development, and be able to correctly interpret the rules for correlations with relevant regulatory requirements. Additionally, nominees should have experience in at least some of the following:

.1 engineering degree in naval architecture and/or structural engineering;

.2 scientific or engineering knowledge of technical subjects addressed in ship structural standards including strength of materials, structural analysis, fatigue analysis, hydrodynamics and load calculations;

.3 design, construction or operating experience with the type of vessel addressed by

the ship rules being verified; .4 knowledge of ship safety construction requirements including SOLAS

requirements and industry standards, guidelines and practices; .5 knowledge of environmental protection requirements related to ship structures; .6 survey, inspection and maintenance regimes for ship structures; .7 ship building and ship construction practices; and .8 research experience in any of the areas in paragraphs 11.1 to 11.7.

12 Group of Experts members cannot have any conflict of interest relating to the rules being verified. For example, they should not be employees of a classification society. 13 The Administration or recognized organization whose rules are being evaluated for verification shall be available to address questions from the Group of Experts. 14 The Group of Experts shall conduct their work through a combination of both correspondence and in-person deliberations. At a minimum, the Group of Experts shall meet at least once in person during the deliberations, and consider the need for transparency throughout their deliberations, including the need for the Submitter to be able to meet in-person with the Group to address any questions and issues that arise during the verification process. The Secretary-General will provide the Group of Experts with adequate administrative assistance to support the verification process, including a permanent secretary.

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 1

Page 5

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

Appendix 1

SUBMISSION TEMPLATE

a. Flag State Information

1 Name of Flag State

2 Full contact details for the designated single point of contact

Name and title

Address

Telephone no.:

Fax no.:

E-mail address:

3 Organization recognized by Flag State:

b. Recognized Organization Information

1 Name of Recognized Organization:

2 Full contact details for the designated single point of contact

Name and title

Address

Telephone no.:

Fax no.:

E-mail address:

3 Rules Coverage: Oil tanker Bulk carrier


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

c. Rule Linkage

Tier II − Functional Requirement Rule section link to Functional Requirement

II-1 Design life The specified design life is not to be less than 25 years.

II-2 Environmental conditions Ships should be designed in accordance with North Atlantic environmental conditions and relevant long-term sea state scatter diagrams.

II-3 Structural strength Ships should be designed with suitable safety margins:

.1 to withstand, at net scantlings, in the intact condition, the environmental conditions anticipated for the ship�s design life and the loading conditions appropriate for them, which should include full homogeneous and alternate loads, partial loads, multi-port and ballast voyage, and ballast management condition loads and occasional overruns/ overloads during loading/unloading operations, as applicable to the class designation; and

.2 appropriate for all design parameters

whose calculation involves a degree of uncertainty, including loads, structural modelling, fatigue, corrosion, material imperfections, construction workmanship errors, buckling and residual strength.

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 1

Page 7

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

The structural strength should be assessed against excessive deflection and failure modes, including but not limited to buckling, yielding and fatigue. Ultimate strength calculations should include ultimate hull girder capacity and ultimate strength of plates and stiffeners. The ship�s structural members should be of a design that is compatible with the purpose of the space and ensures a degree of structural continuity. The structural members of ships should be designed to facilitate load/discharge for all contemplated cargoes to avoid damage by loading/discharging equipment which may compromise the safety of the structure.

II.4 Fatigue life The design fatigue life should not be less than the ship�s design life and should be based on the environmental conditions in II.2.

II.5 Residual strength Ships should be designed to have sufficient strength to withstand the wave and internal loads in specified damaged conditions such as collision, grounding or flooding. Residual strength calculations should take into account the ultimate reserve capacity of the hull girder, including permanent deformation and post-buckling behaviour. Actual foreseeable scenarios should be investigated in this regard as far as is reasonably practicable.

II.6 Protection against corrosion Measures are to be applied to ensure that net scantlings required to meet structural strength provisions are maintained throughout the specified design life. Measures include, but are not limited to, coatings, corrosion additions, cathodic protection, impressed current systems, etc.


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

II.6.1 Coating life Coatings should be applied and maintained in accordance with manufacturers� specifications concerning surface preparation, coating selection, application and maintenance. Where coating is required to be applied, the design coating life is to be specified. The actual coating life may be longer or shorter than the design coating life, depending on the actual conditions and maintenance of the ship. Coatings should be selected as a function of the intended use of the compartment, materials and application of other corrosion prevention systems, e.g. cathodic protection or other alternatives. II.6.2 Corrosion addition The corrosion addition should be added to the net scantling and should be adequate for the specified design life. The corrosion addition should be determined on the basis of exposure to corrosive agents such as water, cargo or corrosive atmosphere, or mechanical wear, and whether the structure is protected by corrosion prevention systems, e.g. coating, cathodic protection or by alternative means. The design corrosion rates (mm/year) should be evaluated in accordance with statistical information established from service experience and/or accelerated model tests. The actual corrosion rate may be greater or smaller than the design corrosion rate, depending on the actual conditions and maintenance of the ship.

II.7 Structural redundancy Ships should be of redundant design and construction so that localized damage of any one structural member will not lead to immediate consequential failure of other structural elements leading to loss of structural and watertight integrity of the ship.

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 1

Page 9

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

II.8 Watertight and weathertight integrity Ships should be designed to have adequate watertight and weathertight integrity for the intended service of the ship and adequate strength and redundancy of the associated securing devices of hull openings.

II.9 Human element considerations Ships should be designed and built using ergonomic design principles to ensure safety during operations, inspection and maintenance of ship�s structures. These considerations should include stairs, vertical ladders, ramps, walkways and standing platforms used for permanent means of access, the work environment and inspection and maintenance considerations.

II.10 Design transparency Ships should be designed under a reliable, controlled and transparent process made accessible to the extent necessary to confirm the safety of the new as-built ship, with due consideration to intellectual property rights. Readily available documentation should include the main goal-based parameters and all relevant design parameters that may limit the operation of the ship.

II.11 Construction quality procedures Ships should be built in accordance with controlled and transparent quality production standards with due regard to intellectual property rights. The ship construction quality procedures should include, but not be limited to, specifications for material, manufacturing, alignment, assembling, joining and welding procedures, surface preparation and coating.


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

II.12 Survey A survey plan should be developed for the construction phase of the ship, taking into account the ship type and design. The survey plan should contain a set of requirements, including specifying the extent and scope of the construction survey(s) and identifying areas that need special attention during the survey(s), to ensure compliance of construction with mandatory ship construction standards.

II.13 Survey and maintenance Ships should be designed and constructed to facilitate ease of survey and maintenance, in particular avoiding the creation of spaces too confined to allow for adequate survey and maintenance activities. The survey plan in II.12 should also identify areas that need special attention during surveys throughout the ship�s life and in particular all necessary in-service survey and maintenance that was assumed when selecting ship design parameters.

II.14 Structural accessibility The ship should be designed, constructed and equipped to provide adequate means of access to all internal structures to facilitate overall and close-up inspections and thickness measurements.

II.15 Recycling Ships should be designed and constructed of materials for environmentally acceptable recycling without compromising the safety and operational efficiency of the ship.

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 1

Page 11

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

d. Self-assessment summary

Item Fully

covered in Rules

Not covered in Rules

Comments

Design

II-1 Design life

II-2 Environmental conditions

II-3 Structural strength

II-4 Fatigue life

II-5 Residual strength

II-6 Protection against corrosion

II-6-1 Coating life

II-6-2 Corrosion addition

II-7 Structural redundancy

II-8 Watertight and weathertight integrity

II-9 Human element considerations

II-10 Design transparency

Construction

II-11 Construction quality procedures

II-12 Survey

In-service considerations

II-13 Survey and maintenance

II-14 Structural accessibility

Recycling considerations

II-15 Recycling


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

e. Information and documentation submitted to comply with GBS Tier III Guidelines � chapter 2, as approved by MSC

Tier III item List of information and documentation

Design

III-1 Design life

III-2 Environmental conditions

III-3 Structural strength

III-4 Fatigue life

III-5 Residual strength

III-6 Protection against corrosion

III-7 Structural redundancy

III-8 Watertight and weathertight integrity

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 1

Page 13

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

III-9 Human element considerations

III-10 Design transparency

Construction

III-11 Construction quality procedures

III-12 Survey

In-service consideration

III-13 Survey and maintenance

III-14 Structural accessibility

Recycling consideration

III-15 Recycling


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

Appendix 2

REPORT FORMAT OF THE REPORT OF THE GROUP OF EXPERTS

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• what was reviewed • the findings of the review • the recommendation of the Group of Experts • actions required to address non-compliance (if applicable).

II SUBMISSION PARTICULARS A Submitting Administration(s): B Recognized organization name (if applicable): C Title and revision date of Rules submitted: D Submission date: E Report type: [Interim][Final]: F Group of Experts Members:

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 1

Page 15

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

III Evaluation summary

Item Compliant Not Compliant Summary comment

Design

II-1 Design life

II-2 Environmental conditions

II-3 Structural strength

II-4 Fatigue life

II-5 Residual strength

II-6 Protection against corrosion

II-6-1 Coating life

II-6-2 Corrosion addition

II-7 Structural redundancy

II-8 Watertight and weathertight integrity

II-9 Human element considerations

II-10 Design transparency

Construction

II-11 Construction quality procedures

II-12 Survey

In-service considerations

II-13 Survey and maintenance

II-14 Structural accessibility

Recycling considerations

II-15 Recycling


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

IV DETAILED EVALUATION COMMENTS DESIGN II.1 Design life Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any). II.2 Environmental conditions Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any). II.3 Structural strength Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any). II.4 Fatigue life Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any). II.5 Residual strength Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any).

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 1

Page 17

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

II.6 Protection against corrosion II.6.1 Coating life Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any). II.6.2 Corrosion addition Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any). II.7 Structural redundancy Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any). II.8 Watertight and weathertight integrity Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any). II.9 Human element considerations Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any).


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

II.10 Design transparency Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any). CONSTRUCTION II.11 Construction quality procedures Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any). II.12 Survey Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any). IN-SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS II.13 Survey and maintenance Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any). II.14 Structural accessibility Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any).

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 1

Page 19

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

RECYCLING CONSIDERATIONS II.15 Recycling Finding: The functional requirement [is][is not] covered by the Rules. Comment(s): Provide detailed comments to support the finding. Recommendation(s): Issues that should be addressed to achieve compliance (if any). V ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDED FOR VERIFICATION (List additional information needed from submitter to complete verification.) VI ADDENDA (List supplemental information including rules and references.)

***

MSC 83/5/1

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

ANNEX 2

DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR THE VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH GBS

PART B

INFORMATION/DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

Introduction 1 These Guidelines are intended for the verification of compliance with the Goal-based new ship construction standards (GBS) for tankers and bulk carriers operating in unrestricted, worldwide service. GBS does not consider additional loading or operational conditions, such as ice. Although phenomena such as rogue waves are known to exist, they are still considered research matters and not addressed in the verification framework. 2 This part provides detailed guidance to assist the Rules Submitter and the Group of Experts through the process of verifying that the Tier IV rules comply with the GBS Tier II functional requirements. It includes a statement of intent, information and documentation requirements, and evaluation criteria for each Tier II functional requirement. The statement of intent links Tier II to Tier III by providing an overview of what the verification of the particular functional requirement should achieve. The information and documentation requirements establish specific items that should be included and addressed in the submission to support the request for verification, and will be evaluated by the Group of Experts. The evaluation criteria outline the minimum factors that should be considered by the Group of Experts when conducting the verification. Even though evaluation criteria are phrased as questions, the Group of Experts is expected to conduct a detailed assessment of each to verify that the answer to each question is clearly a �yes�. Additionally, they should ensure that the information submitted in support of the application is proper, complete, accurate and adequate, paying attention to the terminology used in the information and documentation required. For example, when the term �justification� is used, the application should include supporting data, analysis or other study that conclusively demonstrates the adequacy of the methodology, process, or requirement. The Group of Experts should request additional information and documentation wherever that provided is inadequate. 3 Where the Rules establish a process to evaluate and accept alternatives, the submission should clearly identify the process for determining that an equivalent level of safety is ensured and the verification process should ensure that the alternative arrangements set forth in the Rules do not lead to an inferior level of safety. 4 In order to be verified as meeting GBS, all Tier II functional requirements should be satisfied in full. However, in those instances where the Submitter can clearly indicate that the functional requirements or portions of it are satisfied by IMO mandatory requirements that are not part of the Rules (for example, SOLAS or MARPOL requirements), the Group of Experts can accept this as part of the verification provided that they do not affect other covered functional requirements.


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

III.1 − Design life a. Statement of intent Confirm that the specified design life is at least 25 years and properly incorporated into the Rules. b. Information and documentation requirements 1 Statement of the design life in years used in developing the Rules. 2 Description of the methodology used to incorporate design life into the Rules. This shall

include but not be limited to consideration of extreme loads, design loads, fatigue and corrosion.

3 List of all locations in the Rules where design life is used or cited. c. Evaluation criteria 1 Are structural strength, fatigue and corrosions additions, and any other design parameters

used in the Rules based upon the specified design life? 2 Has the design life been properly applied in sections of the Rules where specified? III.2 − Environmental conditions a. Statement of intent Confirm that the wave data and associated ship motions and loads are developed on the basis of North Atlantic environmental conditions and the relevant sea state scatter diagram for the specified design life. b. Information and documentation requirements 1 Description of the formulation and source of sea state data (scatter diagrams, etc)

including method and date of data collection and geographical location represented by the data.

2 Justification that the sea state data represent North Atlantic environmental conditions. 3 Justification that the design life and environmental conditions are used to develop the ship

motions and loads, including appropriate technical background. 4 Justification of the methodology used to develop ship motions and loads, including speed,

distribution of headings, hull form and other relevant parameters. Clearly define limits of applicability, and provide guidance for assessment when outside this range.

5 List of all locations in the Rules where environmental conditions are used.

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 2

Page 3

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

6 Description of how the methodology used to formulate sea state and develop ship motions and loads has been benchmarked with experimental or service history data.

c. Evaluation criteria 1 Have the methodologies used to formulate sea state data, and develop ship motions and

loads been benchmarked? Do they compare favourably with experimental or service history data?

2 Does the wave data properly represent North Atlantic conditions and include the regions

where the most severe conditions are expected1? 3 Do the Rules specify the wave spectrum and the short/long term method used to obtain

the design extreme value, including its probabilities of exceedance? 4 Are the most probable extreme loads based on not less than 108 cycles of wave

encounters (assumed to correspond to a 25-year design life)? 5 Do the Rules specify the range of applicability of ship motions and loads, and when direct

sea-keeping analysis or model testing is required? Do the Rules clearly state the assumptions used in III.2.b.4?

6 Are the ship speeds used for assessment of ship motions and loads based upon speeds that

can be expected in the sea states under consideration and taking into account the methods used for the analyses? Equal distribution of heading may be assumed unless the expected distribution is more severe.

III.3 − Structural strength a Statement of intent Confirm that the Rules require a ship to be designed to withstand at net scantlings the operational and environmental loads for its specified design life. b. Information and documentation Requirements 1 Description of how the Rules provide net scantlings that are sufficient to avoid excessive

deformation (either elastic or plastic, as appropriate) and prevent the following failures: yielding and buckling of hull girder and structural members. Include the following:

.1 Description of the strength assessment procedure.

.2 Justification of the methodologies used to obtain the global and local, static and

dynamic design loads. .3 Justification on the acceptable limits of yielding and buckling.

1 In no case should the data yield most probable significant wave height (extreme values) less than those obtained

from IACS Recommendation No. 34.


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

.4 Explanation of how the Rules prevent deflection from compromising the integrity of the ship�s structure.

.5 Description of the safety factors in conjunction with assumed design load(s) and

justification as to why they are appropriate. .6 Explanation of the requirements for finite element structural modelling, including

load application, boundary conditions, element selection, mesh size and treatment of primary, secondary and tertiary stresses.

.7 List of the loading conditions considered in the Rules that are to be included in the

structural evaluation. Justification of the loading conditions especially in terms of what parts of the structure may be critically loaded and stressed.

.8 Description of how construction tolerances and procedures, and material

imperfections are accounted for in the Rules. .9 Justification of the rationale of the Rules for weld design and procedures. .10 Justification of how structural continuity is taken into account in the Rules,

including termination of primary structures at the fore and aft ends of the cargo block.

.11 Justification of how the Rules prevent deflections or vibration levels that will

damage or impair the ship structure, equipment or machinery. .12 Explanation of where and how the net scantlings concept is applied in the Rules

for structural design. .13 Description of how the strength assessment methodology has been benchmarked

with experimental and service history data. 2 Explanation of how the Rules consider structural integrity at net scantlings for typical loading/discharging and ballast exchange scenarios, including criteria to determine acceptability and provide reasonably attainable sequences of loading, discharging and ballasting. 3 Description of how the Rules determine that the net scantlings are sufficient to provide adequate ultimate strength. Include the following:

.1 Description of the ultimate strength assessment procedure. .2 Justification of the loads considered for the ultimate strength analysis. .3 Provision of data, including justification, on acceptable limits of ultimate strength. .4 Description of the safety factors, with justification why they are appropriate. .5 Explanation of the methodology used for calculating hull girder capacity and

ultimate strength of plates and stiffeners, individually and in combination.

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 2

Page 5

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

.6 Justification of where and how the net scantlings concept is applied in the Rules for ultimate strength.

.7 Description of how the ultimate strength assessment methodology has been

benchmarked with experimental and service history data. c. Evaluation criteria 1 Have the results from the strength and ultimate strength assessment been benchmarked?

Do they compare favourably with service history and other standards? 2 Do the Rules specify the probability level for which global and local dynamic loads are

calculated? Has justification been provided? 3 Is the methodology for developing the lightship and deadweight loads clearly defined and

consistently applied, including the lightship weight distribution? 4 Are the following loading conditions included at a minimum: homogeneous, partial,

alternate loads, multi-port, ballast conditions including ballast management, and loading and offloading sequences and intermediate conditions? Are these and any other conditions identified in the loading or stability manuals considered without exceeding allowable bending moments, shear forces and stresses?

5 Do the Rules include methodology for the development of local loads, including

specifying the minimum density for cargo and ballast to be applied? 6 With regard to local strength:

.1 Is the structure in way of cargo and ballast spaces suitable for any level of filling from empty to 100% full?

.2 Do the Rules define loading patterns for evaluation, including full and empty

adjacent tanks, full and empty athwartships rows of tanks, full and empty asymmetric loading, and the drafts to be considered for each loading pattern?

.3 Do the Rules consider any reasonable combination of cargo or ballast spaces in

any one athwartships row across to be empty at or near the scantling draft? .4 Do the assumed draft limits and assumed cargo densities cover the expected

operational range? .5 Provided the longitudinal still water bending and shear strength allowable values,

design cargo densities, and draft limits are satisfied, does the local strength evaluation ensure that the load case will be acceptable with regard to structural strength?

.6 Are sloshing effects adequately covered by the Rules?

7 Do the Rules describe how ship structures should be modelled using finite elements, how

boundary conditions and loads are to be applied, elements and mesh size selected, and take into account primary, secondary and tertiary stresses, as may be applicable to the structure analysed?


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

8 Are the requirements for tapering primary structures, including transitions fore and aft of the cargo block, defined in sufficient detail in the Rules?

9 If continuity requirements are not specified, do the Rules require alternative analysis

methods to prove the adequacy of the proposed arrangements for the termination of primary structure and primary supporting members? Do these alternative methods include both the local stress evaluation and the effect of the relative stiffness of the members at the termination?

10 Do the Rules specify procedures for direct calculation of local stresses in details?

If direct calculation is not required, do the Rules include definition and application of stress concentration factors? If stress concentration factors are utilized, a justification of the definition and application of these factors should be included.

III.4 − Fatigue life a. Statement of intent Confirm that the fatigue life is not less than the specified design life. b. Information and documentation requirement 1 Description of how the Rules provide that structural arrangement and net scantlings are

sufficient to meet a calculated fatigue life not less than the specified design life. Include the following:

.1 Description of the fatigue assessment methodology used in the Rules including

sea state data, long term statistics of wave data applied in fatigue calculations, S-N curves used, calculation of stress range and factors of safety. Justification of the stress ranges and their distribution functions should be provided.

.2 Explanation of the effect of uncertainties/assumptions on fatigue life and

justification of the factors of safety used in fatigue calculations, taking into consideration the consequence of failure of the particular structural member.

.3 Explanation of the requirements for finite element structural modelling, including

load application, boundary conditions, element selection, mesh size and treatment of primary, secondary and tertiary stresses.

.4 Justification of how the Rules take into account dynamic loads and their

combinations. .5 List of the loading conditions required by the Rules to be considered as part of the

fatigue evaluation. Justification of the selection of loading conditions used in fatigue analysis.

.6 Description of how the Rules take into consideration slamming and vibratory-

induced fatigue effects.

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 2

Page 7

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

.7 Description of how construction tolerances and procedures, and material imperfections are accounted for in the Rules.

.8 Explanation of where and how the net scantlings concept is applied in the Rules

for fatigue. .9 Justification of the structural members and typical critical design details required

to be included in evaluation of ship�s fatigue life. .10 Description of how the Rules consider the effect on fatigue life of unprotected

structural details in seawater (e.g., when the breakdown of coating leads to exposure to seawater).

.11 Description of how the fatigue assessment methodology has been benchmarked

with experimental and service history data. c. Evaluation criteria 1 Have the results from the fatigue life assessment methodology been benchmarked?

Do the results compare favourably with service history and other standards? 2 Do the Rules specify a representative ship�s operating profile to be used in long term

fatigue response analysis? 3 Are the assumed loading conditions (e.g. cargo and ballast) representative of the intended

service? 4 Do the Rules identify structural elements and typical critical design details prone to

fatigue throughout the entire ship that are required to be included in the evaluation of ship�s fatigue life?

5 Do the Rules describe how design details should be modelled and take into account

primary, secondary and tertiary stresses, as may be applicable to the detail analysed? 6 Is the methodology used to develop cyclic loads, such as inertial loads and

internal/external hydrodynamic loads, based on the North Atlantic environment? 7 Do the Rules specify procedures for the calculation of cyclic local stresses in details? 8 Do the Rules take into consideration workmanship standards and construction tolerances?


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

III.5 − Residual strength a. Statement of intent Confirm that the Rules provide a reasonable level of residual strength after damage (e.g., collision, grounding and flooding). b. Information and documentation requirements 1 Demonstration of how ships designed to the Rules with intact structure at net scantlings

have sufficient ultimate strength to sustain flooding as defined in relevant IMO instruments in North Atlantic environmental conditions.

2 Demonstration that representative ships designed to the Rules have adequate residual

strength to survive a casualty event. Include the following:

.1 Description of the flooding scenarios and the corresponding structural damage. Explanation of the relationship of the flooding scenarios to IMO instruments.

.2 Description of the environmental conditions and period of exposure representative

of the sea states expected for collision and grounding scenarios, and justification why they are appropriate.

.3 Description of the acceptance criteria for residual strength in damaged condition,

and justification if different from ultimate strength. 3 Description of how the residual strength assessment procedure has been benchmarked

with experimental and casualty history data. c. Evaluation criteria 1 Has the residual strength assessment procedure been benchmarked? Does it compare

favourably with experimental and casualty history data? 2 Can a ship designed to the Rules sustain flooding as defined in relevant IMO instruments

and survive in North Atlantic conditions with intact structure at net scantlings? 3 Does a ship designed to the Rules have sufficient residual strength to survive a more

significant casualty event (e.g. flooding with structural damage due to collision or grounding) under environmental conditions consistent with the likelihood of occurrence? Are the assumed damage scenarios representative of the intent of damage in relevant IMO instruments?

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 2

Page 9

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

III.6 − Protection against corrosion III.6.1 − Coating life a. Statement of intent Confirm that the coatings are properly selected and applied to protect the structure for the target useful life. b. Information and documentation requirements 1 Provision of information on coating life and mandatory use of coatings, including:

.1 Mandatory locations and/or spaces where coatings are required to be used. .2 Types of coating to be used for the various spaces. .3 Required target useful life and explanation for selection. .4 The coating performance standard to be followed (i.e. IMO PSPC).

2 Description of the requirements to be followed in spaces where other corrosion

prevention systems are used. 3 Description of the procedures used to ensure that the selected coating system with

associated surface preparation and application methods is compatible with the manufacturing processes and methods.

4 Description of the procedures used to verify that the specified coating procedures have

been followed. 5 If an alternative is proposed to that prescribed by IMO instruments, justification to

support the selection of coating standards, target useful life or areas of application. c. Evaluation criteria 1 Do the Rules include appropriate requirements to achieve stated target useful life and

fulfil SOLAS requirements as a minimum? 2 Do alternative or additional requirements allowed by the Rules provide protection levels

at least equivalent to those required by SOLAS? 3 Are the procedures indicated in b.3 and b.4 adequately documented in the Rules? 4 Is adequate justification provided to support the use of alternatives?


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

III.6.2 − Corrosion addition a. Statement of intent Confirm that the Rules for corrosion addition values are rationally based and adequate for the specified design life. b. Information and documentation 1 Description of the methodology used to determine values for the Rule corrosion additions

so that the scantlings remain above net scantlings over the specified design life. 2 Description of how assumed corrosion rates and nominal corrosion additions are

determined based on ship type and location within the hull. Description should address how stress corrosion and any other modes of accelerated corrosion have been taken into consideration.

3 Description of any additional Rule requirements that provide special consideration

for other parameters such as unusual cargoes, loadings, trading patterns, material properties, etc.

4 Description of how corrosion of welds and heat-affected zones are considered. 5 Description of the steel renewal criteria. 6 Description of how the methodology to determine corrosion addition and establish steel

renewal criteria has been benchmarked with experimental and service history data. c. Evaluation criteria 1 Has the methodology used to determine corrosion addition and establish steel renewal

criteria been benchmarked? Does it compare favourably with experimental and service history data?

2 Does the methodology and supporting statistical data justify the corrosion additions? 3 Are reductions in the Rule corrosion additions not allowed (e.g., for the application of

coatings or other protective methods)? 4 Do the Rules clearly establish the steel renewal criteria? Do the renewal criteria ensure

that scantlings are never less than the required net scantlings and the diminution of the hull girder section modulus is within SOLAS requirements?

III.7 − Structural redundancy a. Statement of intent Confirm that the Rules require sufficient redundancy to withstand localized damage in any one stiffening structural member.

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 2

Page 11

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

b. Information and documentation requirements 1 Demonstration that representative ships designed to the Rules have adequate redundancy. 2 Description of the requirements of localized damage modelling in FEA calculations. 3 Description of how the methodology used to assess structural redundancy has been

benchmarked with experimental and service history data. c. Evaluation criteria 1 Has the methodology used to assess structural redundancy been benchmarked? Does it

compare favourably with experimental or casualty history data? 2 Does a ship designed to the Rules have sufficient structural redundancy to survive local

damage to a stiffening member? 3 Does the structural redundancy assessment consider damage events as defined in relevant

IMO instruments? III.8 − Watertight and weathertight integrity a. Statement of intent Confirm that the Rules meet statutory requirements for watertight and weathertight integrity by requiring closing arrangements of adequate strength and securing devices of adequate redundancy. b. Information and documentation requirements 1 Description of the Rule requirements for watertight and weathertight integrity. 2 Description of how the Rules consider criteria from IMO instruments for determining

which openings in the hull envelope are required to be watertight or weathertight. 3 Explanation of the criteria used in the development of the Rules to determine that the

strength and redundancy for closing arrangements, if appropriate, of the watertight and weathertight openings is adequate for the environmental conditions and specified design life.

c. Evaluation criteria 1 Do the Rules satisfy all relevant IMO watertight and weathertight integrity requirements? 2 Do the Rules require sufficient strength for closing arrangements and securing devices to

meet environmental conditions, design loads and specified design life? Do the securing devices have adequate redundancy?


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

III.9 − Human element considerations a. Statement of intent Confirm that the Rules incorporate human element and ergonomic considerations into the structural design and arrangement to facilitate operations, inspection and maintenance activity. b. Information and documentation requirements 1 Description of how the Rules consider human element and ergonomics during the

structural design and arrangement of the ship, including:

.1 Stairs, vertical ladders, ramps, walkways and work platforms used for permanent means of access and/or for inspection and maintenance operations.

.2 Structural arrangements to facilitate the provision of adequate lighting and

ventilation, and to minimize noise and vibration in spaces normally occupied or manned by shipboard personnel.

.3 Structural arrangements to facilitate the provision of adequate lighting and

ventilation in tanks or closed spaces (e.g. duct keels, pipe tunnels, etc.) for periodic inspections, survey and maintenance.

.4 Structural arrangements to facilitate emergency egress of inspection personnel or

ships crew from tanks, holds, voids, etc. 2 Description of how ergonomic design principles are factored into the design rules,

including any guidance information provided to designers. c. Evaluation criteria 1 Do the Rules require adequate lighting and ventilation in spaces normally manned or

occupied by the crew? 2 Do the Rules require measures to minimize the generation and transmission of noise and

vibration into spaces normally manned or occupied by the crew? 3 Do the Rules require adequate provision of ventilation and lighting in spaces throughout

the ship used for inspection and maintenance? 4 Are relevant IMO requirements included or referred to in the Rules (i.e. bow

access, etc.)? III.10 − Design transparency a. Statement of intent Confirm the design and construction process is transparent, and that design information is clearly stated and made available to the owner and flag State.

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 2

Page 13

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

b. Information and documentation requirements 1 Description of how the Rules require design specific information to be included in the

�Ship Construction File�, including:

.1 Areas requiring special attention throughout the ship�s life. .2 All design parameters limiting the operation of a ship. .3 Any alternatives to the Rules, including structural details and equivalency

calculations. .4 Approved and stamped �as built� drawings and information. .5 Procedures for updating the Ship Construction File over the lifetime of the ship.

2 Description of the process, requirements and criteria for assessing, documenting and

communicating alternate methods as being equivalent to specific Rule requirements. 3 Description of the procedures to ensure that design related correspondence and data

exchanged between the shipyard and class is made available at the request of the owner and/or flag State.

4 Description of the procedures that provide for technical correspondence between yard and

equipment makers to be made available at the request of class, owner and flag State. c. Evaluation criteria 1 Do the Rules establish clear and auditable requirements for including and updating design

specific and critical information, including limitations, in the Ship Construction File? 2 Do the Rules establish clear criteria and techniques for assessing alternate methods used

in the design? Are all equivalencies documented in the Ship Construction File and made available to the owner and flag State?

3 Are there clear and auditable procedures to provide for design and technical

correspondence and data pertaining to the ship to be made available to the owner and flag Administration upon request?

III.11 − Construction quality procedures a. Statement of intent Confirm that the construction tolerances and procedures considered during Rule formulation are verified and maintained during construction.


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

b. Information and documentation requirements 1 Demonstration that the Rules require the shipyard�s construction procedures and

standards to meet a minimum level of quality. Include the following:

.1 Procedures for specifying the materials and their tracking. .2 Assembly requirements, including alignment, joining, welding, surface

preparation, coating, castings, heat treatment, etc. .3 Approval scheme of welding procedure. .4 Qualification scheme of welders. .5 Requirements for yard fit-up and other quality control inspections.

2 Description of actions taken when a shipyard is determined as not meeting the minimum

level of quality construction. 3 Description of the procedures followed when the �as built� is different than �design�.

Include the following:

.1 Criteria for determining when review of the �as built� drawings is required. .2 Criteria for determining when re-evaluation for strength and/or fatigue life is

required. This should include consideration of net scantlings where appropriate. 4 Description of the procedures for ensuring that construction tolerances are verified and

maintained. 5 Description of the procedures used to continuously update the Rules based on

construction and in service experience. 6 Description of how the quality construction requirements have been benchmarked with

recognized international shipbuilding and repair quality standards. c. Evaluation criteria 1 Have the Rules� quality construction requirements been benchmarked? Do they compare

favourably with recognized international shipbuilding and repair quality standards? 2 Are the construction tolerances used in Rule formulations and calculations incorporated

in the construction plan and verified during construction? 3 Do the quality requirements include continuous design improvement based on shipyard

experience?

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 2

Page 15

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

III.12 − Survey during construction a. Statement of intent Confirm that the Rules address all procedures and processes relevant to ensure that the construction of every new ship is carried out to an acceptable quality level. b. Information and documentation requirements 1 Description of the construction survey procedure requirements, including:

.1 Types of surveys (visual, non-destructive examination, etc) depending on location, materials, welding, casting, coatings, etc.

.2 Establishment of construction survey schedule for all assembly stages from the

kick-off meeting through all major construction phases up to delivery. .3 Frequency of surveys. .4 Survey criteria for acceptance. .5 Interaction with shipyard, including notification and documentation of survey

results. .6 Correction procedures to remedy construction defects. .7 List of items that would require scheduling or formal surveys by class. .8 Qualification of surveyors. .9 Determination and documentation of areas that need special attention throughout

ship�s life, including criteria used in making the determination. .10 Procedures for determining the number and qualifications of surveyors for a

project. 2 Description of procedures for providing ship owner and/or flag Administration

representatives results of construction surveys. 3 Description of the requirements for testing during survey, including test criteria. 4 Description of how the construction survey requirements have been benchmarked with

recognized international shipbuilding and repair quality standards. c. Evaluation criteria 1 Have the Rules� construction survey requirements been benchmarked? Do they compare

favourably with recognized international shipbuilding and repair quality standards?


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

2 Do the Rules include acceptance criteria for all tests required? Are the test criteria based on Rule formulation parameters?

3 Do the Rules contain provisions that areas of high stress or fatigue risk identified during

design approval are surveyed with adequate detail and frequency during construction? 4 Do the Rules require the development of a Survey Plan during the initial kick-off

meeting? Does the survey plan address activities during ship construction sufficient to verify the ship is built in accordance with the appropriate rules or standards and address all elements in III.12.b.1?

5 Is survey related correspondence between yard and class relating to vessel design and

construction advised and made available to the owner and flag Administration? 6 Does the classification society have procedures to provide for an adequate number of

qualified surveyors to carry out proposed surveys in accordance with the size of the project?

III.13 − Survey and maintenance a. Statement of intent Verify that the Rules provide for spaces of adequate size to facilitate survey and maintenance. Confirm the Rules provide for the identification of areas requiring special attention over the life of the ship based on design parameter selection. b. Information and documentation requirements 1 Description of the Rule requirements to provide for spaces of adequate size to facilitate

ship survey and maintenance. 2 Description of Rule requirements to identify items for inclusion in an in-service Survey

Plan, including:

.1 Areas of high stress and with special fatigue considerations. .2 Design parameters or features that were selected on the basis of special in-service

survey or maintenance requirements. .3 Other areas that need special attention throughout the ship�s life, including criteria

used in making the determination. c. Evaluation criteria 1 Do the Rules include design requirements to ensure spaces are of adequate size for ship

survey and maintenance? 2 Do the Rules contain provisions for the identification of areas of high stress or fatigue

risk that require monitoring while in-service?

MSC 83/5/1 ANNEX 2

Page 17

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

3 Do the Rules include provisions for the identification of design parameters or features selected on the basis of special in-service survey or maintenance requirements?

4 Do the Rules include provisions for the identification of other parameters needing special

attention during the ship�s life? III.14 − Structural accessibility a. Statement of intent Confirm that the Rules include provisions to facilitate access for internal structural inspection and thickness measurements. b. Information and documentation requirements 1 Description of Rules requirements to facilitate overall and close-up inspections and

thickness measurements of the internal structure. Include the following:

.1 Criteria for determining acceptability of access. .2 Requirements for development of an Access Plan. .3 Requirements for ventilation and lighting in duct keels and other similar type

spaces. c. Evaluation criteria 1 Are relevant IMO requirements included or referred to in the Rules (i.e. permanent means

of access, etc.)? 2 Are there provisions to provide for access to critical areas defined in II.13? If there are

provisions for alternative arrangements, do they offer the same level of safety? III.15 − Recycling a. Statement of intent Confirm that the Rules require the use of materials that are environmentally friendly at recycling. b. Information and documentation requirements 1 [Description of the Rule requirements for ships to be designed and constructed of

materials that are environmentally acceptable at recycling. 2 Description of the process used to determine whether or not materials are acceptable,

including:

.1 List of environmentally acceptable and unacceptable materials.


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

.2 Criteria for evaluating new materials for acceptability/unacceptability. .3 Criteria for determining safety and operational efficiency. .4 Provisions for documenting materials in Ship Construction File. .5 Provisions for documenting changes to any of the above during the vessel�s

service life. 3 Provisions that ships be designed and constructed of materials that are environmentally

acceptable at recycling. 4 Determination of whether or not materials are acceptable:

.1 List of environmentally acceptable and unacceptable materials. .2 Criteria for evaluating new materials for acceptability/unacceptability. .3 Criteria for determining safety and operational efficiency. .4 Provisions for documenting materials in Ship Construction File.

5 Provisions for documenting changes to any of the above during the vessel�s service life.]

***

MSC 83/5/1

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

ANNEX 3

IN SERVICE STRUCTURAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

II.16 − Structural performance monitoring Structural performance data on corrosion/steel renewal, fractures and other structural failures, including catastrophic failures, for ships designed and constructed to the Rules should be collected [periodically] [every five years] over the service life to enable continuous reassessment of the adequacy of the Rules in attaining satisfactory structural performance. The structural performance should be compared to performance metrics and the Rules duly revised if the performance targets are not met. a. Statement of intent Confirm that the Rules incorporate a process for collecting and evaluating structural performance data over the service life. b. Information and documentation requirements 1 Description of the procedures followed to record the historical data on in-service

corrosion and steel renewal for ships constructed to the Rules, which will be collected, including the methods and frequency of data collection.

2 Description of the procedures followed to record the historical data on fractures and other

structural failures including catastrophic failures of the hull girder or other primary hull structure on ships constructed to the Rules.

3 Description of the process that will be used for evaluating these data. 4 Description of the procedures for reporting periodically to IMO the results of the data

collection. 5 Description of the process that will be used for revising Rules if the structural

performance on service corrosion, fractures and other structural failures fails to meet the performance targets.

6 Description of the process that will be used for revising Rules if the analysis of

catastrophic structural failures of the hull girder or other primary hull structure indicates deficiencies in the Rules, or inadequacy of structural redundancy or the residual strength after damage.

c. Evaluation criteria 1 Is the information proposed for collection sufficient to enable assessment of structural

performance against the structural performance target values? 2 Have the procedures for in service data collection been clearly described?


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

3 Is the process for evaluating structural performance data and revising the Rules clearly defined?

4 Are the reports on historical data on in service corrosion, steel renewal, fractures and

other structural failures, including catastrophic failures, intended to be submitted to IMO in periods not exceeding five years?

5 Is the process to revise the Rules on the basis of the structural performance clear with

respect to require changes to the Rules if either steel renewals, fractures or structural failures target limits are exceeded?

6 Is the process to revise the Rules on the basis of the analysis of catastrophic structural

failures clear with respect to require changes in the structural redundancy or residual strength upon the results of such analysis?

MSC 83/5/1

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

ANNEX

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING1 (Example of metrics)

Corrosion and steel renewal assessment At least [TBD]% of ships built to the Rules should satisfy the following steel renewal target:

Over the 25 year service life, structural steel renewal due to corrosion should not exceed [TBD]% of the hull steel weight. The hull steel weight includes all hull structure except the weight of the house and casing.

Structural and fatigue failure assessment At least [TBD]% of ships built to the Rules should satisfy the following structural failure target levels:

Over the 25 year service life, there should be no class A structural failures. A class A failure is a through-thickness fracture in the boundary of the cargo block or the outer hull exceeding 100 mm in length which either creates a pollution incident or severely threatens the structural integrity of the vessel, or a fracture or buckling of an internal strength member which severely threatens the structural integrity of the vessel. Over the 25 year service life, there should be no more than [five] class B structural failures. A class B failure is a through-thickness fracture in the boundary of the cargo block or the outer hull less than 100 mm in length which creates a pollution incident, or a fracture that if left un-repaired for three years would result in a Class A failure. Over the 25 year service life, there should be no more than [twenty-five] class C failures. A class C failure is a fracture more than 50 mm in length that has either initiated in or propagated into a strength member.

Hull girder and primary hull structure failure assessment There should be no catastrophic hull girder failures of tankers and bulk carriers due to corrosion and structural failure (excluding accidental events such as groundings, collisions, allisions and explosions which severely compromise the hull girder structure).

***

1 The text and numbers included in this annex must be interpreted as example only. The metrics could be

established by IMO or it could be the responsibility of the classification society to propose appropriate metrics. The target values are shown as [TBD] indicating they are still to be determined. Due to time constraints, the PP did not deliberate on the actual target values. The intent is that these target values be challenging, but attainable, thereby encouraging continuous improvement. For example, a number of the PP members felt that an appropriate measure for steel renewal is that at least 98% of vessels should not require more than 2% steel renewal due to corrosion over their 25 year service life.

MSC 83/5/1

I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

ANNEX 4

PROPOSED CHANGES TO TIER II FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS II.3 Structural strength II.3.1 Safety margins Ships should be designed with suitable safety margins:

.1 to withstand, at net scantlings∗∗, in the intact condition, the environmental conditions anticipated for the ship�s design life and the loading conditions appropriate for them, which should include full homogeneous and alternate loads, partial loads, multi-port and ballast voyage, and ballast management condition loads and occasional overruns/overloads during loading/unloading operations, as applicable to the class designation; and

.2 appropriate for all design parameters whose calculation involves a degree of

uncertainty, including loads, structural modelling, fatigue, corrosion, material imperfections, construction workmanship errors, buckling and residual strength.

II.3.2 Deformation and failure modes The structural strength should be assessed against excessive deflection and failure modes, including but not limited to buckling, yielding and fatigue.Ultimate strength calculations should include ultimate hull girder capacity and ultimate strength of plates and stiffeners.1 II.3.3 General design The ship�s structural members should be of a design that is compatible with the purpose of the space and ensures a degree of structural continuity. The structural members of ships should be designed to facilitate load/discharge for all contemplated cargoes to avoid damage by loading/discharging equipment, which may compromise the safety of the structure. II.3.4 Ultimate strength Ultimate strength calculations should include ultimate hull girder capacity and ultimate strength of plates and stiffeners.

∗∗ The net scantlings should provide the structural strength required to sustain the design loads, assuming the

structure in intact condition and excluding any addition for corrosion. 1 Moved to II.3.4.


I:\MSC\83\5-1.doc

II.7 Structural redundancy Ships should be of redundant design and construction so that localized damage (such as local permanent deformation, cracking or weld failure) of any onestiffening structural member will not lead to immediate consequential failure of other structural elements leading to loss of structural and watertight integrity of the ship collapse of the complete stiffened panel. II.13 Survey and maintenance Ships should be designed and constructed to facilitate ease of survey and maintenance, in particular avoiding the creation of spaces too confined to allow for adequate survey and maintenance activities. The survey plan in II.12 Areas should also be identifiedy areas that need special attention during surveys throughout the ship�s life. and Iin particular, this should include all necessary in-service survey and maintenance that was assumed when selecting ship design parameters.

___________

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · Prof. Kaj Riska Prof. Rodolfo Tedeschi Mr. C. Dean...

Documents

Transcript of INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · Prof. Kaj Riska Prof. Rodolfo Tedeschi Mr. C. Dean...