Imo goal based standards a shipbuilders opinion
1 / 19

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

IMO Goal-based Standards A shipbuilders ’ opinion. September 20, 2007 The Shipbuilders ’ Association of Japan NISHIYAMA, goro. Contents Structure of GBS Pilot panel for Tier III Performance Monitoring SAJ ’ s Opinion on IMO-MSC. IMO. Tier I. Goals. Already approved, in principle.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - huy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Imo goal based standards a shipbuilders opinion

IMO Goal-based StandardsA shipbuilders’ opinion

September 20, 2007

The Shipbuilders’ Association of Japan


Imo goal based standards a shipbuilders opinion


  • Structure of GBS

  • Pilot panel for Tier III

  • Performance Monitoring

  • SAJ’s Opinion on IMO-MSC

Structure of gbs


Tier I


Already approved, in principle




Tier II


Might be approved,

at MSC83 in principle

Verification of compliance

Tier III

Classification Society

Tier IV

Detailed Requirements

Industry Standards,

Practices and Quality System


Tier V

Structure of GBS

Pilot panel
Pilot Panel

The trial application of the Tier III verification process using IACS Common Structural Rules (OT-CSR)

Deliverables of pilot panel
Deliverables of Pilot Panel

  • Draft guidelines for the verification of compliance with GBS

    • Part A: Tier III verification process

    • Part B: Tier III information/documentation

      requirements and evaluation criteria

  • Structural performance monitoring (new proposal)

  • And etc.

    will be discussed at MSC 83

Tier iii guidelines proposed by pilot panel
Tier III Guidelines proposed by Pilot Panel

TierⅢ Criteria proposed by PP contains unachievable ones even by the state-of-the-art technology for some time in the future.

e.g. Fatigue by slamming or vibration, residual strength in damaged condition, etc.

Saj s opinion on tier iii verification of compliance
SAJ’s opinion on Tier III verification of compliance

Requirements and criteria;

To be appropriate to the current level of technology to avoid time consuming confusion at the application time.

Saj s opinion on tier iii verification of compliance1
SAJ’s opinion on Tier III verification of compliance

Detailed verification of compliance should be left to the established technical committee of each classification society.


  • Very wide knowledge of structure will be needed to verify the compliance

  • A lot of time to conduct the verification work will be needed if only by Group of experts.

    Verification by IMO should be conceptual and methodological

Saj s opinion on tier iii
SAJ’s opinion on Tier III

Before approval of Tier III;

Process and requirements proposed by Pilot Panel to be used for verification of Oil Tanker CSR by members similar to the Group of Experts and demonstrate their adequacy after MSC83.

Members for Group of Experts should be composed of experts from research institutes, shipowners, class and shipbuilders evenly.

Phase in time;

Sufficient phase-in time between adoption and entry into force of the GBS requirements to be prepared.

Introduction of the structural performance monitoring into gbs
Introduction of the Structural performance monitoring into GBS

The Pilot panel recommended to establish a requirement of continuous structural performance monitoring, which is a self-assessment of the effectiveness of the Rules.

Content of performance monitoring
Content of Performance Monitoring GBS

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 becollected [periodically] [every five years] over the service life to enable continuous reassessmentof the adequacy of the Rules in attaining satisfactory structural performance. The structuralperformance should be compared to performance metrics and the Rules duly revised if theperformance targets are not met.

Saj s position on performance monitoring
SAJ GBS’s position on Performance Monitoring

We support the preliminary proposal “in general” as it is essential to establish transparent process in which the cause of failure is continuously analyzed and countermeasures are taken appropriately.

Issues to be pointed out on performance monitoring
Issues to be pointed out GBSon Performance Monitoring

Structural steel renewal due to corrosion or fatigue fracture depends on not only inadequacy of the rule but also defects of repair works, inappropriate operation, survey, inspection and maintenance. These incidents might be dominated by specific shipbuilders, owners, classes or operators.

Saj s opinion on performance monitoring
SAJ GBS’s opinion on Performance Monitoring


adequately classified.

Feedback system;

not work unless unrealistic

requirements and criteria excluded.

Saj s opinion on performance monitoring1
SAJ GBS’s opinion on Performance Monitoring

Restructure the present information flow

  • among flag states, owners, builders and classification societies,

  • continuous record of operation, inspection and maintenance

    At present, only periodic survey by classification societies is conducted.

    When performance metrics are agreed to be developed appropriately, we are ready to cooperate.

Saj s opinion on the role of imo msc 1
SAJ GBS’s opinion on the Role of IMO MSC(1)

Roles of IMO-MSC should be to focus on developing regulations to prevent loss of lives due to causalities and destruction of environments.

IMO-MSC should not be involved in any too detailed requirements which do not directly lead to above things in order to avoid unnecessary confusion.

Saj s opinion on the role of imo msc 2
SAJ GBS’s opinion on the Role of IMO MSC(2)

IMO-MSC should not get too much involved in commercial issues.

  • Corrosion

  • Fatigue cracks

  • etc.

    Above incidents can be reduced by adequate inspection, survey, operation and maintenance as well as increase in initial scantlings.

Saj s opinion on the role of imo msc 3
SAJ GBS’s opinion on the Role of IMO MSC(3)

IMO or Class cannot intervene shipyards’ Intellectual properties .

Competitiveness of any shipyard depends on Intellectual properties.

  • R&D

  • Experience