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.
September 20, 2007
The Shipbuilders’ Association of Japan
Already approved, in principle
Might be approved,
at MSC83 in principle
Verification of compliance
Practices and Quality System
Tier VStructure of GBS
The trial application of the Tier III verification process using IACS Common Structural Rules (OT-CSR)
requirements and evaluation criteria
will be discussed at MSC 83
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.
Requirements and criteria;
To be appropriate to the current level of technology to avoid time consuming confusion at the application time.
Detailed verification of compliance should be left to the established technical committee of each classification society.
Verification by IMO should be conceptual and methodological
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.
The Pilot panel recommended to establish a requirement of continuous structural performance monitoring, which is a self-assessment of the effectiveness of the Rules.
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.
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.
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.
not work unless unrealistic
requirements and criteria excluded.
Restructure the present information flow
At present, only periodic survey by classification societies is conducted.
When performance metrics are agreed to be developed appropriately, we are ready to cooperate.
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.
IMO-MSC should not get too much involved in commercial issues.
Above incidents can be reduced by adequate inspection, survey, operation and maintenance as well as increase in initial scantlings.
IMO or Class cannot intervene shipyards’ Intellectual properties .
Competitiveness of any shipyard depends on Intellectual properties.