harmonization of subdivision damage stability regulations in solas chapter ii 1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Harmonization of Subdivision & Damage Stability Regulations in SOLAS Chapter II-1 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Harmonization of Subdivision & Damage Stability Regulations in SOLAS Chapter II-1

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 28

Harmonization of Subdivision & Damage Stability Regulations in SOLAS Chapter II-1 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 658 Views
  • Uploaded on

Harmonization of Subdivision & Damage Stability Regulations in SOLAS Chapter II-1. Robert Tagg Herbert Software Solutions, Inc. James Person U.S. Coast Guard (G-MSE-2). Harmonization of Subdivision & Damage Stability Regulations .

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Harmonization of Subdivision & Damage Stability Regulations in SOLAS Chapter II-1' - ziva


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
harmonization of subdivision damage stability regulations in solas chapter ii 1
Harmonization of Subdivision & Damage Stability Regulations in SOLAS Chapter II-1

Robert Tagg

  • Herbert Software Solutions, Inc.

James Person

  • U.S. Coast Guard (G-MSE-2)

Chesapeake Section SNAME

harmonization of subdivision damage stability regulations
Harmonization of Subdivision & Damage Stability Regulations
  • Historical Background & Introduction to Probabilistic Damage Stability Regs
  • SLF 46
  • SDS Correspondence Group
  • MSC 78 Decisions
  • SLF 47 Outcome
  • The Way Ahead

Chesapeake Section SNAME

historical background
Historical Background
  • 1854 – British Maritime Shipping Act
  • 1891 – British Board of Trade (2-compt. Std.)
  • 1895 – German 2-compt. Standard
  • 1912 – Titanic casualty
  • 1914 – First SOLAS Conference
  • 1929 – SOLAS, “Criterion of Service”
  • 1948 – SOLAS, damage stability added
  • 1956 – Andrea Doria casualty, IMCO established
  • 1960 – SOLAS, acknowledged deficiencies

Chesapeake Section SNAME

historical background cont
Historical Background (cont.)
  • 1966 – Loadline Convention (B-60, B-100)
  • 1971 – Tory Canyon casualty, USCG 2-compt. for tankers – MARPOL ‘73
  • 1974 – 1st Probabilistic Standard, A.265
  • 1975 – MARPOL for chemical and gas carriers
  • 1988 – Probabilistic rules for dry cargo ships
  • 1990 – SOLAS, Herald of Free Enterprise

Chesapeake Section SNAME

introduction to probabilistic regulations
Introduction to Probabilistic Regulations
  • Weaknesses in Criterion of Service, Floodable Length, and 2-compt. standard approach
  • The Fundamental Fallacy
  • Wendel and the probabilistic framework
    • Probability of damage size and location
    • Probability of ship condition (draft and permeability)
    • Probability of seastate at time of casualty
    • Probability of survival after flooding

Chesapeake Section SNAME

the fundamental fallacy
The Fundamental Fallacy

Chesapeake Section SNAME

development of probabilistic standards
Development of Probabilistic Standards
  • Damage statistics (Damage Cards)
    • Damage sizes and locations
    • Seastate at time of casualty

Chesapeake Section SNAME

development of probabilistic standards1
Development of Probabilistic Standards
  • Survivability Model Tests
    • Capsize mechanisms
    • Level of stability required to survive specific seastates

Chesapeake Section SNAME

application of probabilistic standards
Application of Probabilistic Standards
  • Find all possible combinations of damaged compartments
  • Determine probability of occurrence for each damage
  • Calculate the probability of survival for each damage
  • Sum all successful cases to yield overall attained probability of survival - A
  • Compare with required probability of survival - R

Chesapeake Section SNAME

history of probabilistic damage stability regulations
History of Probabilistic Damage Stability Regulations
  • 1973 – A.265 Passenger Ship
  • 1992 – SOLAS B-1 Cargo Ship
  • 1993 – SLF begins Damage Stability

Harmonization effort

  • 2000-2003 – EU HARDER Project
  • 2003 – SLF 46
  • 2004 – SLF 47

Chesapeake Section SNAME

overview project harder
Overview – Project HARDER
  • March 2000, a 4.5M€ 3-year project
  • 19 organizations from industry and academia
  • Systematically investigate the validity, robustness, consistency and impact
  • Develop new harmonized damage stability regulations for consideration at IMO

Chesapeake Section SNAME

slf 46
SLF 46
  • Considered HARDER Project results & proposals
    • Majority accepted subject to some further validation
  • Single “R” for all dry cargo ship types
  • Downward trend of survivability for larger passenger ships was unacceptable; the trend should be upwards for larger ships and for ships with greater numbers of passengers
  • Requested guidance from MSC on the “equivalent level of safety” conflict
  • Established the SDS Correspondence Group

Chesapeake Section SNAME

sds correspondence group terms of reference
SDS Correspondence Group – Terms of Reference
  • Coordinate validation of sample ship calculations regarding:
    • p-factor;
    • SEM method & possible introduction of an Hmin factor;
    • transient & intermediate stages of flooding/equalization;
    • minimum values of the index A at specific draughts;
    • required index R;
    • passenger heel and wind moments; and
    • investigate the impact of the proposal on the design of ships, in particular large passenger ships
  • Finalize the draft revised SOLAS Chapter II-1

Chesapeake Section SNAME

sds correspondence group actions
SDS Correspondence Group – Actions
  • Initial task – validate and finalize the calculation methodology
    • various studies, analyses, proposals, etc.
    • an intersessional meeting in Malmö, Sweden
    • Questionnaire voting
    • Summary of results in SLF 47/3/2

Chesapeake Section SNAME

sds correspondence group actions1
SDS Correspondence Group – Actions
  • Re-calculation of sample ships using agreed formulas from Questionnaire results
    • Major formula changes for passenger ships – necessary to recalculate all passenger ships
    • Minor formula change for cargo ships – not necessary to recalculate all cargo ships
    • 52 sample ship calculations conducted
      • 32 passenger ships and 20 cargo ships
    • Analyses for “R” conducted by NTUA
    • Summary of results in SLF 47/3/3

Chesapeake Section SNAME

sds correspondence group actions2
SDS Correspondence Group – Actions
  • Revised SOLAS Chapter II-1 Parts A, B and B-1
    • reviewed and updated draft text
    • submitted version in SLF 47/3/1
  • Proposals for “R” and minimum values of “A”
    • no exact consensus for “R”, but general support for “R” proposals
    • no exact consensus on minimum values of “A” but general support for min “A” proposals
    • summary of results in SLF 47/3/8

Chesapeake Section SNAME

msc 78 decisions confirmed slf 46 opinions
MSC 78 Decisions – Confirmed SLF 46 opinions
  • Same survivability standard “R” for all dry cargo ship types
    • even if ro-ros must meet a higher standard
  • Survivability standard “R” for passenger ships should increase with ship size and number of persons onboard
    • even if this means exceeding current SOLAS
  • Complete harmonization task – finalize revised SOLAS Chapter II-1 for approval at MSC 79

Chesapeake Section SNAME

slf 47 outcome initial decisions in plenary
SLF 47 Outcome – Initial decisions in plenary
  • majority opinion that the proposed harmonized subdivision and damage stability regulations were a technically sound standard and that they should be finalized at SLF 47
    • Italy strongly opposed – they want to delay to allow further validation work (specifically the “p” and “s” factors for large passenger ships)
  • agreed to delete inclusion of SEM method in “s” factor because effects of water on deck already adequately accounted for

Chesapeake Section SNAME

slf 47 outcome sds working group actions
SLF 47 Outcome – SDS Working Group actions
  • Reg 7-1 “p” factor
    • Due to alternate proposal by Italy, damage distributions and statistical analyses for “p” factor were reviewed
    • General majority view that “p” factor in draft reg 7-1 was as accurate and correct as could be expected from the available collision damage statistics

Chesapeake Section SNAME

slf 47 outcome sds working group actions1
SLF 47 Outcome – SDS Working Group actions
  • Reg 7-2 “s” factor
    • based on residual GZ, range, and heel angle
    • intermediate stage flooding criteria only for passenger ships (similar to current SOLAS)
    • additional heeling moments applied only to passenger ships (similar to current SOLAS)
    • SEM method dropped

Chesapeake Section SNAME

slf 47 outcome sds working group actions2
SLF 47 Outcome – SDS Working Group actions
  • Reg 6 Required Subdivision Index “R”
    • Passenger ships
      • considered sample ship calculation results and methodology used to develop “R”
      • considered alternate proposal by ICCL (with standard deviation)
      • agreed to Correspondence Group proposal for “R”
      • Added new minimum partial “A” requirement (0.9R) at each partial draft

Chesapeake Section SNAME

slf 47 outcome sds working group actions4
SLF 47 Outcome – SDS Working Group actions
  • Reg 6 Required Subdivision Index “R”
    • Cargo ships
      • considered sample ship calculation results
      • agreed to Correspondence Group proposal for “R”, except for small ships less than 100m
      • for ships less than 100m, knuckle point and lower “R” line similar to current Part B-1
      • Added new minimum partial “A” requirement (0.5R) at each partial draft

Chesapeake Section SNAME

slf 47 outcome sds working group actions6
SLF 47 Outcome – SDS Working Group actions
  • Reg 9 Double Bottoms
    • Harmonized for passenger & cargo ships
    • DB height = B/20 (min 0.76m & max 2.0m)
    • If full DB not fitted, then must comply with bottom damage survivability standard
    • Current passenger ship DB length applicability limits deleted

Chesapeake Section SNAME

slf 47 outcome final action
SLF 47 Outcome – Final action
  • SLF agreed to the draft revised SOLAS Chapter II-1 Parts A, B and B-1 for submission to MSC 79 for approval with a view to adoption
  • Italy reserved its position (with several others) & intends to submit a proposal to modify the Chapter II-1 draft text directly to MSC 80 for consideration

Chesapeake Section SNAME

the way ahead
The Way Ahead
  • MSC 79 – December 2004
    • considered for approval
    • IMO procedural issue: 6 month interval between approval and adoption; Germany & Denmark sponsored IMO Adoption Circular Ltr
  • MSC 80 – May 2005
    • considered for adoption
  • Into force date (1 January 2007?)

Chesapeake Section SNAME