GOAL BASED
NEW SHIP CONSTRUCTION
STANDARDS
Dragos Rauta
INTERTANKO
SAFEDOR
27 January 2005
Germanischer Lloyd, Hamburg
Goal Based Standards
The IMO adopted principles
• since the flag State has this responsibility throughout
the ship’s life, the relevant statutory rules and
regulations should include the standards to which the
ship is designed and the standards to which the ship
is built
• design and building standards should be sufficient to
enable a properly maintained ship to continue in
service until the end of its economic life
• Goal Based New Ship Construction Standards
Goal Based Standards
INTERTANKO Interpretation
• IMO has recognised the need for statutory regulations
for the ship design and for the ship construction
phases.
• There are no such statutory regulations.
• There are no international standards for the
construction of ships.
• There is no unique and well defined standard for
survey of new buildings.
• Class develops CSR for some ship types that can be
”accorded” to the GBS principles.
Goal Based Standards
INTERTANKO Interpretation
• IMO has also recognised that a ship is reliable
and safely serves its purpose only if she is
properly operated and properly maintained.
• Operation and maintenance are the main
factors that influence the condition of ships
after delivery.
• IMO has well defined standard surveys for
ships in service.
• IMO has however no standard to ensure that,
at the time of delivery the ship is in excellent
condition.
Goal Based Standards
INTERTANKO Principles
• A ship will be and will stay fit for purpose if:
–
–
–
–
properly designed
properly constructed
properly operated and
properly maintained
• Therefore, GBS should address all these
aspects but, first things first
• Develop international standards where they are
lacking: i.e. design and construction
Goal Based Standards
MSC 79 Provisional Agreements
• Developed drafts for
– ”basic principles”
– ”goals” (Tier I) and
– ”functional requirements” (Tier II)
• Draft considered as input for future work
• Initial work plan drafted
Goal Based Standards
Divergent Views
• Wide range of divergent views on:
– the methodology used (risk-based; FSA)
– draft functional requirements (Tier II) drafted are
not goal based but rather prescriptive
– not common understanding of the meaning of GBS
– whether to first apply it to oil tankers and bulkers
– whether to first address design and construction
and include maintenance and operation on a
second phase of development
Goal Based Standards
Divergent Views - Germany
• Evaluate the present safety levels - OK but, for
large ships, we know them!
• Procedure for a risk-based evaluation of the
current safety levels – ask Class Societies to
give up comprehensive incident information!
• Establish future risk acceptance criteria – is
already proposed in the draft but contested as
being ”prescriptive”
Goal Based Standards
Owner's Experience
• Present Safety Levels (hazard identification)
– Perception : accidents happen with elderly &
poorly maintained ships only – WRONG!! i.e.
Derbyshire, Amoco Cadiz, Braer, Ievoli Sun, etc.
– Reality: Structural damages in very young ships
– Reality: Major defects in large castings with ships
losing steering, power, etc.
Structural damages in young ships
Class NK: Comprehensive damage review
of 2nd generation of VLCCs, Dec. 1998
Structural damages in young ships
Class NK: Comprehensive damage review
of 2nd generation of VLCCs, Dec. 1998
Defects in large castings
DEFECTS ON RUDDER
found few months after
ship delivery from Korean yard
Defects in large castings
FILLINGS IN
A NEW PROPELLER
found 6 months after
ship delivery from Korean yard
Goal Based Standards
Owner's Experience
• Present Safety Levels (hazard identification)
– Poor design of engine shaft
– Structural misalignment
– Large tankers and large bulkers with significant restrictions
in cargo operations
– Liquid cargo density for calculating sloshing forces
reduced from 1.025 Kg/m3 to 0.9 kg/m3 – there is no rule
to stop ships carrying frequently cargoes with densities
above 0.9 kg/m3.
– Requirements for ballast water exchange with no guarantee
that bending moments would not exceed the maximum
allowable
– Asymetric loads during ballast water exchange with
torsional stresses unkown and not accounted for
KNOWN STERNTUBE BEARING FAILURES
ON BRAND-NEW VLCCs OVER 18 MONTHS
YARD HULL NO.
A
5109
B
1089
B
1090
A
5120
A
5121
B
1164
C
1241
C
1241
DATE
1998-08-17
1998-05-08
1998-07-03
1999-01-05
1999-01-28
1999-10-26
1999-12-02
1999-12-02
The Down Ratchet and the Deterioration of Tanker Newbuilding Standards,
Jack Devanney and Mike Kennedy, 2003
Goal Based Standards
Owner's Experience
• Present Safety Levels (hazard identification)
– Poor design of engine shaft
– Structural misalignement
– Large tankers and large bulkers with significant restrictions
in cargo operations
– Liquid cargo density for calculating sloshing forces
reduced from 1.025 Kg/m3 to 0.9 kg/m3 – there is no rule
to stop ships carrying frequently cargoes with densities
above 0.9 kg/m3.
– Requirements for ballast water exchange with no guarantee
that bending moments would not exceed the maximum
allowable
– Asymetric loads during ballast water exchange with
torsional stresses unkown and not accounted for
Goal Based Standards
Owner's Experience
• Present Safety Levels (hazard identification)
– Mandatory regulations for flooding scenarios which the
ship’s structure will not withstand!
– No rule to assess these by FE
– FE used for ”optimising” and cutting down strength
– VLCCs designed and accepted being ”in class” with a
lightweight below 30,000 tons (normal minimum expected
lightweigth is around 35,000 tons and ideal at least 38,000
tons)
– New ships have an unacceptable high residual stress
– Lack of corrosion protection, etc.
Pitting as discovered on new double
hull tankers (MIC)
Pitting in the tank bottom plate
(MIC)
Goal Based Standards
Conclusions
• Evaluate the present safety levels – Q.E.D.
• Procedure for a risk-based evaluation of the
current safety levels – Which ”current” safety
levels – class rules or class approvals of
”optimised” designs?
• Establish future risk acceptance criteria –
Owners, the customers of the designers, yards
and class have already indicated their expected
safety level
Goal Based Standards
Conclusions
• However, some Governments want to link the
optimum design life of a ship as function of the
interest rates at the time of the ship’s construction ??
(MSC 79/6/15)
• Some Governments want to use FSA to establish
GBS but FSA is just a tool and not a decision making
system. Each time it was used in IMO, FSA process
took years and it failed to materialise.
• Allegations that owners wish a ”maintenance free”
ship. Although such a thought is not against any riskbased concept, this is a completely non-realistic
thought.
Goal Based Standards
Owners/Customers expectations
• GBS is a complex process and needs to be
developed in several stages
• First priority: international standards for
design and ship construction
• Owners assume responsibility at delivery
• GBS to be set for quality ships at delivery
• Shipyards have to assume responsibility for it
over a transition period
Goal Based Standards
Owners/Customers expectations
• Cost and Risk Benefit Analysis – irrelevant as long as
applying to all new ships
• Large ships – first priority
• Life cycle – yes, but when the new buildings’ quality
is defined – (is any intent to a major revision to
SOLAS, MARPOL and all other Codes?)
• Other ship types – yes; large ships are the more
complex to address, easier to deal with other ships
later
Goal Based Standards
•
•
•
•
Owners/Customers expectations
A fast track development in IMO
Commitment from all Governments
Hazards & problems already defined
They all point to same problem: low quality at the
new builing
• No need to re-invent the wheel: improve and apply
current standards as statutory requirements before the
ship is delivered
• ACT NOW! Before a new generation of tankers is
already built
Thank you
Vielen Dank
www.intertanko.com