In welcoming goal-based standards, he
says there is a synergy with the common structural rules under development by class societies. Te process is designed to ensure that the structural rules meet the necessary requirements. Tis presents an opportunity on a continuous basis to “move forward construction standards”; although he stresses that there is no suggestion that current construction standards are sub-standard. Tere was a good deal of debate at IMO
about the timetable for implementation. IACS indicated it could not submit the common structural rules without continuing the harmonisation process between tankers and bulk carriers. “We said there are differences in
requirements between the tanker rules and the bulk carrier rules”, Mr Hinchliffe explained. ICS wanted to see those differences removed to the extent that that was possible and IACS was in agreement with this approach which enabled work already underway to continue. Mr Hinchliffe said IACS put two
proposals on the table, firstly to continue the harmonisation process, in which case the association would not be able to submit the rules until 2013. Alternatively it would not continue with the harmonisation. ICS did not agree with the second option, Mr Hinchliffe said. The last date by which the IMO
Secretariat will be able to process verification requests from classification societies in time to meet the GBS implementation date is 31 December 2013. Verification in this context means verification that the class society rules for ship construction are in conformity with goal based standards. Although some people were not pleased
with the delay to 2013, Mr Hinchliffe said: “We would take the view that it is important that the IMO has adopted the goal-based standards and it is better to do a proper job rather than to rush things through in order to be seen to be doing so”. Te timescale as it stands is “workable
and achievable” he said. In January 2016 the IMO will prepare documentation for audits. In May 2016, the MSC will take final decision on conformity with GBS for all rules submitted. Tat means GBS will be up and running from 1 July 2016. According to Roberto Cazzulo, deputy
The Naval Architect July/August 2010
director of the marine division of Italian class society RINa, the fact that the IMO reached the decision to fix the verification date at the end of 2013 was a good one as it enabled submission to IMO of harmonised structural rules for tankers and bulkers which are under development within IACS.
“The proof of the pudding will be when the IMO has verified the rules, what difference will that make to the rules that have been submitted? Will they verify them or will they make some changes?”
Te importance of the decision was that
the audit committee within IMO would be able to audit each class society on the most up to date technology and rules that the societies can produce. At present details like fatigue analysis or
ultimate strength are slightly different in the common structural rules for tankers as opposed to bulk carriers and this issue can be addressed. The phi losophy behind the
harmonisation work is to take the highest standard when comparing the different methodologies to ensure that the standard to be judged to conform to goal-based standards is the best achievable. Tere will inevitably be sensitivities as to how this issue is addressed. In the work within IACS, it is a “delicate
matter” as to how to benchmark the various methods being proposed, Mr Cazzulo said and most importantly “how to benchmark the results that come from the application of the different methods.” How the rules are tuned will affect such vital issues as scantlings research
will cover a “large population of vessels” he said. All work on the project from smaller
specialist groups will be fed into IACS’ Hull Panel including contributions from non-IACS members should they wish to make them. Although there may be doubts about
whether the necessary deadlines will be met, the decision made at MSC exerts a “positive pressure to allow IACS to complete the job in time”. It also gives individual classification societies the time to incorporate changes into their own rules. The work has to be completed in
IACS six months before the deadline of 31 December 2013 otherwise there would be no time for individual societies to get the approval of their technical committees before submission to the IMO. Information will be shared with other class societies outside IACS, to ensure there are no anti-trust issues. Te European Union (EU) has been
supportive of the goal based standards project according to Mr Cazzulo, as it is in line with EU directives adopting a similar approach in other industries and is considered as a means of developing new technology. Te EU has had its own role to play in
discussions at IMO over the development of GBS. RINa itself has been an “active partner”
in the structural rules harmonisation project. The classification society has developed its own software tool Leonardo, which allows speedy checking of rule results. It is suited for ship structure, allowing a “very easy, very quick definition of the hull”. RINa has also developed the Green Plus
notation which is a goal-based notation for impact on the environment. When a designer has an innovative solution on board ship, Green Plus will reward that solution more than a traditional solution if as a result performance is better. “We believe it is important to balance all the pieces of equipment onboard the vessel to have the best environmental performance, including air, water and other issues. Green Plus is intended to reward solutions that show the best balance.” NA
49
Feature 2
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80