You are on page 1of 10



A. W. Hussein, A. P. Teixeira & C. Guedes Soares

Unit of Marine Technology and Engineering, Technical University of Lisbon,
Instituto Superior Tcnico, Lisboa, Portugal

In April 2006, the New Commons Structural Rules (CSR) were entered into force, promising more robust, safe,
and fit for purpose ships. The Joint Bulker Project which worked to establish these rules offered single
requirements for the hull scantlings to be applied by all the IACS members to prevent possible competition
between Classification Societies on the minimum safety standards. The common structural rules is based on IMO
Goal Based Standards and the feedback given by industry during the extensive hearing periods before
establishing the rules. In this paper, the outlines of the new rules are explained. A comparison between the
ultimate strength of three bulk carriers designed according to the CSR and the Bureau Veritas (BV), representing
the old traditional rules, is made showing that the ultimate strength of the ships will increase when it is designed
according to the New CSR.

1. INTRODUCTIO reallocating the steel and corrosion margins To create a
N within a design to for standard ship single set of
those areas subject to types, beginning with Rules
The Classification the greatest stress. tankers. The IACS applicable by
societies role is to Classification Joint Tanker Project all IACS class
establish and apply societies were drawn (JTP) and the new societies.
technical standards in into this competitive Common Structural To eliminate
relation to the design, environment with the Rules for tankers are competition
construction and yards pitting one the culmination of that between class
survey of marine society against project.(Horn, 2005) societies on
related facilities another for approval scantlings.
including ships and of a new design. The IACS Joint Bulk To meet IMO
offshore structures. Carrier Project (JBP) Goal-Based
Traditional The result has been is a comparable Standards
prescriptive Rules growing ship-owner development, for philosophy.
were based on discontent with the single and double side To build safe,
empirical experience. lack of robustness of skin bulk carriers. robust and fit
They tended to favor the vessels being Following initial for purpose
the side of caution. A offered to them by the development and ships.
tanker or bulk carrier, shipbuilders who also harmonization of To employ the
built in the 1970s, impose significant these two pilot combined
incorporated cost penalties for any projects, IACS experience of
significantly higher deviation from the Council intends to all class
amounts of steel than approved standard, adopt the resulting societies.
a comparable vessel minimum steel weight Rules as IACS
built today. Although design. Although ship- Common Rules for The new Rules are not
the traditional system owners had previously tankers and bulk based on the existing
had worked well for supported the carriers. Rules of any one
many years, the traditional society but reflect the
progress of classification Rule- The JBP comprises combined experience
computerization making approach, as the following seven of all the IACS
opened a loophole that they believed it IACS members: members. The result is
grew steadily wider encouraged technical - BV: Bureau Veritas a standard that
with each new innovation, they also - CCS: China exceeds the existing
generation of recognized that the Classification Society individual
increasingly system was being - ClassNK: Nippon requirements of any
sophisticated ship abused to their Kaiji Kyokai one IACS member.
design and evaluation ultimate detriment. - GL: Germanischer Because of the
software. Lloyd combined technical
Computerization has As the self-regulatory - KR: Korean Register input of all societies to
given designers the mechanism for the - RINA: Registro the rule making
ability to optimize a industry, class Italiano Navale process, users will
design. responded. In March - RS: Russian identify certain
2001 ABS, DNV and Maritime Register of elements from
Unfortunately, most LR jointly announced Shipping different societies
shipyards have chosen that they would work existing approaches,
to interpret to establish common The main objectives but no element is
optimization as criteria for ship of those common rules dominant.
meaning minimum structural design, are:
possible steel weight, including The new Common
rather than hydrodynamic loads Rules provides the
detailed technical matter of high permit innovation in 4. Specific
standards that are importance for IMO design but at the same enough in
required to translate which has been time ensure that ships orders not to
the safety goals that included in the are constructed in be open to
will be established by Organizations such a manner that, if differing
the IMOs Goal Based strategic and long- properly maintained, interpretations.
Standards initiative, term work plans and they could remain safe
into practical, also in the work for their economic It is understood that
enforceable criteria. program of its life. The standards these basic principles
IACS acted in a Maritime Safety would also have to were developed to be
manner that takes Committee (MSC). ensure that all parts of applicable to all goal-
proper account of the The premise behind a ship could be easily based standards
deliberative nature of the development of accessed to permit developed by IMO
the IMO process. The goal-based standards proper inspection and and not only goal-
IMO Goal Based is that IMO should ease of maintenance. based new ship
Standards (GBS) play a larger role in IMO goal-based construction
initiative is aimed at determining the standards are: standards, in
establishing an fundamental standards recognition that, in the
overarching to which new ships 1. Broad, over- future, IMO may
framework for future are built. This section arching safety, develop goal-based
standards. It is also a describes the meaning environmental standards for other
process that may take of goal-based and/or security areas, e.g. machinery,
several years to reach regulation. (IMO, standards that equipment, fire-
a conclusion. The 2004) ships are protection, etc. and
IACS Common required to that all goal-based
Structural Rules have meet during standards developed
been developed with The notion of goal- their lifecycle; by the Organization
the Goal Based based ship 2. The required should follow the
Standards firmly in construction level to be same basic principles.
mind. It is expected standards was achieved by
that the IACS introduced in IMO at the There was general
Common Structural the 89th session of the requirements agreement with a five-
Rules will dovetail Council in November applied by tier system as shown
neatly with the IMOs 2002 through a class societies in figure 1(Han,
standards, providing proposal by the and other 2004). We can briefly
the detail that is Bahamas and Greece, recognized say that on the first
necessary to bring suggesting that IMO organizations, tier comes the goal,
those standards to should play a larger Administration which should be
fruition. role in determining the s and IMO; achieved. The second
standards to which 3. Clear, tier contains a set of
2. PRINCIPLES new ships are built, demonstrable, requirements relevant
OF THE traditionally the verifiable, long to the functions of the
PROPOSED responsibility of standing, ship structures to be
IMO GOAL- classification societies implementable complied with in order
BASED and shipyards. and to meet the above-
STANDARDS achievable, mentioned goal. Third
The paper argued that irrespective of tier provides the
The development of the Organization ship design instruments necessary
goal-based new ship should develop initial and for demonstrating that
construction standards ship construction technology; the detailed
is a new subject standards that would and requirements in the
fourth Tier comply been adhered to
with the goals and the throughout the project
functional and this ensures that 4.1 DESIGN LIFE
requirements. Tier the logical consistency
four is the detailed and structure will be The ships hull girder
requirements maintained. (Card e al, strength should be
developed by IMO 2004) sufficient enough to
and classification withstand North
societies. Tier five Atlantic Ocean
contains the industry conditions for 25
standards that are years (25 year return
applied during the period). The North
design and Atlantic is regarded as
construction of a ship. the most severe. The
ship can live longer
The Committee also than this design life if
agreed that the first it is properly
three tiers constitute maintained or if it
the goal-based operates in more
standards to be benign environment.
developed by IMO, Figure 2 Framework for
whereas Tiers IV and Development. 4.2 NET SCANTLING
V contain provisions APPROACH
developed/to be Figure 1 Goal Based 4. PRINCIPAL
developed by Regulatory Frame Work. NEW The net scantling
classification ELEMENTS approach is the most
societies, other 3. COMMON important feature of
recognized STRUCTURAL It is very important to the CSR. It provides a
organizations and RULES know the differences direct link between the
industry DEVELOPMEN between the new thickness that is used
organizations. T common structural for strength
rules and the classical calculations during the
The mechanisms by During the rules. We can design stage and the
which the goal-based development of the summarize the minimum steel
standards will be put rules there was basic differences as follows thickness accepted
in place are as principles used. This (ABS Report, 2006): during the operational
follows; IMO sets the framework which life of the ship. The
goals, IACS develops follows these Design life of strength calculations
classification rules principles is 25 years are based on net
and regulations that summarized in figure Net scantling scantlings. Figure 3
meet the so- 2. The objectives are approach shows the relation
determined goals and set at the highest level. Dynamic between the net
finally Industry, A systematic review loading in scantlings and the
including IACS, determines the North Atlantic gross scantlings. The
develops detailed elements that should environmental corrosion addition,
guidelines and be considered, conditions which is added to the
recommendations for followed by setting Buckling net thickness to get
wide application in out the general Fatigue life the gross thickness, is
practice. assumptions and then Ultimate Limit different from element
the design principles. State of the o the other.
This structure has hull girder Previously, in the
classical rules, the design conditions and longitudinals with
corrosion addition operating conditions. Buckling is also transverse structural
used to be a specifically addressed. elements, and fatigue
percentage of the plate Under these The new Rules analysis procedure
thickness. The CSR circumstances, JBP contain simplified using finite element
defined different developed practical formulae to check computation of the hot
additions depending n estimation methods of buckling capacity of spot stress. A very fine
the location of the design sea states for panels and main mesh is used, where
element and the structural members of supporting members. the size of membrane
surrounding bulk carriers. The They also provide for elements is about the
environment. The design sea state more intensive thickness of the
values of these proposed is the short- assessment when structural component
additions have been term sea state that deemed necessary. considered.
computed from the generates response
statistical analysis of a values equivalent to 4.5 FATIGUE LIFE The stress range for
large set of thickness the long-term calculating fatigue
measurement data on predictions of stress The fatigue damage is computed
oil tankers and bulk (North Atlantic Ocean, assessment is using local
carriers. whole year, mandatory in the new thicknesses in the
exceedance CSR. It is based on critical areas,
probability Q=10Extra
, all representing the
navigation in the
headings). North Atlantic during condition of the
tw structure averaged
tgross required tcorr 25 years of service,
For more practical with 85% of the time over the whole
use, JBP developed at sea. Fatigue is dealt lifetime of the vessel,
tcorr 2.5
practical estimation with using a linear evaluated to half the
methods for cumulative damage corrosion diminution
tnet required equivalent
trenewal design summation in expected after 25
wave (EDW) which is combination with the years of service.
the design regular S-N curves published
wave corresponding to by UK Department of 4.6 ULTIMATE LIMIT
Figure 3 Net Thickness a regular wave that Energy and an STATE
Methodology. generates response assumed long-term
values equivalent to stress distribution The safety of the
4.3 A DYNAMIC the response values according to a two- structure is assessed
LOADING APPROACH generated under the using limit states for
parameters Weibull
design sea state, and distribution. The different structural
The accuracy of the loads acting on the reference stress response modes using
design loads has been hull structure under parameter in the a top-down approach,
considered to be an equivalent design Weibull distribution is from the hull girder as
extremely important waves. In JBP CSR, computed for 104 top level, followed by
requirement since it the equivalent design cycles stiffened panels,
significantly wave (EDW) method primary members
influences the final is used to set the The rules provide two down to individual
structural scantlings design loads which different methods for structural components
and the safety of the include lateral loads calculation of fatigue (plates and stiffeners).
ship structure. and hull girder loads damage and expected
Furthermore, design in still water and in fatigue life; Simplified o Ultimate limit
loads should be waves. method for calculation state, such as
closely linked with the of the fatigue strength failure of the
4.4 BUCKLING of connections of main hull
structure due dynamic and rules for the first the vessel, type of
to yielding and accidental flooding single hull Bulk profiles used and
plastic loads. Carrier. Figure 5 degree of high tensile
collapse, or shows the material. Table 2
failure due to 5. IMPACT OF requirements for both shows the differences
buckling of THE CSR ON rules for the first in the section modulus
hull stiffened THE MIDSHIP single hull Bulk for the three designs
panels, etc., SECTION Carrier. as calculated by the
o Serviceability DESIGN HILLCOL using the
limit state, a scantling taken from
condition in To study the Impact of MARS2000
which the ship the Common
can no longer Structural Rules on
perform its the design of the
intended midship section of Table 2 HULLCOL
function bulk carriers, three Section Modulus.
properly, bulk carriers were re- Single Hull BC 1
o Fatigue designed according to
limit state, the new requirements 3
SM Deck m 9.7
where failure of the CSR. The
SM Bottom m3 16.37
is caused by requirements are
excessive compared with the Single Hull BC 2
fatigue damage requirements of the
Figure 4 Rule CSR
or by a crack Bureau VERITAS, as 3
Requiemnets for Bulk SM Deck m 37.64
growing above one of the old
Carrier 1. SM Bottom m3 42.81
a certain value, classical rules. The
o Accidental three ships are having Double Hull BC 3
limit state, the principal
where spaces dimensions shown in
SM Deck m3 41.31
within the table 1.
SM Bottom m3 47.44
cargo area are
accidentally Table 1 principal
dimensions In general, the
flooded. The majority of the
structure is Dimensions in m LBP Breadth
Single Hull BC 1 176 changes are in deck
basically longitudinals, lower
supposed to Single Hull BC 2 282
Double Hull BC 3 282 part of hopper plating,
retain its intact side shell plating, and
strength bottom plating due to
properties but The scantling of the
buckling and yielding,
is checked three bulk carriers
Figure 5 Rule and side and bottom
with flooding were calculated using
Requiemnets for Bulk longitudinals due to
loads. MARS2000, which is Carrier 2. fatigue can be
one of the supporting
For each category of tools of the Joint expected.
limit state, a number Bulker Project. The The new rules are
of load actions are software calculates the seen to give a slight 6. IMPACT OF
taken in combination scantling according to increase in hull girder THE CSR ON
on the ships structure. the CSR and the BV. sectional modulus. THE
These actions include The change in steel ULTIMATE
static loads, Figure 4 shows the weight and scantlings STRENGTH
environmental requirements for both depend on the size of
The ultimate strength using HULLCOL carrier 2 and 3
of the three bulk software, which is a respectively.
carriers is calculated program for Table 4 HULLCOL
by the MARS2000. as progressive collapse Ultimate Strength
it is obvious in the analysis of ship hull-
Single Hull BC 1
section modulus girder developed by
comparisons, that the Gordo et al (Gordo et
MU Sag ( 2.89E+12
real increase is in the al, 1996).
MU Hog ( 4.59E+12
deck section modulus, Table 3 MARS Ultimate
which will Bending Moment
Single Hull BC 2
consequently increase Single Hull BC 1 CSR Figure 5 Bending
the sagging bending Moment Curvature
CSR MU Sag ( 12.34E+12
moment. Table 3 Mu Sagging 2.32E+12 Curve, Bulk Carrier1
MU Hog ( 12.205E+12
shows the ultimate Mu Hogging 3.32E+12
bending moment in
Double Hull BC 3
sagging and hogging Single Hull BC 2
conditions for the CSR
Mu Sagging 11.5E+12 MU Sag ( 13.81E+12
three bulk carriers and
Mu Hogging 11.4E+12 MU Hog ( 14.84E+12
the percentage of the
differences. Double Hull BC 3
C S R It can be seen from the
It is important to note Mu Sagging 11.47E+12three figures, that the
that, the MARS Mu Hogging 11.41E+12ultimate strength is
calculates the ultimate always improved for
strength based on the The scantling used in the CSR designed
net scantling. For the the assessment was ships especially in
CSR, it uses the net the pure scantling as sagging conditions.
scantling + 0.5 calculated by the For hogging it is
corrosion margin. For MARS without either improved or it
the BV it uses the net corrosion addition. is almost the same.
scantling + 0.9 Table 4 shows the
corrosion margin. ultimate strength as
Nevertheless, the calculated by the
ultimate strength for HULLCOL.
the CSR section is
higher than the BV The bending moment- Figure 6 Bending
section. Moment Curvature
curvature curves are Curve, Bulk Carrier2
calculated for the
As shown in table 3 , three bulk carriers
that due to the using HULLCOL.
increase in the Figure 5 shows the
scantlings, the bending moment-
ultimate strength of curvature curves for
the CSR was always the single hull bulk
higher by an average carrier 1 in sagging
of 6.34% for sagging and hogging. Figures
and 6.48% for 6 and 7 show the
hogging. bending moment-
curvature curves for
The ultimate strength the single hull bulk
was also assessed
to the BV. This gave
improvement in the

For the side element

on study, the CSR
asked for 11.5 mm in
thickness while the
BV 10.75 mm. the
Figure 7 Bending section modulus was Figure 9 Stress strain
Moment Curvature almost the same. relation ship Bulk
Curve, Bulk Carrier3 Carrier 2
The tank top plating
7. IMPACT OF according to CSR was From the figures 8 and
CSR DESIGN 11.5 mm and 9 we can always see
ON ELEMENTS according to the BV that the ultimate
BEHAVIOUR 10.5 mm. The stresses of the
required section elements are improved
Some random modulus was 300 cm3 or at least it is the
elements were according to the CSR same. This result
selected in different and 330 cm3 either form increase in
locations: deck, side according to BV. The the plat thickness or
and tank top plating. ultimate stress was section modulus of the
The stress-strain almost the same. stiffener or sometimes
relationship is both.
estimated using
HULLCOL to study The DNV and the
the differences in ABS, which are
element behaviour members in the Joint
when designed Figure 8 Stress strain Tanker Project, said
according to the new relation ship Bulk that the increase of
Carrier 1
requirements of the weight will be in the
CSR. range of 3- 4 % and
occasionally even
Figure 7 shows the somewhat higher.
results of bulk carrier (DNV Report, 2006)
1. Figure 8 and 9
show the results of
bulk carrier 2 and 3
For the deck element
the net thickness
according to the CSR
was 20.5 mm and
according to the BV
14.75 mm. The
required section
modulus according to
the CSR was 419 cm3
and 300 cm3 according
experience and deck plating, side maintenance
latest technical shell plating, costs and
expertise of the hopper tank increase the
world leading plating and the margin of
classification side tank plating. safety.
societies. It
promises more Increase in deck REFERENCES
safe, robust and fit and side
for purpose ships. longitudinals was ABS, 2004. Activities
Report, June 2004.
always required. ABS, 2006. IACS
The rules Sometimes the Common Structural
dovetailed neatly inner bottom Rules-at a Glance.
with the IMOs longitudinals was Bureau Veritas, 2000.
Classification for Rules
standards, increased. Classification of Steel
providing the Ships.
necessary details Even if the overall Bureau Veritas, 2000,
which make those scantlings are MARS2000-Users
guide, Bureau Veritas,
standards somewhat Marine Division
achieved. increased, it is Development
important to note Department.
The net scantling that in some areas Bureau Veritas, 2006. A
Commentary on the
approach, which is the corrosion IACS Common
one of the main margins may be Structural Rules for
features of the slightly lower than Tankers and Bulk
CSR, is intended according to the Carriers. Report
DCM06/0033 FJV,
to ensure that, previous practice. Feb. 2006.
with protective Hoppe, H. 2005. Goal
coating and good The ultimate Based Standards- A
maintenance, the strength of the hull New Approach to the
minimum global girder increased Regulation of Ship
and local strength by average of 6% Construction, Journal
requirements to for the ship of Maritime Affairs,
resist all the designed October 2005, Vol.4,
failure modes will according to the IACS, (2000),
be met over the CSR. Recommendation No.
ships intended 34, Standard Wave
service life. The new Rules Data, Rev. 1.
IACS, 2004.Core
will result in Environmental and
The comparison more robust Safety Parameters
between the ships that Used as Basis in the
Figure 10 Stress strain Joint Tanker Project
relation ship Bulk traditional rule should be and Joint Bulker
Carrier 3 requirements (BV safer and more Project, Document,
rules) and the New environmentall Common Structural
CSR for bulk y friendly. Rules, Aug-2004.
8. CONCLUSION IACS, Common Structural
carriers showed When properly Rules for Bulk carriers
some areas operated and 2006.
The Common
required more maintained, MSC, 2004. Goal-Based
Structural Rules New ship Construction
scantlings when they should
(CSR) is the result Standards, Maritime
designed offer reduced
of the combined Safety Committee,
according to the through-life Report MSC 78/6/2,
CSR, namely; the repair and Feb 2004.
Card,J. Haugland, B. &
Pomeroy,V., 2004.
Developing the Next
Generation of
Classification Rules for
Oil Tankers. Royal
Institute of Nava
DNV, 2006. Owners
Guide to Common
Structural Rules for
Bulk Carriers, DNV
Gil-Yong Han. Ship
Design Rules and
Regulations- An
overview of major
themes, Rouge Waves
Workshop 2004.
Parunov, J., and Guedes
Soares, C., (2006).
Structural Reliability of
a Suezmax Oil Tanker
Designed According to
New Joint Tanker
Project Rules. Proc.
Int. Conf. on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic
(OMAE2006), ASME,
Hoppe, H. 2005. Goal
Based Standards- A
New Approach to the
Regulation of Ship
Construction, Journal
of Maritime Affairs,
October 2005, Vol.4,
Horn, Gary E. 2005. The
Development of
Common Structural
Rules for Tankers,
Conference on Design
and Operation of
Double Hull Tankers in
Gordo, J. M., Guedes
Soares, C. & Faulkner,
D. 1996. Approximate
Assessment of the
Ultimate Longitudinal
Strength of the Hull
Girder, Journal of Ship
Research, 4(1): 60-69.
Guedes Soares, C &
Teixeira, A.P. 2000.
Structural Reliability of
two bulk carriers
designs. Marine
Structures, 13(2): 107-