Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philippe Baumans,
IACS Project Management Team
BV Director of Development Department
CONTENT
Introduction
Description of GBS
Application of GBS in CSR-H
Main GBS issues not directly covered in CSR-H
Consequence Assessment and Schedule
Introduction: Harmonisation of CSR
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
April Harmonization
2006 Detail Plan
PMT Project Management Team
CSR EIF (BV, DNV)
1 - Wave Load
Submission
2 – Buckling to IMO
for GBS
3 - Finite Element Analysis Dec 2013
4 - Corrosion additions
5 - Welding
Deliverables
7 - Ship in operation
– Common part
8 – Fatigue
– Part for specific ship
types (oil tanker and 9 - Prescriptive Requirements
bulk carrier)
10 – Consequence Assessment Total staff: 71
2013/10/24 IMO GBS & IACS CSR-H 3
Description of GBS
• Origin
• Standards
• GBS Tiers
• Tier I : Goals
• Tier II : Main functional Requirements
Goal Based Standard: The origin
IMO Working Groups and Correspondence Group
Tier I – Goals
High-level objectives to be met
Tier I
Tier II
Structural redundancy
• Technical background is under development
• Conclusion: Ship structure, i.e. stiffened panels with
scantlings in accordance with CSR have inherent
redundancy and do not need reinforcement for this
purpose
15
2013/10/24 IMO GBS & IACS CSR-H 15
Structural redundancy
• GBS Guidelines:
– Does a ship designed to the rules have sufficient structural
redundancy to survive localized damage to a stiffening
member?
• “Localized damage” is understood as:
– local permanent deformation,
– cracking or
– weld failure
that might result from accidental damage within the cargo
hold.
• “Stiffening member” is understood as a stiffener attached
to a structural plating panel
2013/10/24 IMO GBS & IACS CSR-H 16
Structural redundancy – Concerned
structural elements
Two categories:
D UD UI 1
D 1 1
UD D I I
Permanent deformation
Numerical studies
Fatigue due to
whipping and springing
• Statistic on operating
routes of existing bulk
carriers and oil tankers
• 3.7% of oil tankers may be
affected by the effect of
whipping and springing
• Failure probability of ships
which may be affected by
whipping and springing:
2.3 and 7.2 % among
population trading in
North Atlantic
• 0.27% of oil tankers face
risk of fatigue damage due
to whipping and springing
(0.27% = 3.7%*7.2%)
• CSRH fatigue sufficient
safety margin against the
effect of whipping and
springing
• Survey
• Human elements
• Ship construction file
• Recycling
►Accessible by anyone
►Comments and questions received from
Industry
►Answers provided by IACS groups
(HPTs, PMTs, Hull panel, etc )
Total 740 Q
on 30 Sep 13
2nd Hearing
Industry
2013-11-01 Final draft
Technical Committee
Review
2013-12-18 Final CSRH
External review period
Technical Committee review IACS Council
IACS adoption Adoption
Entry into force (T.B.D.) Submission 2013-12-31
2013/10/24 IMO GBS & IACS CSR-H 33
IACS Common
Package, 1st Part
Other IACS Individual