PART A - VERIFICATION PROCESS
Scope of verification
6 This part establishes the procedures to be followed in order to verify that rules
for the design and construction of bulk carriers and/or oil tankers conform to the
Standards. The verification process consists of two main elements: self-assessment
of the rules by the Submitter and an audit of the rules, the self-assessment and the
supporting documentation by the Organization.
Initial verification
Initiation
7 Any Administration or recognized organization wishing to have its rules verified as
conforming to the Standards should initiate the process with a letter to the
Secretary-General, requesting a verification audit of their rules. The letter should
be accompanied by a complete technical documentation package (see paragraph 10) and
a supporting letter from an Administration that has recognized the Submitter, if
applicable.
8 The Secretary-General notifies the Submitter of his decision to accept or reject
the request and, if accepted, advises the expected date for establishment of the GBS
audit team (the Team) to audit the submission. If the request is rejected, the
Secretary-General will include the reason for doing so.
9 The Submitter may withdraw the application at any time prior to
consideration by the Maritime Safety Committee.
Submission
10 The Submitter should provide a technical documentation package for review in
electronic form in English (to each member of the Team and the Secretariat),
including:
-
.1 the rule set to be verified as conforming to the Standards;
-
.2 all items listed under information and documentation requirements in part
B of these Guidelines which are not included in .1 above and are included in
the internal quality management system or the rule development process as
applicable;
-
.3 a self-assessment, addressing all items listed under information and
documentation requirements and evaluation criteria in part B of these
Guidelines;
-
.4 a clear indication of any instance where a functional requirement, or
portions of it, are satisfied by IMO mandatory instruments that are not part
of the submitted rules (e.g. SOLAS or MARPOL requirements);
-
.5 any other documentation which, in the Submitter's opinion, supports their
assessment that the rules conform to the Standards;
-
.6 a completed Submission Template (see appendix 1);
-
.7 a clear indication of any confidential and/or proprietary information
submitted with the documentation package; and
-
.8 in case a Submitter uses third-party rules, procedures and technical
documentation, the following should be submitted in addition to
sub-paragraphs .1 to .7 above:
-
.1 a clear statement that the use of such rules, procedures and
technical documentation does not infringe any copyright material;
-
.2 clear procedures, as part of the internal quality management
system, for the regular review and continuous improvement of the
submitted rules, procedures and technical documentation; and
-
.3 details of processes, procedures and associated documentation that
ensure proper monitoring and implementation of the third-party
rules.
Audit process
11 The initial verification audit (audit) is an iterative process based on the
following steps:
-
.1 the Secretary-General verifies that the submitted technical documentation
package includes all of the elements specified in paragraph 10;
-
.2 the Secretary-General establishes the GBS audit team and forwards the
request for audit and technical documentation package to the Team with the
instructions given in paragraph 12;
-
.3 the Team reviews the information, confirms completeness of the
documentation submitted, exchanges views and establishes an audit plan;
-
.4 the Team conducts the audit;
-
.5 the Team prepares an interim audit report for the Submitter that contains
the preliminary findings of the audit, requests for additional information
as needed, and possible non-conformities, using the report format specified
in appendix 2. Where the Team has identified a possible non-conformity, they
should explain the reasons for reaching that conclusion;
-
.6 upon receipt of the interim report, the Submitter may respond by
submitting additional documentation through the IMO Secretariat to the Team
to address the reported non-conformities and/or requests for additional
information;
-
.7 the Team prepares a final audit report with a recommendation, using the
report format specified in appendix 2, and provides it to the
Secretary-General with a copy to the Submitter. Where the Team has
identified an unresolved non-conformity, they should explain the reasons for
reaching that conclusion;
-
.8 the Submitter should prepare corrective action plans to address any
non-conformities reported by the Team and submit them to the
Secretary-General;
-
.9 the Team reviews the corrective action plans and sends its recommendation
to the Secretary-General; and
-
.10 the Team's comments and suggestions related to the audit process should
be submitted in a separate report to the Secretary-General.
12 The Team is expected to conduct an audit to determine whether the submitted rules
conform to the Tier I goals and each of the Tier II functional requirements, based
on the criteria in part B of the Guidelines. In undertaking this task, the Team
should exercise their professional judgement in determining the depth of the audit.
13 Where the Submitter can clearly indicate that a functional requirement, or
portions of it, are covered by IMO mandatory instruments (e.g. SOLAS
or MARPOL requirements), but are not part of the submitted rules, the Team
should accept this as part of the verification, provided that it does not affect
other covered functional requirements. Mandatory IMO instruments used to satisfy
functional requirements should be applied in a manner consistent with IMO
interpretations.
14 Timescales for the initial verification audit process should be agreed between the
Secretary-General, the Team and the Submitter at an early stage. Deviations to
agreed timescales can be considered by the Secretary-General upon timely request.
Appeal
15 The Submitter, through their supporting Administration, can appeal a finding of
the GBS audit team to the Secretary-General. Notification of intent to appeal must
be made within 30 days after receiving the Team's final audit report. The appeal
request should follow within six months of the notification with the documentation
to support the appeal request. After the supporting documentation is received, the
Secretary-General should establish an appeal board, independent of the original
Team, to adjudicate the request. This appeal board should be comprised of three or
five members and be selected by the Secretary-General from the same list of experts
described in paragraph 37. These members should not have participated in the Team
that conducted the audit that is being appealed.
Approval
16 The Secretary-General forwards the final audit report of the Team, any corrective
action plans, supplemented by any appeal report and any auditors' recommendations on
the corrective action plans, if applicable, to the Committee for consideration and
final decision.
17 Ships contracted for construction to any new rules or rule changes to rules
already verified as conforming to the Standards may be deemed to meet the Standards
until a final decision is made by the Committee.
18 The Committee considers the submission from the Secretary-General, with a view to
confirming that the information provided by the Submitter demonstrates that the
rules conform to the Standards.
19 Where non-conformities have been found and corrective action plans have been
submitted, the rules and/or the documentation should be revised as necessary and the
documentation to demonstrate rectification of non-conformities according to the
agreed corrective action plans should be submitted for audit (see paragraphs 26.1,
27.1 and 27.3). During this process, ships contracted for construction to any new
rules or rule changes to rules already verified as conforming to the Standards may
be deemed to meet the Standards until a final decision is made by the Committee
unless the Committee agrees that there is a non-conformity that compromises safety.
20 Upon final decision by the Committee, the Secretary-General notifies the relevant
Administration and recognized organization as to whether the submitted rules conform
to the Tier I goals and Tier II functional requirements of the Standards. In the
case of non-conformity, the notification letter should include specific details to
support the determination of non-conformity.
21 The Secretary-General circulates the results of successful verifications to Member
Governments by appropriate means and maintains a list of all rule sets that have
been verified for conformity as well as the original copy of the documentation
package submitted.
Common submissions by groups of Submitters
22 Where documentation is common to more than one recognized organization or
Administration, Submitters may make a request to the Secretary-General to submit a
single package containing all the common documents.
23 Individual recognized organizations and Administrations should also submit their
own documentation demonstrating how the common documents have been incorporated into
their own requirements. The individual package should also include any additional
information which is relevant to the audit. For an initial audit, the individual
submission should be supported by an Administration which has recognized the
Submitter, as required by paragraph 7.
24 Supporting Administrations should receive from the individual Submitter a copy of
any common submission made on behalf of the recognized organization they are
supporting.
25 The Secretary-General may establish a separate Team to evaluate the common
submission. If such a team is established, it should liaise with the Team that is
considering the individual submissions to ensure that findings identified in the
individual package that are related to the common package are addressed.
Maintenance of verification
26 The addition of new rules or changes to rules already verified as conforming to
the Standards may be introduced as a result of:
-
.1 the application of corrective actions emanating from previous verification
audits; or
-
.2 a continuous improvement process, which may take into account the
experience gained and the due consideration by the Administration or the
recognized organization the rules of which have been verified as conforming
to the Standards, which also includes the addressing of observations
stemming from previous verification audits.
27 Addition of new rules or changes to rules already verified as conforming to the
Standards should be processed as follows:
-
.1 if they are as a result of paragraph 26.1 above, each Submitter should
notify and make available any new rules or rule changes, including the
necessary documentation regarding the completion of corrective actions for
the non-conformities reported, to the Secretary-General and to all
Administrations that have recognized them. The notification should include,
at least (see also appendix 3):
-
.1 an extract from the original rule linkage summary table related to
the non-conformity; .
-
2 a copy of the text of the original non-conformity;
-
.3 an explanation of the investigation related to the non-conformity;
-
.4 a copy of the detailed action plan applied, including how the
non-conformity has been rectified and any impact of the corrective
actions;
-
.5 a self-assessment (rule linkage) addressing all non-conformities;
and
-
.6 any supporting documentation, e.g. rule change proposals, updated
technical background documents, changed procedures, etc.
-
.2 If they are as a result of paragraph 26.2 above, at least annually, each
recognized organization whose rules have been verified as conforming to the
Standards should make available any new rules or rule changes, including any
errata, corrigenda or clarifications, to the Secretary-General and to all
Administrations that have recognized them. The Secretary-General should also
be provided with a rule commentary. All changes should be listed in the rule
commentary including their categorization as per paragraph 5.21 and, for
categories 2 and 3 changes, the rule commentary must clearly indicate the
impact of the changes on conformity with the Standards of those rules
already verified. The commentary should include, but not be limited to:
-
.1 an explanation of why the changes were considered necessary,
including a description of the issues under consideration;
-
.2 the extent to which the changes address the issues under
consideration;
-
.3 an explanation of the way the rules were formulated/drafted;
-
.4 an indication of any impact on and/or contribution to safety,
security or environmental protection; and
-
.5 an indication of any impact on net and gross scantlings.
-
.3 The Organization should audit all new rules and rule changes received per
sub-paragraph .1 above. To such an extent, the new rules, rule changes and
the necessary documentation should be submitted in a timely manner. The
Secretary-General should establish a Team accordingly and forward the
compilation of new rules and changes received per sub-paragraph .1 to it for
consideration. The Team should conduct a preliminary review of the new rules
and changes, exchange views and establish an audit plan. The Team conducts
the audit and prepares a verification audit report with a recommendation and
provides it to the Secretary-General with a copy to the Submitter. Where the
Team has identified a non-conformity or an unresolved non-conformity, it
should explain the reasons for reaching that conclusion. The findings of the
Team should be forwarded by the Secretary-General to the Committee for
further consideration and final disposition at the earliest opportunity
after the Committee session that had considered the final audit report and
had decided upon conformity. The Secretary-General should notify the
relevant Submitter(s) as to whether the non-conformity has been rectified.
-
.4 The Organization should review and audit the rule changes
received per sub-paragraph .2 every three years. The Secretary-General
should establish a Team and forward the compilation of annual changes
received per sub-paragraph .2 to it for consideration. Using their
professional judgement, the team should conduct a review of all the changes
taking into account the information submitted, particularly the Submitters'
categorization of the rule changes and the impact assessment, exchange views
and establish an audit plan. Category 3 changes should be subject to audit;
category 2 changes may require an audit depending on the impact of the
change; category 1 changes need not be audited unless the team deems it
necessary. The Team should provide the audit plan to the Secretary-General
for submission to the Committee, and to the Submitters for information.
The Team conducts the audit and prepares a maintenance of
verification audit report with a recommendation and provides it to the
Secretary-General. Where the Team has identified a non-conformity, it should
explain the reasons for reaching that conclusion. The findings of the Team
should be forwarded by the Secretary-General to the Committee for further
consideration and final disposition.
-
.5 When an Administration considers a new rule or rule change described in
sub-paragraph .2 above to result in non-conformity with the Standards, it
may request the Secretary-General to conduct a review of the rule or the
change, respectively. The request should include supporting justification
why such a review is necessary. The Secretary-General should establish a
Team to assess the request of the Administration and the impact of the
change(s) on conformity with the Standards, and then assess the necessity of
conducting an audit, regardless of the three-year cycle. The recommendations
of the Team should be forwarded to the Committee by the Secretary-General,
along with the request from the Administration and supporting documentation,
for further consideration and final disposition.
-
.6 The Submitter may request the Secretary-General to conduct a review of the
rule or the change, respectively. The request should include supporting
justification why such a review is necessary. The Secretary-General should
establish a Team to assess the request of the Submitter and the impact of
the change(s) on conformity with the Standards, and then assess the
necessity of conducting an audit, regardless of the three-year cycle. The
recommendations of the Team should be forwarded to the Committee by the
Secretary-General, along with the request from the Submitter and supporting
documentation, for further consideration and final disposition.
-
.7 Any Administration the rules of which have been verified against the
Standards should be subject to the process described in sub-paragraphs .1 to
.5 above, as applicable.
-
.8 Rules should be considered to be in conformity unless sub-paragraphs .3,
.4 or .5 above result in non-conformities. During the subsequent process
ships contracted for construction to the revised rules may be deemed to meet
the Standards.
Rectification of non-conformities after initial or maintenance audits
28 Where non-conformities are identified and corrective action plans submitted, the
Submitter should prepare a further submission to demonstrate that the non-conformity
has been rectified.
29 The submission should contain the following information (see also appendix 3):
-
.1 an extract from the original rule linkage summary table related to the
non-conformity;
-
.2 a copy of the text of the original non-conformity;
-
.3 a copy of the submitted corrective action plan;
-
.4 details of how the non-conformity has been rectified; and
-
.5 any supporting documentation, e.g. rule change proposals, updated
technical background documents, changed procedures, etc.
30 The Secretary-General will establish an audit team to review the submission and
forwards the documentation package to the Team for the following course of action:
-
.1 The Team should conduct a preliminary review of the new rules and the
changes, exchange views and establish an audit plan. The Team conducts the
audit. The Team may interact with the Submitters for clarification or
requests for additional material.
-
.2 The Team prepares an audit report with a recommendation and provides it to
the Secretary-General with a copy to the Submitter. Where the Team has
identified a non-conformity or an unresolved non-conformity, they should
explain the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
-
.3 The Secretary-General forwards the audit report to the Committee for
consideration and final decision.
-
.4 The Committee considers the report prepared by the Team with a view to
confirming that the information provided by the Submitter demonstrates that
the non-conformity has been rectified.
31 Upon final decision by the Committee, the Secretary-General notifies the relevant
Submitter as to whether the non-conformity has been rectified.
Follow up of observations
32 Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraphs 26 and 27 above, where observations
are identified, the Submitter should prepare a further submission to demonstrate
that an observation has been recognized and will be addressed.
33 The submission should contain the following information:
-
.1 the original documentation related to the observation(s);
-
.2 a copy of the text of the observation(s);
-
.3 a copy of the improvement action(s); and
-
.4 any supporting documentation.
34 During the maintenance of verification audit, any improvement action plans should
be made available to the auditor(s).
35 The Committee may request re-verification of rules if significant changes are made
to the Standards or other IMO mandatory instruments or if there is a compelling
need.
GBS audit team
36 A GBS audit team, established under the auspices of the Committee, will conduct an
audit of the Submitter's documentation package to verify whether the rules conform
to the Standards.
The Team will serve as an independent panel of technical experts which are not
considered to be representing any Member State of the Organization or any
organization in consultative status. The Team should consist of three (3) or five
(5) members, depending on the complexity of the submission(s) and/or the necessary
time to review the documentation package(s), e.g. in case of common submissions. A
simple majority will be required to recommend a finding of non-conformity for a
functional requirement. The voting of individual members will be kept confidential,
with the resulting outcome considered as a decision of the Team. In any case, the
view of the minority should be fully documented in the final audit report of the
Team.
37 Administrations and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the
Organization may nominate individuals for inclusion in a list of experts, maintained
by the Secretary-General, from which the members of the Team will be selected.
Nominations should be provided to the Secretary-General and should be accompanied by
a curriculum vitae.
38 Nominees should have adequate knowledge of, and experience in, ship structural
design and construction, the Standards and classification society rules and rule
development and be able to correctly interpret the rules for correlation with
relevant regulatory requirements. Additionally, nominees should satisfy at least
some of the following requirements:
-
.1 engineering degree in naval architecture and/or structural engineering;
-
.2 scientific or engineering knowledge of technical subjects addressed in
ship structural standards including strength of materials, structural
analysis, fatigue analysis, hydrodynamics and load calculations, and
structural reliability;
-
.3 design, construction or operating experience with the type of ship
addressed by the ship rules being verified;
-
.4 knowledge of ship safety construction requirements, including SOLAS requirements and industry standards, guidelines and
practices;
-
.5 knowledge of environmental protection requirements related to ship
structures;
-
.6 knowledge and experience in survey, inspection and maintenance of ship
structures;
-
.7 knowledge and experience in shipbuilding and ship construction practices;
-
.8 knowledge and experience in auditing; and
-
.9 research experience in any of the areas referred to in subparagraphs .1 to
.7 above.
39 The members of the Team will be selected by the Secretary-General as needed from
the list of experts, giving due consideration to the qualifications listed in
paragraph 38 and ensuring appropriate and balanced representation and expertise for
the specific rules being considered. Additionally, the Secretary-General will select
one of the members of the Team to be responsible for overall coordination of the
audit. The Team should exercise their professional judgement in concluding
compliance with the Standards. Until reports are issued to the Committee, this audit
process is understood to be between the auditors and the Submitters and information
related to the process should be maintained in confidence between these parties.
Team members should not have any conflict of interest relating to the rules being
verified. In addition, Team members should act in a neutral manner.
40 Each member of the GBS audit team or of the appeal board should sign a
confidentiality agreement with the Secretary-General, stating that they will not
disclose any proprietary information that is provided to them for the purpose of
verifying rules, with the exception of the documentation required for the interim or
final reports.
41 The Team should consider the need for transparency throughout their deliberations.
The Team should meet in person with the Submitter at least once during the audit
process at a mutually agreed location and date to address any questions and issues
that may arise during the audit process, review any additional documentation needed
to complete the audit, and to share their preliminary findings.
42 The Secretary-General will provide the GBS audit team with adequate administrative
assistance to support the verification process, including a permanent secretary.
PART B - INFORMATION/DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
INTRODUCTION
43 This part provides detailed information and documentation requirements and
evaluation criteria to assist the Submitter to conduct a self-assessment that the
rules conform to the Tier I goal(s) and Tier II functional requirement(s) of the
Standards, as outlined in part A. It includes a statement of intent, information and
documentation requirements, and evaluation criteria for each Tier II functional
requirement. Additionally, the information and documentation requirements and
evaluation criteria serve as the auditing standard for the GBS audit team.
44 The statement of intent links Tier II functional requirement(s) to Tier III
verification of conformity by providing an overview of what the verification of the
particular functional requirement should achieve.
45 The information and documentation requirements establish specific items that
should be included and addressed in the submission supporting the verification.
46 The evaluation criteria should be considered as the basis for conducting the
self-assessment and audit.
47 One or more information and documentation requirements may be applicable to one or
more evaluation criteria. This relationship will depend upon the nature and extent
of the information and documentation required, as well as the scope and extent of
the evaluation criteria.
48 Justification means providing the supporting data, analysis or other study that
demonstrates the adequacy of the methodology, process or requirement. It should
include:
-
.1 basis for the assumptions made;
-
.2 description of the uncertainties associated with them; and
-
.3 any sensitivity analyses carried out.
It includes documented rationale on which the validity of the hypothesis or criteria
used in the requirements or calculations are based. These may be the results of
research work, historical data, statistics, etc. For example, justification of
safety factors should describe how the many related assumptions and uncertainties,
such as environmental conditions, loads, structural analysis methodology and
strength criteria, are accounted for.
49 Where commentary or data are requested, it is sufficient for such information to
be contained in a rule commentary or other supporting documentation.
50 Where the rules establish a process to evaluate and accept alternatives, the
submission should clearly identify the process for determining that an equivalent
level of safety is achieved.
INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
DESIGN
1 Design life
1.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the specified design life is at least 25 years and incorporated in the
rules.
1.2 Information and documentation requirements
1.2.1 Statement of the design life in years used in developing the rules.
1.2.2 Description of the assumptions and methods used to incorporate design life into
the rules. This should include, but not be limited to, consideration of extreme
loads, design loads, fatigue and corrosion.
1.3 Evaluation criteria
1.3.1 Are structural strength, fatigue and corrosions additions, and any other design
parameters used in the rules based upon the specified design life?
1.3.2 Has the design life been applied in sections of the rules where specified?
2 Environmental conditions
2.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the wave data and associated ship motions and loads are developed on the
basis of North Atlantic environmental conditions and the relevant long-term sea
state scatter diagrams for the specified design life.
2.2 Information and documentation requirements
2.2.1 Source of sea state data (scatter diagrams, etc.) including method and date of
data collection and geographical location represented by the data.
2.2.2 Justification that sea state data and predictions used to develop motions and
loads are representative of North Atlantic environmental conditions.
2.2.3 Justification of the methodology used to develop ship motions and loads,
including assumptions related to speed, distribution of headings, number of cycles
of wave encounters, probability of exceedance of design values, sea states, wave
spectral shapes, hull form and other relevant parameters. Clearly define limits of
applicability and provide guidance for assessment when outside this range.
2.2.4 Description of how the methodology used to develop ship motions and loads has
been validated against experimental or service history data.
2.3 Evaluation criteria
2.3.1 Does the wave data properly represent North Atlantic conditions and include the
regions where the most severe conditions are expected?
2.3.2 Do the rules specify the wave spectrum and statistical analysis methods used to
obtain the design extreme value, including its probability of exceedance?
2.3.3 Are the design extreme motions and loads based on appropriate number of cycles
of wave encounters corresponding to at least a 25-year design life?
2.3.4 Are the ship speeds and headings used for assessment of ship motions and loads
based upon speeds and headings that can be expected in the sea states under
consideration?
2.3.5 Do the rules properly specify the range of applicability of ship motions and
loads, and when further analysis, such as direct seakeeping analysis or model
testing, is required? Do the rules clearly state the assumptions used in the
methodologies to develop ship motions and loads?
2.3.6 Are the methodologies used to develop ship motions and loads validated by
experimental or service history data?
3 Structural strength
3.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the rules require a ship to be designed to withstand at net scantlings
the operational and environmental loads for its specified design life. Confirm that
the rules include the appropriate safety margins which reflect the degree of
uncertainty.
3.2 Information and documentation requirements
3.2.1 Description of how the rules provide net scantlings that are sufficient to
avoid excessive deformation (either elastic or plastic, as appropriate) and prevent
failure modes including, but not limited to, those involving yielding and buckling
of hull girder and structural members. Include the following:
-
.1 Description of the strength assessment methodology.
-
.2 Explanation of how the net scantlings concept is applied in the rules for
structural design.
-
.3 Justification of the methodologies used to obtain the global and local,
static and dynamic design loads.
-
.4 Justification of the acceptable limits of yielding and buckling.
-
.5 Explanation of how the rules prevent deformation from compromising the
integrity of the ship's structure. The term "deformation" means
translational and/or rotational displacement.
-
.6 Explanation of the requirements for finite element structural modelling,
including load application, boundary conditions, element selection and mesh
size. Explanation of how primary, secondary and tertiary stresses are
considered.
-
.7 List of the loading conditions considered in the rules that are to be
included in the structural evaluation. Justification of the loading
conditions especially in terms of what parts of the structure may be
critically loaded and stressed.
-
.8 Description of how construction tolerances and procedures, and material
imperfections are accounted for in the rules.
-
.9 Justification of the rationale of the rules for weld design and
procedures.
-
.10 Justification of how structural continuity is taken into account in the
rules, including termination of primary structures at the fore and aft ends
of the cargo block.
-
.11 Explanation of how the rules consider deformations or vibration levels
that may damage or impair the ship structure, equipment or machinery.
-
.12 Description of the safety factors in conjunction with assumed design
load(s) and justification as to why they are appropriate.
-
.13 Description of how the strength assessment methodology has been validated
against experimental and service history data.
-
.14 Example(s) of the rules applied to representative design(s). The
example(s) should include an illustration of the midships section and of the
cargo region showing net and gross scantlings, as well as a summary of the
background calculations used to develop the scantlings.
3.2.2 Explanation of how the rules consider structural integrity at net scantlings
for typical loading/discharging and ballast exchange scenarios, including criteria
to determine acceptability and provide reasonably attainable sequences of loading,
discharging and ballasting.
3.2.3 Justification of the methodology used for the calculation of local stresses,
including stress concentration factors, if utilized.
3.2.4 Justification of how the rules account for sloshing effects.
3.2.5 Description of how the rules determine that the net scantlings are sufficient
to provide adequate ultimate strength. Include the following:
-
.1 description of the ultimate strength assessment methodology;
-
.2 justification of how the net scantlings concept is applied in the rules
for ultimate strength;
-
.3 justification of the loads considered for the ultimate strength analysis;
-
.4 explanation of the methodology used for calculating hull girder capacity
and ultimate strength of plates and stiffeners, individually and in
combination;
-
.5 description of acceptable limits of ultimate strength, including safety
factors, with justification why they are appropriate; and
-
.6 description of how the ultimate strength assessment methodology has been
validated against experimental and service history data.
3.2.6 Description of any protective arrangements and/or reinforcements required to
avoid damage caused by loading/unloading equipment that would compromise the ship's
structural integrity.
3.3 Evaluation criteria
3.3.1 Do the rules specify the probability of exceedance for which global and local
dynamic loads are calculated?
3.3.2 Are the limits of yielding, buckling and ultimate strength set at levels that
will maintain the structural integrity?
3.3.3 Do the rules satisfactorily consider deformations that may compromise the
integrity of the ship's structure?
3.3.4 Do the rules adequately specify the required extent of finite element models
and how ship structures should be modelled, including how boundary conditions and
loads are to be applied, and elements and mesh size selected? Are primary, secondary
and tertiary stresses properly accounted for?
3.3.5 Are the following loading conditions included: homogeneous, partial, alternate
loads, multi-port, ballast conditions including ballast management, and loading and
offloading sequences and intermediate conditions? Are these, and any other
conditions identified in the loading or stability manuals, considered without
exceeding allowable bending moments, shear forces and stresses?
3.3.6 Is the methodology for developing the lightship and deadweight load
distributions clearly defined, in a way that it will be consistently applied?
3.3.7 Do the rules satisfactorily consider workmanship standards and construction
tolerances?
3.3.8 Do weld designs and procedures provide a level of strength of welds in their
net condition to withstand the expected loads on the joints?
3.3.9 Are the requirements for tapering primary structures, including transitions
fore and aft of the cargo block, defined in sufficient detail in the rules?
-
.1 Where prescriptive measures are specified, do these measures provide for
adequate continuity and termination of primary structure and primary
supporting members?
-
.2 Where analytical methods are allowed for evaluating structural continuity,
is the methodology sufficiently defined to enable adequate assessment of the
proposed arrangements for the termination of primary structure and primary
supporting members? Do these analytical methods include both the local
stress evaluation and the effect of the relative stiffness of the members at
the termination?
3.3.10 Do the rules satisfactorily consider deformations or vibration levels that may
damage or impair the ship structure, equipment or machinery?
3.3.11 Do the rules include adequate safety factors?
3.3.12 Do the rules include methodology for the development of local loads, including
specifying the characteristics of intended cargoes relevant to loading (cargo
arrangement, minimum density, angle of repose for bulk cargo) and minimum density of
ballast to be applied?
3.3.13 Do the rules specify procedures for direct calculation of local stresses in
structural details. If direct calculation is not required, do the rules include
definition and application of stress concentration factors? If stress concentration
factors are utilized, a justification of the definition and application of these
factors should be included.
3.3.14 With regard to local strength:
-
.1 Do the rules require the structure in way of cargo and ballast spaces to
be suitable for any level of filling, from empty to maximum capacity (where
maximum capacity is either full or the clearly defined operational limit on
filling height or cargo mass)?
-
.2 Do the rules define loading conditions for evaluation, including the
loaded/empty condition of adjacent cargo and/or ballast spaces, and the
draughts to be considered for each loading condition?
-
.3 For oil tankers, do the rules consider any reasonable combination of cargo
or ballast space loading, including asymmetric loading and loading in any
one athwartships row across to be empty at or near the scantling draught?
-
.4 Do the assumed draught limits and assumed densities and other cargo
characteristics cover the expected operational range?
-
.5 Do the local strength evaluations consider the effects of maximum
allowable still water and wave bending and shear loads on the structure?
-
.6 Are sloshing effects adequately covered by the rules?
3.3.15 Do the rules require adequate protective arrangements and/or reinforcements to
avoid damage caused by loading/unloading equipment that would compromise the ship's
structural integrity?
3.3.16 Have the results from the strength and ultimate strength assessments been
benchmarked? Do they compare favourably with service history and other standards?
3.3.17 Do the illustrations of the representative designs show net and gross
scantlings? Do the background calculations show how the structure at net scantlings
withstands the operational and environmental loads for the specified design
life?
4 Fatigue life
4.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the fatigue life is not less than the specified design life.
4.2 Information and documentation requirements
4.2.1 Description of how the rules provide that structural arrangement and net
scantlings are sufficient to meet a calculated fatigue life not less than the
specified design life. Include the following:
-
.1 Description of the fatigue assessment methodology used in the rules
including sea state data, long-term statistics of wave data applied in
fatigue calculations, derivation of cyclic loads, calculation of stress
ranges, modelling of their distribution functions, S-N curves used and
factors of safety or margins taken.
.2 Explanation of where and how the net scantlings concept is applied in the
rules for fatigue. Justification of the values of the scantlings used in the
calculations.
.3 List of the loading conditions required by the rules to be considered as
part of the fatigue evaluation. Justification of the selection of loading
conditions.
.4 Justification of how the rules take into account dynamic loads and their
combinations, including the probability level for which dynamic loads are
calculated.
.5 Justification of the process for the selection of the structural members
and typical critical design details required to be included in evaluation of
ship's fatigue life.
.6 Justification of procedures for the calculation of cyclic stresses and
stress ranges in structural details. Explanation of the method used to take
into account stress concentrations, as may be applicable to the detail
analysed.
.7 Explanation of the requirements for finite element structural modelling,
including load application, boundary conditions, element selection and mesh
size. Explanation of how primary, secondary and tertiary stresses are
considered.
.8 Description of how construction tolerances and procedures are accounted
for in the rules. Description of how surface treatment, such as grinding and
peening, is addressed in the rules.
.9 Description of how the rules consider the effect on fatigue life of
unprotected structural details in seawater (e.g. when the breakdown of
coating leads to exposure to seawater).
.10 Description of how the rules take into consideration slamming (e.g.
whipping) and vibratory-induced fatigue effects (e.g. springing or propeller
induced vibrations). Justification should be provided if not explicitly
considered in fatigue assessment.
.11 Explanation of the effect of uncertainties/assumptions on fatigue life,
highlighting any margins used in fatigue calculations, taking into
consideration the consequence of failure of the particular structural
member.
.12 Description of how the fatigue assessment methodology has been validated
against experimental and/or service history data.
4.3 Evaluation criteria
4.3.1 Is the methodology used in fatigue life assessment properly justified? Are the
explanations provided to cover the sea state data used, long-term statistics of wave
data applied, derivation of cyclic loads, method of calculation of the stress ranges
and their distribution functions, S-N curves used and the factors of safety or
margins taken, satisfactory?
4.3.2 Are the values of the scantlings required to be used in the calculations
properly justified according to the net scantlings concept?
4.3.3 Are the assumed operating conditions (e.g. loaded and ballast) specified by the
rules in the long-term fatigue response analysis adequate for a representative
ship's operating profile? Are the stress ranges so obtained appropriate to represent
the long-term fatigue response?
4.3.4 Are the internal/external dynamic loads and their combinations based on the
North Atlantic environment? Is the probability level for which these loads are
calculated properly justified?
4.3.5 Do the rules require the systematic identification of areas prone to fatigue
throughout the entire ship that are required to be included in the evaluation of the
ship's fatigue life?
4.3.6 Are the procedures for the calculation of cyclic stresses and stress ranges in
structural details properly justified?
4.3.7 Do the rules properly take into account stress concentrations, as may be
applicable to the detail analysed?
4.3.8 Do the rules specify the required extent of finite element models and how ship
structures should be modelled, including how boundary conditions and loads are to be
applied, and elements and mesh size selected? Are primary, secondary and tertiary
stresses properly accounted for?
4.3.9 Do the rules satisfactorily consider construction tolerances and procedures? Is
surface treatment, such as grinding and peening, adequately considered?
4.3.10 Do the fatigue life calculations consider degradation of coating performance
under seawater environment?
4.3.11 Do the rules take slamming (e.g. whipping) and vibratory-induced fatigue
effects (e.g. springing or propeller induced vibrations) into consideration? If not
explicitly considered in fatigue assessment, is adequate justification provided?
4.3.12 Do the rules satisfactorily account for uncertainties or assumptions on
fatigue life assessment?
4.3.13 Have the results from the fatigue life assessment methodology been
benchmarked? Do the results compare favourably with service history and other
standards?
5 Residual strength
5.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the rules provide a reasonable level of residual strength after damage
(e.g. collision, grounding and flooding).
5.2 Information and documentation requirements
5.2.1 Description of how ships designed to the rules with intact structure at net
scantlings have sufficient ultimate strength to sustain flooding as defined in
relevant IMO instruments.
5.2.2 Justification that ships designed to the rules have adequate residual strength
to survive a casualty event. Include the following:
-
.1 Description of the methodology used to assess residual strength.
-
.2 Description of the flooding scenarios and the corresponding structural
damage. Explanation of the relationship of the flooding scenarios with IMO
instruments.
-
.3 Description of the environmental conditions and period of exposure
representative of the sea states expected for collision and grounding
scenarios, and justification why they are appropriate.
-
.4 Description of the acceptance criteria for residual strength of the ship
in damaged condition, and justification if different from ultimate strength.
-
.5 Where it is determined that the rules inherently provide adequate residual
strength, justification should be provided that demonstrates through
analysis of a range of representative ship designs and loading conditions.
5.2.3 Description of how the residual strength assessment procedure has been
validated with experimental and/or casualty history data.
5.3 Evaluation criteria
5.3.1 Can a ship designed to the rules sustain flooding as defined in relevant IMO
instruments and survive with intact structure at net scantlings?
5.3.2 Does a ship designed to the rules have sufficient residual strength to survive
a more significant casualty event (e.g. flooding with structural damage due to
collision or grounding) under environmental conditions consistent with the
likelihood of occurrence? Are the assumed damage scenarios representative of the
intent of damage in relevant IMO instruments?
5.3.3 Has the residual strength assessment procedure been validated with experimental
and/or casualty data?
6 Protection against corrosion
6.1 Coating life
6.1.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the coatings are properly selected and applied to protect the structure
throughout the target useful life of the coating.
6.1.2 Information and documentation requirements
6.1.2.1 Provision of information on coating life and mandatory use of coatings,
including:
-
.1 mandatory locations and/or spaces where coatings are required to be used;
-
.2 types of coating to be used for the various spaces;
-
.3 required target useful life of the coating and explanation for selection;
and
-
.4 the coating performance standard to be followed (e.g. IMO PSPCfootnote where mandated).
6.1.2.2 Description of the requirements to be followed in spaces where other
corrosion prevention systems are used.
6.1.2.3 Description of the procedures used to verify that the selected coating system
with associated surface preparation and application methods is compatible with the
shipyard production processes.
6.1.2.4 Description of the procedures used to verify that the specified coating
procedures have been followed.
6.1.2.5 If an alternative is proposed to that prescribed by IMO instruments,
justification to support the selection of coating standards and target useful life
of the coating or areas of application.
6.1.3 Evaluation criteria
6.1.3.1 Do the rules include appropriate requirements to achieve stated target useful
life of the coating and fulfil SOLAS
requirements as a minimum?
6.1.3.2 Do alternative or additional requirements allowed by the rules provide
protection levels at least equivalent to those required by SOLAS?
6.1.3.3 Are the procedures indicated in 6.1.2.3 and 6.1.2.4 adequately documented in
the rules?
6.1.3.4 Is adequate justification provided to support the use of alternatives to
SOLAS or other IMO instruments?
6.2 Corrosion addition
6.2.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the rules for corrosion addition values are rationally based and
adequate for the specified design life.
6.2.2 Information and documentation requirements
6.2.2.1 Description of the methodology used to determine values for the design
corrosion additions so that the scantlings remain above net scantlings over the
specified design life.
6.2.2.2 Description of how assumed corrosion rates and rule design corrosion
additions are determined based on ship type and location within the hull.
Description should address how stress corrosion and any other modes of accelerated
corrosion have been taken into consideration.
6.2.2.3 Description of any additional rule requirements that provide special
consideration for other parameters such as unusual cargoes, loadings, trading
patterns, material properties, etc.
6.2.2.4 Description of how corrosion of welds and heat-affected zones are
considered.
6.2.2.5 Description of the steel/structure renewal criteria.
6.2.2.6 Description of how the methodology to determine corrosion addition and
establish steel/structure renewal criteria has been validated against experimental
and service history data.
6.2.3 Evaluation criteria
6.2.3.1 Does the methodology and supporting statistical data justify the corrosion
additions?
6.2.3.2 Confirm that reductions in the rule design corrosion additions are
prohibited.
6.2.3.3 Is consideration given to the corrosion of welds and heat-affected zones?
6.2.3.4 Do the rules clearly establish the steel/structure renewal criteria? For
ships in service, do the renewal criteria provide for scantlings that are not less
than the required net scantlings and that produce a hull girder section modulus
within SOLAS requirements?
6.2.3.5 Has the methodology used to determine corrosion addition and establish
steel/structure renewal criteria been benchmarked? Does it compare favourably with
experimental and service history data?
7 Structural redundancy
7.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the rules require sufficient redundancy to withstand localized damage in
any one stiffening structural member.
7.2 Information and documentation requirements
7.2.1 Demonstration that the rules have adequate requirements to provide ship
structural redundancy.
7.2.2 Description of the requirements for localized damage assessments, including
where applicable, modelling in finite element structural analysis.
7.2.3 Description of how the methodology used to assess structural redundancy has
been validated against experimental and/or service history data.
7.3 Evaluation criteria
7.3.1 Does a ship designed to the rules have sufficient structural redundancy to
survive localized damage to a stiffening member?
7.3.2 Are the methods for assessing the consequences of localized damage
satisfactorily described?
7.3.3 Has the methodology used to assess structural redundancy been validated? Does
it compare favourably with experimental or casualty history data?
8 Watertight and weathertight integrity
8.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the rules require adequate watertight and weathertight integrity for
North Atlantic environmental conditions, including adequate strength for the closing
arrangements and adequate redundancy for the securing devices.
8.2 Information and documentation requirements
8.2.1 Description of the rule requirements for watertight and weathertight
integrity.
8.2.2 Description of how the rules consider criteria from IMO instruments for
determining which openings in the hull envelope are required to be watertight or
weathertight.
8.2.3 Explanation of the criteria used in the development of the rules to determine
that the strength and redundancy for closing arrangements, if appropriate, of the
watertight and weathertight openings is adequate for the environmental conditions
and specified design life.
8.3 Evaluation criteria
8.3.1 Do the rules satisfy all relevant IMO watertight and weathertight integrity
requirements?
8.3.2 Do the rules require sufficient strength for closing arrangements and securing
devices to meet environmental conditions, design loads and specified design life? Do
the rules require securing devices to have adequate redundancy?
9 Human element considerations
9.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the rules incorporate human element and ergonomic considerations into
the structural design and arrangement to facilitate operations, inspection and
maintenance activity.
9.2 Information and documentation requirements
9.2.1 Description of how the rules consider human element and ergonomics during the
structural design and arrangement of the ship, including:
-
.1 stairs, vertical ladders, ramps, walkways and work platforms used for
permanent means of access and/or for inspection and maintenance operations;
-
.2 structural arrangements to facilitate the provision of adequate lighting
and ventilation, and to minimize noise and vibration in spaces normally
occupied or manned by shipboard personnel;
-
.3 structural arrangements to facilitate the provision of adequate lighting
and ventilation in tanks or closed spaces (e.g. duct keels, pipe tunnels,
etc.) for periodic inspections, survey and maintenance; and
-
.4 structural arrangements to facilitate emergency egress of inspection
personnel or ships' crew from tanks, holds, voids, etc.
9.2.2 Description of how ergonomic design principles are factored into the design
rules, including any guidance information provided to designers.
9.3 Evaluation criteria
9.3.1 Are human element and ergonomic considerations accounted for in the design of
stairs, vertical ladders, ramps, walkways and work platforms?
9.3.2 Do the rules address structural or other arrangements to facilitate adequate
lighting and ventilation in spaces normally manned or occupied by the crew?
9.3.3 Do the rules address structural or other measures to reduce the generation and
transmission of vibration to a level at or below the acceptable ergonomic standards
for spaces normally manned or occupied by the crew?
9.3.4 Do the rules address structural or other arrangements to facilitate adequate
lighting and ventilation for the purposes of inspection, survey and maintenance?
9.3.5 Do the rules require structural arrangements to facilitate emergency egress
from tanks or closed spaces?
10 Design transparency
10.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the design and construction process is transparent, and that design
information is clearly stated and made available to the classification society, the
owner and the flag State, with due consideration to intellectual property
rights.
10.2 Information and documentation requirements
10.2.1 Description of how the rules require design specific information as required
by SOLAS regulation II-1/3-10 to be included in the Ship Construction File (SCF),
including:
-
.1 areas requiring special attention throughout the ship's life;
-
.2 all design parameters limiting the operation of a ship;
-
.3 any alternatives to the rules, including structural details and
equivalency calculations;
-
.4 "as built" drawings and information which are verified to incorporate all
alterations approved by the recognized organization or flag State during the
construction process;
-
.5 procedures for updating the SCF throughout the ship's life;
-
.6 net (renewal) scantlings for all the structural constituent parts; and
-
.7 minimum hull girder section modulus along the length of the ship which has
to be maintained throughout the ship's life.
10.2.2 Description of the process, requirements and criteria to be followed when
assessing, documenting and communicating alternative methods as being equivalent to
specific rule requirements.
10.2.3 Description of procedures for ensuring that all relevant design and
construction information, including correspondence exchanged between shipyard and
recognized organization, is available to the owner and flag State during the
construction process.
10.3 Evaluation criteria
10.3.1 Do the rules establish requirements for including and updating design specific
and critical information, including limitations, in the SCF?
10.3.2 Do the rules establish clear criteria and techniques for assessing alternative
methods used in the design? Do the rules require that all equivalencies are
documented in the SCF and are made available to the owner and/or flag State?
10.3.3 Do the rules establish procedures to provide all relevant design and
construction information, including correspondence exchanged between shipyard and
recognized organization, e.g. on net scantlings, corrosion margins used, etc., to be
made available to the owner and flag State during the construction process?
CONSTRUCTION
11 Construction quality procedures
11.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the rules contain provisions for ensuring that construction tolerances
and procedures assumed during rule formulation are implemented during
construction.
11.2 Information and documentation requirements
11.2.1 Demonstration that the rules require the shipyard's construction procedures
and standards to meet a minimum level of quality. Include the following:
-
.1 procedures for specifying the materials and their tracking;
-
.2 assembly requirements, including alignment, joining, welding, surface
preparation, coating, castings, heat treatment, etc.;
-
.3 approval scheme of welding procedures;
-
.4 qualification scheme of welders; and
-
.5 requirements for yard fit-up and other quality control inspections.
11.2.2 Description of actions taken when a shipyard is determined as not meeting the
minimum level of quality construction.
11.2.3 Description of the procedures followed when the "as built" is different than
"design". Include the following:
-
.1 Criteria for determining when review of the "as built" drawings is
required.
-
.2 Criteria for determining when re-evaluation for strength and/or fatigue
life is required. This should include consideration of net scantlings where
appropriate.
11.2.4 Description of the procedures for ensuring that construction tolerances are
verified and maintained.
11.2.5 Description of the procedures used to continuously update the rules based on
construction and in-service experience.
11.2.6 Description of how the quality construction requirements have been benchmarked
with recognized international shipbuilding and repair quality standards.
11.3 Evaluation criteria
11.3.1 Are the construction tolerances used in rule formulations and calculations
incorporated in the construction plan and verified during construction?
11.3.2 Do the quality requirements include continuous design improvement based on
experience?
11.3.3 Have the rules' quality construction requirements been benchmarked? Do they
compare favourably with recognized international shipbuilding and repair quality
standards?
12 Survey during construction
12.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the rules include provisions to ensure that the construction of ships is
carried out to an acceptable quality level.
12.2 Information and documentation requirements
12.2.1 Description of the construction survey procedure requirements, including:
-
.1 types of surveys (visual, non-destructive examination, etc.) depending on
location, materials, welding, casting, coatings, etc.;
-
.2 establishment of a construction survey schedule for all assembly stages
from the kick-off meeting, through all major construction phases, up to
delivery;
-
.3 inspection/survey plan, including provisions for critical areas identified
during design approval;
-
.4 survey criteria for acceptance;
-
.5 interaction with shipyard, including notification and documentation of
survey results;
-
.6 correction procedures to remedy construction defects;
-
.7 list of items that would require scheduling or formal surveys;
-
.8 qualification of surveyors;
-
.9 determination and documentation of areas that need special attention
throughout ship's life, including criteria used in making the determination;
and
-
.10 procedures for determining the number and qualifications of surveyors for
a project.
12.2.2 Description of procedures for providing shipowner and/or flag Administration
representatives results of construction surveys.
12.2.3 Description of the requirements for testing during survey, including test
criteria.
12.2.4 Description of how the construction survey requirements have been benchmarked
with recognized international shipbuilding and repair quality standards.
12.3 Evaluation criteria
12.3.1 Do the rules require the development of a Survey Plan that is reviewed during
the initial kick-off meeting? Does the survey plan address activities during ship
construction sufficient to verify the ship is built in accordance with the
appropriate rules or standards and address all elements in 12.2.1?
12.3.2 Do the rules contain provisions that areas of high stress or fatigue risk
identified during design approval are surveyed with adequate detail and extent
during construction?
12.3.3 Do the rules have procedures to provide for an adequate number of qualified
surveyors to carry out proposed surveys in accordance with the size of the project?
12.3.4 Is survey related correspondence between shipyard and recognized organization
relating to ship design and construction made available to the owner and flag
Administration?
12.3.5 Do the rules include acceptance criteria for all tests required? Are the test
criteria based on rule formulation parameters?
12.3.6 Have the rules' construction survey requirements been benchmarked? Do they
compare favourably with recognized international shipbuilding and repair quality
standards?
IN-SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS
13 Survey and maintenance
13.1 Statement of intent
Verify that the rules provide for spaces of adequate size to facilitate survey and
maintenance. Confirm that the rules provide for the identification of areas
requiring special attention over the life of the ship based on design parameter
selection.
13.2 Information and documentation requirements
13.2.1 Description of the rule requirements to provide for spaces of adequate size to
facilitate ship survey and maintenance.
13.2.2 Description of rule requirements to identify items for inclusion in an
in-service Survey Plan, including:
-
.1 areas of high stress and with special fatigue considerations;
-
.2 any other areas that need special attention throughout the ship's life,
including criteria used in making the determination (e.g. wave impact
loading, mechanical impact areas, special materials, etc.); and
-
.3 structural design features that were selected on the basis of special
in-service requirements.
13.3 Evaluation criteria
13.3.1 Do the rules include design requirements to provide for spaces of adequate
size for ship survey and maintenance?
13.3.2 Do the rules contain provisions for the identification of areas of high stress
or fatigue risk that require monitoring while in service?
13.3.3 Do the rules include provisions for the identification of structural design
features selected on the basis of special in-service requirements?
13.3.4 Do the rules include provisions for the identification of any other areas
needing special attention during the ship's life?
14 Structural accessibility
14.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the rules include provisions to facilitate access for internal
structural inspection and thickness measurements.
14.2 Information and documentation requirements
Description of rule requirements to facilitate overall and close-up inspections and
thickness measurements of the internal structure. Include the following:
14.3 Evaluation criteria
14.3.1 Are there provisions to provide for safe access to critical areas referred to
in 13.2.2?
RECYCLING CONSIDERATIONS
15 Recycling
15.1 Statement of intent
Confirm that the rules require the listing of materials used for the construction of
the hull structure with a view toward identification of environmentally acceptable
or recyclable materials and the development of an inventory list.
15.2 Information and documentation requirements
15.2.1 Description of the rule requirements for listing of materials, including:
-
.1 list of materials used for the construction of the hull structure;
-
.2 provisions for listing of materials in the Ship Construction File; and
-
.3 provisions for documenting changes to any of the above during the ship's
service life.
15.3 Evaluation criteria
15.3.1 Do the rules include provisions for the listing of materials used for the
construction of the hull structure within the scope of the Standard, including:
15.3.2 Do the rules include provisions for documenting changes to any of the above
during the ship's service life?