ALLIANCE DM & SAS Stockholm Agreement and SOLAS2009 Lisbon, EMSA, 17 th November 2007 Dr Andrzej Jasionowski, The Ship Stability Research Centre, Universities.

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Stockholm Agreement and SOLAS2009

Lisbon, EMSA, 17th November 2007

Dr Andrzej Jasionowski,

The Ship Stability Research Centre, Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde

Andrew Scott

MCA, United Kingdom

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Presentation Outline

• Stockholm Agreement and S’2009• COSS suggestion• SSRC data• Reg 8 implications• LLH case• Conclusions

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Presentation Outline

• Stockholm Agreement and S’2009• COSS suggestion• SSRC data• Reg 8 implications• LLH case• Conclusions

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Stockholm AgreementSA was designed to prevent RoRo accidents such as Herald of Free Enterprise

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Stockholm Agreement

Hs exceeded 10% of the year

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Stockholm Agreement

No.Fatalities

Herald of Free Enterprise

Mar 1987 Rapid Capsize, high list

193

Estonia Sept 1994 Rapid Capsize, high list

852

Samina Express Sept 2000 Collision, Flooding, Sinking

82

El Salam Cob 98 May 2006 Collision, Flooding, Sinking

~1000

These are the cases which never respected the SA standard

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

SOLAS2009

l pn

i

n

jjiji spwA

1 1,

jG

jj dGhplxfssEs ,,,** 4

1

max

1612.0

RangeGZK

j

G

j dGhplxfpj

,,,

RA 9.0s

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

SOLAS2009 “Reg 8”

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Point 1/6

• The SOLAS2009 and Stockholm Agreement are DIFFERENT rules!

• The SOLAS2009 accommodates for RoRo ships vulnerability only “coincidently” (“Russas”)

• No clear technique exists on the bases of which to compare both standards. The risk-based approach seems to be the only alternative.

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Presentation Outline

• Stockholm Agreement and S’2009• COSS suggestion• SSRC data• Reg 8 implications• LLH case• Conclusions

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

COSS - 25 July 2006

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

COSS - 25 July 2006

• 8 out of 11 cases SOLAS2009 stricter than SA

• Suggested to dispense with SA

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Point 2/6

• If it can be concluded that complying with SOLAS2009 is stricter than SA, then why to consider dispensation of SA?

• It “should” be met automatically.

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Point 3/6

• What about the 3 out of 11 cases where SA was found to be stricter than SOLAS2009?

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Presentation Outline

• Stockholm Agreement and S’2009• COSS suggestion• SSRC data• Reg 8 implications• LLH case• Conclusions

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

SSRC study

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

KG limiting curves - SAS3

12.5

12.7

12.9

13.1

13.3

13.5

13.7

13.9

4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5

Moulded Draught (m)

Lim

itin

g K

g (

m)

S'90Intact

A=R

Stockholm Agrement

Reg 8 s>0.90

Reg 8 s>0.99

les

s s

trin

ge

nt

mo

re s

trin

ge

nt

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Point 4/6

• 4 randomly chosen cases demonstrate that Stockholm Agreement is stricter than SOALS2009

• Thus 7 out of 15 cases (~50%) considered in this context show that SA is stricter than S’09

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Presentation Outline

• Stockholm Agreement and S’2009• COSS suggestion• SSRC data• Reg 8 implications• LLH case• Conclusions

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

SOLAS2009

sHcrit

3

1 1,

i

n

jjiji

flood

spwA

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

North Europe

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

South Europe

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Whole Europe

• North and South of Europe divided into 45 regions

• 37 of these regions, (83%), experience waves in excess of 2m during 10% of the year

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Point 5/6

• Reg 8 of SOLAS2009 (~SA damage scenario), s>0.9, only requires survival of a “10%” sea state of Hs=2.0m

• But 83% of Europe experiences seas higher than Hs=2.0m• Stockholm Agreement by assumption is stricter than the

forthcoming SOLAS2009

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Presentation Outline

• Stockholm Agreement and S’2009• COSS suggestion• SSRC data• Reg 8 implications• LLH case• Conclusions

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

SOLAS2009

16245

1 bbpdf

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

SOLAS2009

16245

1 bbpdf

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Multi free surface (MFS) effect during intermediate stages of flooding

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Multi free surface (MFS) effect during intermediate stages of flooding

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Point 6/6

• Reg 8 allows LLH designs with more likely (70%) extensive damage to LLH than that of SA (45%)

• LLH flooding seems to be out width single free surface model adopted by S’09 in stability assessment

• Thus it is not clear what are the implications of applying S’09 for designing of RoRo ship with LLH concept

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Presentation Outline

• Stockholm Agreement and S’2009• COSS suggestion• SSRC data• Reg 8 implications• LLH case• Conclusions

ALL

IAN

CE

DM

& S

AS

Conclusions

• There are no reasons to dispense with SA• Indeed, there are many reasons for retention of SA• If in doubt, await outcome of the latest UK-

sponsored research on SA and SOLAS2009