Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "ALLIANCE DM & SAS Stockholm Agreement and SOLAS2009 Lisbon, EMSA, 17 th November 2007 Dr Andrzej Jasionowski, The Ship Stability Research Centre, Universities."— Presentation transcript:

1 ALLIANCE DM & SAS Stockholm Agreement and SOLAS2009 Lisbon, EMSA, 17 th November 2007 Dr Andrzej Jasionowski, The Ship Stability Research Centre, Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde Andrew Scott MCA, United Kingdom

2 ALLIANCE DM & SAS Presentation Outline Stockholm Agreement and S2009 COSS suggestion SSRC data Reg 8 implications LLH case Conclusions

3 ALLIANCE DM & SAS Presentation Outline Stockholm Agreement and S2009 COSS suggestion SSRC data Reg 8 implications LLH case Conclusions

4 ALLIANCE DM & SAS Stockholm Agreement SA was designed to prevent RoRo accidents such as Herald of Free Enterprise

5 ALLIANCE DM & SAS Stockholm Agreement H s exceeded 10% of the year

6 ALLIANCE DM & SAS 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

7 ALLIANCE DM & SAS SOLAS2009

8 ALLIANCE DM & SAS SOLAS2009

9 ALLIANCE DM & SAS SOLAS2009 Reg 8

10 ALLIANCE DM & SAS 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.

11 ALLIANCE DM & SAS Presentation Outline Stockholm Agreement and S2009 COSS suggestion SSRC data Reg 8 implications LLH case Conclusions

12 ALLIANCE DM & SAS COSS - 25 July 2006

13 ALLIANCE DM & SAS COSS - 25 July out of 11 cases SOLAS2009 stricter than SA Suggested to dispense with SA

14 ALLIANCE DM & SAS 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.

15 ALLIANCE DM & SAS Point 3/6 What about the 3 out of 11 cases where SA was found to be stricter than SOLAS2009?

16 ALLIANCE DM & SAS Presentation Outline Stockholm Agreement and S2009 COSS suggestion SSRC data Reg 8 implications LLH case Conclusions

17 ALLIANCE DM & SAS SSRC study

18 ALLIANCE DM & SAS

19 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 S09

20 ALLIANCE DM & SAS Presentation Outline Stockholm Agreement and S2009 COSS suggestion SSRC data Reg 8 implications LLH case Conclusions

21 ALLIANCE DM & SAS SOLAS2009

22 ALLIANCE DM & SAS North Europe

23 ALLIANCE DM & SAS South Europe

24 ALLIANCE DM & SAS 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

25 ALLIANCE DM & SAS 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

26 ALLIANCE DM & SAS Presentation Outline Stockholm Agreement and S2009 COSS suggestion SSRC data Reg 8 implications LLH case Conclusions

27 ALLIANCE DM & SAS SOLAS2009

28 ALLIANCE DM & SAS SOLAS2009

29 ALLIANCE DM & SAS Multi free surface (MFS) effect during intermediate stages of flooding

30 ALLIANCE DM & SAS Multi free surface (MFS) effect during intermediate stages of flooding

31 ALLIANCE DM & SAS 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 S09 in stability assessment Thus it is not clear what are the implications of applying S09 for designing of RoRo ship with LLH concept

32 ALLIANCE DM & SAS Presentation Outline Stockholm Agreement and S2009 COSS suggestion SSRC data Reg 8 implications LLH case Conclusions

33 ALLIANCE DM & SAS 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


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

Similar presentations


Ads by Google